Since when was it ever universally agreed upon that strict constructionism of the constitution was the universally accepted interpretation?

No accusation.  It's a legitimate argument.

When dealing with the constitution, there have historically been two different modes of thinking prevalent in the US: strict and loose constructionists.  Strict constructionism is the legal philosophy that argues the words and phrases in the Constitution are to be interpreted in their most literal sense.  Think Antonio Scalia here.  Loose constructionism, in contrast, interprets the constitution according to the spirit of the law more than the letter of the law.  Ruth Bader Ginsberg would be a solid "look at this one" for what we're looking at here.  Although contemporary politics suggests that strict constructionism is generally associated with conservative philosophical politics and loose constructionism with liberal politics, it's not always the case.  But I digress.

There is one simple reason I bring this up: In over 200 years of governance, there has never been a conclusive decision on which interpretation is the end-all proper mode of understanding the Constitution.  Hell... the Supreme Court case that even allowed courts to look into constitutional matters was a bit of a stretch... very "loose constructionist"-y.  So if you're relying solely on a strict interpretation of the Constitution and saying "because it doesn't fit that, it's wrong," you're not doing all the homework required to assert a thing is unconstitutional.

This debate strikes me as a 100% "spirit of the law vs. letter of the law" debate... because there's no way in hell the two are working together this time.  I'm pretty sure there's a good argument that the framers would not want a person who was elected through the democratic process subsequently unable to carry out their duties as president because they were five minutes late on being sworn in, as long as said person did not attempt to exercise any authority as president (i.e., signing bills) before taking the oath of office.  Two important problems occur with the strict interpretation:

1: It would render candidates invalid due to delays that happen in everyday life.  People are late for things.  It's not foreseen, and it's not expected, although it's a common occurrence.
2: There is no reversibility.  If the noon deadline is missed... it's gone forever, so there's no way anyone can go back and fix the mistake.

Combined, that puts the government in an odd situation where if people can force a delay in the oath (for example, through spontaneous security threats), people conducting illegal activity can permanently invalidate an individual who has been elected to office, and could subsequently perform that duty in office if not for the interference whose only result is invalidation by missing an arbitrary deadline.

No, there's no way in hell that interpretation would stand up in any court. 

Specifically, The 20th amendment that was previously quoted just mentions what time the old administration's term ends.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27

Article 2 Section 1, paragraph 8, specifies the new president just has to take the oath before he takes any actions as president. He doesn't even have to do it publicly. The ceremony is just tradition.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ … transcript

Ok. Now then. Back to my netflix binge and mustering up motivation to venture forth into the world for picking up needed items. #hermit_life

This is a valid opinion, but the tricky part is that even saying "any constitutional ambiguity" is a matter left to interpretation.  If you abstract far enough this ends up being an argument less about the constitution and more about deciphering the intent of language itself.

Who defines "constitutional ambiguity"?  By what means do they define it and is there any ambiguity within those means?  If so, what entity rules on the definition of those means and by what means do they make such a ruling?  Who defines those means of the means?  Ad infinitum.

This very quickly devolves into a confusing semantic soup.  In reality there is a threshold where a "good enough" interpretation is good enough, even if potentially imperfect.

In order for this matter to be anything other than an interesting thought exercise, enough people would have to care about it to affect the parties in power.

I don't think you're incorrect in your interpretation, although I don't agree with it.  My question to you would be: how would you intend to take action on this if you wanted to pursue raising the issue and possibly getting it resolved by a higher authority?

lol

I would lobby a senator or whoever - whoever it is that can get the Supreme Court to make a ruling on it.

I could just as easily argue that the framers of the 20th amendment were 'strict' about the noon hand-over (and oaths finished before then) for a good reason: they thought that the peaceful transfer of power was so important to preserving the Republic that even the merest HINT that the transfer of power was not to be handed-over peacefully was deemed sufficient grounds for the automatic implementation of martial law to prevent a coup.

Moreover, it might have been deemed irrelevant what any reason there might be for the oaths not to have be properly completed on time, and that the very fact that the oaths were not properly completed on time should be perceived a possible threat to the peaceful transference of power and thus the survival of the Republic itself, a threat to be met instantaneously at 12:00 noon with the full force of the US  military by an instantaneous, automatic implementation of martial law.

Did I provide too much info? So much that no one has a response?

You'd need a lawyer and a relevant case.

The Supreme Court only makes rulings on constitutional cases as a result of a case occurring and being appealed to them.  You would need to first find a case somewhere in which this issue becomes a relevant legal point.  You would have to argue the point in court, and upon losing the initial case (because generally, lower courts don't like to make far-reaching points of law), you'll appeal it to higher courts.  Although you would definitely be heard in your jurisdiction's relevant appeals court, the Supreme Court has one major barrier to hearing cases: overload.  They get a couple tens of thousands of appeal requests every year, and only have time to hear a couple dozen... so they tend to hear only ones with the most important (not necessarily controversial) constitutional issues.

Why do I say this?

... because the funniest thing I'll end up doing all year will be reading the Supreme Court's response to this argument.  This is like Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corp. or Gerald Mayo v. Satan and his Staff material! 

How the hell are you equating "five minutes late" with "shadow lizard government"?

There are many things that might lead to conclude 'shadow lizard government'.  Can't list them all.  The fact that this is the third transference of power in a row with something funny going is only one matter.   Many matters of concern have been witnessed over the last 8 years; we've seen seemingly unconstitutional stuff going on all the time as well as legislation passed by congress that was so redacted that virtually every second word was read 'classified'. 

It's not simply Trump didn't finish his oath by noon; therefore shadow lizard government. 

It's more like a+b+c ... +x + y + Trump didn't finish his oath by noon; therefore shadow lizard government.

But back to the constitution.  Perhaps the framers were thinking that if future incumbent POTUSes don't complete the quintessentially important and solemn oath of office by the quintessential moment (noon on inauguration day); perhaps they thought that the peaceful transference of power was so quintessential to the survival of the Republic that an automatic implementation of martial law should commence in every case when an incumbent president does not complete the oath properly by noon on inauguration day, and that such martial law should be enacted regardless of the reason the oath was not completed properly on time. 

Perhaps they also thought, however, that in cases when the reason the oath was not taken properly by noon on inauguration day was not determined to be a threat to the survival Republic by the military and that the oath would be completed 'soon' and thus that there was good reason to expect that the office of the President would be executed forthwith, there would be no need to alarm the public of the fact that martial law had been implemented; perhaps the framers thought that it should be at the discretion of the military to publicly declare martial law or not; for this reason, perhaps a shadow lizard government has been purposefully taking advantage of this and has typically orchestrated events on inauguration day to make sure the incumbent POTUSES CAN'T  finish the properly oath by noon on their inauguration days, so that said shadow lizard government could operate under the authority of martial law; perhaps this happened the last 8 years, and will happen the next 4 years too.  Perhaps it's normal operating procedure for said shadow lizard government.  If so, this would explain why America seems to violate its constitution so often.

You're missing my point entirely.   I agree with you on this.  You're arguing the same point to me that I'm trying to argue to Xeno via the "ambiguity spiral" example.

My post wasn't literally asking "gee, I wonder how this works", it was demonstrating that in theory you could continue to question the ambiguity of every decision, even decisions that were intended to clear up ambiguity.  You could literally do this forever.

But the courts can't do this forever because as you mention, resources/time aren't infinite and they have to prioritize.  Thus, Xeno's claim that a decision should always be made on "any constitutional ambiguity" isn't a realistic expectation.

It's the opposite actually: I'm arguing that you can't worry about literally every ambiguity because it's impossible for us ever have 100% consensus on what the founders meant.  We have to accept that some kind of ambiguity is inevitable and the courts simply can't consider every possible instance of misinterpretation.  Expecting otherwise is as futile as trying to get everybody to agree on how the bible should be interpreted.

I paid attention in government class just fine, I think you've just been misunderstanding my point.

You could cay that there's no point in analyzing the constitution for any ambiguities because any such analysis would lead to an 'ambiguity spiral'; rendering the supreme court redundant; leaving the state / shadow lizard government / anyone in the know to take advantage of constitutional ambiguities into perpetuity.

The question is which constitutional ambiguities should be remedied - those dealing with the most important issues to the Republic should be regarded 'strictly'.  And so the word 'then' in the 20th amendment, I think should be regarded to mean 'noon' rather than 'soon'.

Personally, I think the peaceful transference of power is so central to ensuring the survival of the Republic that any constitutional ambiguities pertaining to the transference of power ought to be clarified according to a 'strict interpretation', and thus martial law would not need to be imposed.

Both the letter and spirit of the constitution seem to me to indicate that the oath of office must be completed properly before noon for the term of the incumbent POTUS to begin at noon. 

The spirit of the law might in stipulating so strictly the time when the term should begin might be due to an example when say an incumbent showed up on time but couldn't complete taking the oath properly because he was too drunk / hungover; perhaps there'd been another case when an incumbent POTUS had been drugged or poisoned, and messed up the words during the oath because the incumbent POTUS's judgement was impaired.  In such a compromised state of mind, an incumbent POTUS wouldn't be able to make the decision to take on the responsibility which the solemn oath of office implied, let alone execute the office of the president with sound judgement; therefore,  think the framers were intentionally strict about the language  of the oath for a reason; that any indication of the incumbent POTUS's judgement being impaired at the time of taking the oath would nullify the legitimacy of his taking the solemn oath.

Likewise, perhaps the framers thought that if the incumbent POTUS can't complete the oath on time (and that is 'before noon' on inauguration day), regardless of the reason (be it merely by the weather or a coup), martial law should be implemented until such time that the incumbent president finishes the oath.

I've been looking into rules of martial law, and wonder if it even has to be declared publicly.  Could a state clandestinely declare martial law?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law

Such martial law should be imposed at noon on inauguration day if the incumbent president, regardless of the reason, does not complete the oath of office PROPERLY by NOON on inauguration day, because not taking the oath properly by noon on inauguration day is an indication that 'the government or civilian authorities have failed to function effectively', or has failed to provided the 'security' necessary for the incumbent POTUS to complete the oath before noon.

To avoid the automatic imposition of martial law due to reasons that do not represent a clear and present threat to the peaceful transference of power (such as the motorcade being rerouted and thus delayed due to weather or protestors or some other other minor security concern) and it becomes clear (or probable) that the incumbent president will not be able to make it to the inauguration ceremony on time to complete the oath at the ceremony BEFORE noon, the incumbent POTUS could take the oath of office enroute to the inauguration ceremony (as long as his doing so is appropriately witnessed) and then redo the oath for sake of purely ceremonial reasons; in this case, due to the oath being completed before arriving at the ceremony, that the oath was completed late during the ceremony would be irrelevant.