Liz Cheney's book is entitled Oath and Honor: A Memoir and Warning. Corey Brettschneider in 2018 published The Oath and the Office: A Guide to the Constitution for Future Presidents. Jeffrey Toobin wrote The Oath: The Obama White House and The Supreme Court.
Oaths of offices have some meaning and symbolic effect. The Framers thought so. The Fourteenth Amendment ties the disqualification clause to those who took an oath to uphold the Constitution.
They included specific text for the president's oath:
Before he enters on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
No "so help me God." That addition, like the usage of a bible or the Chief Justice swearing in the president, is merely traditional. Even if it has such a normal feel that people probably consider it constitutional.
Someone noticed that the Vice President has a different oath. Yes. The Constitution does not specify the text of other oaths. It does generally state:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Notice the requirement that someone "supports this Constitution," which is not expressly stated for presidents. The verbs ("preserve, protect, and defend") used, however, appear to do the same.
The vice president along with other federal officials takes an oath set by statute:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
The exact wording changed over time; the current wording was set in 1884. The text is somewhat overbroad. Someone has to swear to "support and defend," for instance, when the Constitution only says "support." Ditto talk about "bear true faith and allegiance. Whatever that means.
The language is significant partially since there might be a First Amendment problem with an overbroad oath. Historically, there was a fear of "test oaths." Loyalty was supposed to be a voluntary act, not done out of compulsion. Justice Black argued in his separate opinion in the flag salute case:
The duty is a solemn one, and in meeting it we cannot say that a failure, because of religious scruples, to assume a particular physical position and to repeat the words of a patriotic formula creates a grave danger to the nation. Such a statutory exaction is a form of test oath, and the test oath has always been abhorrent in the United States. Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self-interest.
The default "so help me God" particularly is dubious, especially when it says "no religious test" right there. It also is somewhat redundant since an "oath" by definition often implicitly means "so help me God." I would hope that part is left out if someone affirms.
Sometimes, a justice will reference their oath regarding their duty to apply the Constitution. However, state and federal officials also take oaths.
The oath ceremony is not magic. Nonetheless, many people do feel specifically restrained not to violate their oaths. Not so much Trump. We shall see how Vance handles things.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!