Ideally, what should a legislator swear to? If anything?

[foolsguinea]

@put_down_the_sabre

You can see an echo of this today: despite being democratically elected, several Republican MPs can’t take their seats in the UK Parliament, because they (rightly, in my view) refuse to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown.

Ridiculous…

Well, in the USA, I think one has to swear or affirm loyalty to “the Constitution”–which can construed as the 1787 constitution or more properly its form as presently amended. Which if you step back and look at it is pretty trippy. What if a politician wants to call a Constitutional Convention, or lead an amendment campaign so sweeping it radically changes the 1787 constitution? Or, like me, thinks the Senate should be abolished? Does that mean if elected he has to swear insincerely, or is it a matter of just saying one will serve in his constitutional office honorably while the present constitution is law?

[willthekittensurvive]

Doesn’t it mean the legislator will use the methods detailed in the constitution to change the constitution?

[Revenant_Threshold]

It could be argued that one of the best ways to serve the Constitution is to keep it up to date with changes that the original writers didn’t forsee. In a sense, being true to the spirit of the Constitution, and not necessarily the letter.

[Giles]

What such a oath will do is exclude people who have strongly held beliefs that the constitution, or the crown, should be replaced by something else – usually by independence for the part of the country that they represent. I don’t think they should be excluded from the political system because of that, especially when voters in their district have elected them. It’s better to have them working peacefully inside the system than being part of an armed rebellion.

[UltraVires]

@willthekittensurvive

Doesn’t it mean the legislator will use the methods detailed in the constitution to change the constitution?

Agreed, but what about the abolition of the Senate. That is specifically prohibited from being amended. I guess you could do a two step process:

1. Amendment 1: Remove language from constitution outlawing a future amendment denying equal suffrage in the Senate.

2. Amendment 2: Abolish the Senate.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

@foolsguinea

What if a politician wants to call a Constitutional Convention, or lead an amendment campaign so sweeping it radically changes the 1787 constitution?

Most states require a parallel oath to support their state constitution. For example, the oath in Illinois is:

I do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of (name of the office here) to the best of my ability.”

This hasn’t prevented Illinois from holding multiple constitutional conventions since statehood in 1818. Each convention scrapped the previous constitution and rewrote it completely. Nobody accused the legislators who advocated or voted to call such conventions of violating their oaths of office.

The U.S. Constitution also allows for a convention to be held under certain circumstances:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

There hasn’t happened in 200 years, but by analogy, I don’t see how anyone advocating for it would be violating an oath.

The only right one foreswears via the oath, as I see it, is the right of revolution–the right, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, to alter or abolish a destructive form of government and to institute new government. Revolution works outside of the existing framework.

But, if you want to lead a revolutionary movement, it’s reasonable for the existing government to keep you out. Congress expelled the Confederates who didn’t resign. So, I think the oath is pretty benign.

[Northern_Piper]

@Giles

What such a oath will do is exclude people who have strongly held beliefs that the constitution, or the crown, should be replaced by something else – usually by independence for the part of the country that they represent.

Hasn’t had that effect in Canada. Before taking his/her seat, an MP is required by the Constitution to swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, her heirs and successors. The Bloc québécois MPs managed to swear that oath after every election, even though they campaigned on a separatist/sovereignist platform.

[Farmer_Jane]

There’s a process in changing the Constitution. It’s perfectly reasonable to expect someone to swear to uphold a Constitution as it stands. imho, I’m more concerned about the President, Governors, and judges.