# Legal question (re: taking oath using Bible) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 4, 2025, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-re-taking-oath-using-bible/1013875 "2025-02-04T16:30:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2025, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-re-taking-oath-using-bible/1013875/21 "2025-02-04T21:28:13Z")
> [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](#): > > In a sane world, violating one’s oath of office would incur a penalty. In some states violating an oath of office can carry criminal penalties. Part of the problem is defining when an oath has been violated. What does, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” really mean? I think for president of the US the punishment for violating the oath of office is meant to be impeachment. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2025, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-re-taking-oath-using-bible/1013875/22 "2025-02-04T21:43:10Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I think for president of the US the punishment for violating the oath of office is meant to be impeachment. Not quite. For the President, the impeachment itself is meant to determine and establish a violation of the oath of office. And then to determine what course of action to take, given that. We’ve had four impeachments through our history, and not once has Congress concluded that such a violation occurred. So, we’ve never gotten past Step 1. We probably would have with Nixon but he got the loud message to resign before it even came up. That said, I would agree with the sentiment that our system is not very well set up to handle such determinations. And many of the Founders would have agreed had they been able to see some of the shortcomings. There’s an Amendment process for a reason, though it is itself a flawed one. ---
**Author:** ![Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/son_of_a_rich/32/5439_2.png) [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Son_of_a_Rich)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2025, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-re-taking-oath-using-bible/1013875/23 "2025-02-04T21:50:02Z")
Didn’t trump, in some proceeding, try to claim he didn’t violate the oath of office because the presidency isn’t really an office? Sounds stupid, but I’m sure it was something like that. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2025, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-re-taking-oath-using-bible/1013875/24 "2025-02-04T21:55:33Z")
That argument has been made: > DONALD J. TRUMP , > Petitioner, > v. > NORMA A NDERSON, ET AL., > Respondents. > On Writ of Certiorari to the > Colorado Supreme Court > REPLY BRIEF OF RESPONDENT COLORADO > REPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE IN > SUPPORT OF REVERSAL > > I. The President Is Not an “Officer of the > United States” Under Section Three of the > Fourteenth Amendment. > A. The President Is Not an Officer of the United > States. > Section Three disqualifies only those who served > in specific enumerated positions, including “as an > officer of the United States.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, > § 3. The President is not such an officer. (CRSCC Br. > § I). The Anderson Respondents rely on the > Constitution’s occasional reference to the President as > holding an office. (And. Res. 34-35). But by its terms, > Section Three does not apply to anyone who held an > 2 “office.” It applies specifically to those people who > served as an “officer of the United States.” And that > term of art, read in constitutional context as > recognized by scholarly sources like Justice Story, > does not include the President. - [SOURCE](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/299710/20240205091945410_PDFA%2023-719%20Reply%20Brief.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2025, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-re-taking-oath-using-bible/1013875/25 "2025-02-04T21:59:59Z")
> [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](#): > > Didn’t trump, in some proceeding, try to claim he didn’t violate the oath of office because the presidency isn’t really an office? The argument was that POTUS isn’t an “officer” so can’t be disqualified (per Section 3 of the 14th Amendment) by doing something outlandish like insurrection. The Colorado Supreme Court disagreed and said that the POTUS _was_ an officer. The case never got before SCOTUS though. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2025, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-re-taking-oath-using-bible/1013875/26 "2025-02-06T22:03:30Z")
This reminds me of _One Way Pendulum_, in which Eric Syke’s character says there are certain passages in the Bible that he objects to, but is prepared to swear on a copy of _Uncle Tom’s Cabin_. "Do you swear, by Harriet Beecher Stowe … " [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-re-taking-oath-using-bible/1013875.md?page=1)