Note sure if this has a factual answer, but perhaps it does have a general consensus:
The loyalty pledge spoken by those sworn into positions of power in US politics states:
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.*
Now, what weights does this hold, legally speaking, if any? It seems that many politicians who proclaim this oath also use their position to specifically target items within the constitution that they deem unfavourable and wish to change, and thus the oath itself has little point in the cut & thrust of modern politics. The act of a congressional amendment to the constitution would seem to be impossible if all complied specifically with the oath, or is the oath really just for show or tradition?
It’s essentially a statement of their intent to obey the law and change what they disagree with through the law, rather than through subversion, rebellion or otherwise. Also, that they aren’t secretly in the pay of a foreign power to undo the US.
Historically oaths were taken a lot more seriously than today.
British politicians have to swear an oath too - which goes as follows:
Which in my view says pretty much the same thing as the US Oath: loyal to the Queen as representative of the nation and part of Parliament, and therefore, if loyal to Parliament, loyal to the law.
It doesn’t stop people campaigning for a republic if they wish to - just that in doing said campaigning they bear allegiance to the Queen by obeying Her laws in the duration.
The US constitution includes provisions for amending it, so proposing to change the constitution though the means specified in the constitution is in fact still upholding and supporting the constitution.
However, I am unaware of any law specifically written to make violation of the oath of office a crime. There are a whole host of laws to criminalize acts that result in a violation of the oath – treason, fraud, and probably many others depending on the manner in which someone tries to overthrow or suborn the government.
So I don’t know how the OP might choose to characterize my response. It would seem to me that it’s virtually impossible to violate the oath without also making overt acts which themselves are criminal, even though some kind of (what I would assume to be) purely mental violation is not in itself a crime AFAIK.
The oath has no “weight” as you suggest, or another way to put it “force of law”.
As a comparitive example, in some states an opinion of the Attorney General has no force of law. It may be persuasive in nature, but not precedent.
The Preamble to the Constitution has no force of law. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights has no force of law.
Well, that’s certainly a very fair, and succinct, point.
One other random observation: Article 6 of the Constitution contains the following wording:
“…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
yet the oath itself requires a nominal religious test with its final sentence - is there an option for a secular oath should an elected offical desire or request it? Thanks.
What? Did you read the full sentence? It says, “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.” Does not the provision for an affirmation provide a secular alternative? (BTW, bolding added by me of course.)
Of course, the oath says the politician will defend the Constitution against all enemies, not necessarily everybody. One seeking to change it may not be an enemy.
There’s nothing disloyal about attempting to change the law, it only becomes an issue if you are attempting to change the law outside of the procedures defined in law for changing the law. So, saying you will uphold the US Constitution (or a State constitution, etc.) while simultaneously intending to lawfully push through a Constitutional Amendment through the process toward ratification is consistent. You just have to accept that if your amendment fails in the process, that you have to live with it and accept the law as it exists. This is entirely different from actually rebelling with violence, which is bad, mmkay?
It is still an oath though and it doesn’t preclude those things (and the ‘all enemies foreign or domestic’ thing does kind of imply something like that). I actually think its one of the cooler things about the US IMO. You don’t swear loyalty to the queen or the president, you swear to protect the constitution.
Its not just politicians, police and such also take it (my ex took it when she was sworn into a Police Dept). It struck me that the main danger to the constitution police are going to encounter is unconstitutional laws.
Part of the genius of the U.S. Constitution is that it requires such an oath of ALL public officials and government officers, be they Federal, state or local. We’re all in this together:
*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… *
The “so help me god” part isn’t actually part of the official oath or affirmation. The oath finishes with the sentence before that; it’s just that most people taking the oath choose to add their own little religious statement after that.
‘swear’ obviously replaced with ‘affirm’.