Besides the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who else is legally able to administer the Presidential Oath?
Is it true that, while the President-elect automatically becomes President at noon on January 20 (usually), that he may not actually execute any Presidential duties until after he/she has taken the oath?
Thanks in advance
(1) It’s just an oath–so certainly any judge can do it, and the true limit is broader-- anyone qualified to administer oaths; I’m not sure of the legal definition (IANAL), but it’s broad. Examples include, IIRC, LBJ, who was sworn in by a texas district judge (the only woman to swear in a president), and Calvin Coolidge, who was sworn in by his father, a notary public
ETA: there was, according to wiki, a second swearing in by a judge–since there was some question if a notary could do so. I don’t see why this oath is any different than (say) the oath of a military officer, or enlisted man–which can be administered by an officer, or the congressional oath of office (also explicitly required by the constitution in Art. VI), which is administered by the vice-president or the speaker of the house.
“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.”
(2) Yes.
The twentieth amendment says “The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.”
Article II says “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation…”–i.e. the oath is a prequisite to his execution of office.
One point of reference: Judge Sarah T. Hughes administered the oath of office to President Lyndon Johnson in 1963. She was a judge of the United States District Court.
I’m not a legal expert but the Constitution itself makes no mention of who can administer the Oath Or Affirmation, it just says that the President-elect shall “…take the following Oath or Affirmation”.
That same clause (Section 1 of Article 2) specifically states “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation…” so that certainly makes it seem that the incoming President has to say the magic phrase before he can actually act as the President.
Unless, of course, you happen to be a Vice President who’s assuming the office on the removal, death or resignation of the President. In that case, the 25th Amendment says:
No mention of an oath, because the VP already took one at the inauguration.
Ain’t consitutional law fun?
It is fun. But one reason it’s fun is because it requires precision.
For example, nothing in the 25th Amendment purports to override the terms of Article II that the president will take the oath before entering into the execution of his office. I’d argue this is exactly analogous to the fact that becoming president at 12:00:00 under the Twentieth does not change or remove the requirement that he must take the oath before actually performing any action as president. The twentieth amendment does not mention the oath either–but nobody has contended that it somehow should be read to override the provision of Article II that requires an oath).
To do what you’re suggesting, an amendment would need to expressly state that no oath is required–since I don’t see any reason to presume that a mere failure to mention any oath supersedes the express command of Article II that the president takes a specific oath before entering into the execution of his office. Constitutional provisions just aren’t revoked by the silence of later amendments–the 25th and Art II can, and will be read in the way that gives both effect, by the VP immediately becoming president, but being unable to act as president until the oath is administered–just like the way everyone reads Art. II and the 20th.
Further, the oath for president is different than the oath for Vice-president, both in terms of the office sworn to faithfully execute (which, IMHO, is enough of a difference on its own), and in terms of the form of oath–the VP oath is not the specific language set out in the constitution for presidetns , so it’s almost certainly incorrect to contend taking the latter also satisfies the obligation to take the former.
Specifically, the presidential oath, expressly set out in the constitution:
The vice president is, under Art. VI, required to take an oath, but no form is specified. The vice president has, historically, taken the form of oath administered to congressmen and senators:
Again, I would argue (and I don’t see how one could argue otherwise) that the constitution requires a specific oath for the president, and at least if we’re talking about what’s constitutionally required, the vice presidential oath does not satisfy that requirement.
Now, this will never be tested as it would be crazy for a newly-promoted VP to not take the presidential oath first, even if he thought it was merely pro forma–there is absolutely no cost of doing so, and it looks good on TV.
There is no Constitutional requirement that anyone[/u ]at all administer the oath. All it requires is that the President-elect take the oath. So presumably, the President-elect could stand up by himself and recite the oath, and that would meet the Constitutional requirement.
Comparable to marriage, where the 2 people involved ‘enter into’ the marriage, and the clerk of court, priest, minister, etc. is just there as a witness.