Oath of Office
Posted: Saturday, January 08, 2011
by Jack H. Schick
There was a big stink down in D.C. recently. Well, it’s stunk pretty badly down there for quite some time, but I’m referring to a specific incident; the Oath Taking hoopla. The headlines in my local newspaper read: “Swearing-in gaffe sparks uproar.” Two Republican and one Democratic Congressmen were not present on the House Floor when the Oath of Office was administered prior to the commencement of the 112th Congress. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa), and Pete Sessions (R-Tx), were with about 500 of Fitzpatrick’s supporters in the Capitol Visitor Center. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore), who also missed the vote for Speaker of the House a few days earlier, was in his home district doing “real work,” he says.
The “red faced” Republicans haven’t said much, but DeFazio has spoken up about the incident. He said, "I think [it] needs to be changed. It's way too restrictive, and it goes to the whole question of succession and [what happens] in the case of a disaster. To say members have to be sworn in, present on the floor, with the Speaker in the chair — I think we need to revisit [that]."
The United States Constitution contains an Oath of Office only for the President: “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.” For Congressmen and Senators the Constitution only states that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress satisfied this requirement by forming a fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States." The current Oath was established in 1884, and is the same as the president's
An oath is defined as “either a statement of fact or a promise calling upon something or someone that the oath maker considers sacred, usually God, as a witness to the binding nature of the promise or the truth of the statement of fact.” To swear is “to take an oath, to make a solemn vow.” The Constitutional option to “affirm,” rather than “swear” stems from our colonial roots, and from an Act by United Kingdom, King William III in 1695-An Act that Solemne Affirmation and Declaration of the people called Quakers shall be accepted instead of an Oath in the usual forme.”
The principle of oath taking is derived from the Old Testament: "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name." (Deut. 6:13), and the sacredness of it confirmed: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." (Exodus 20:7). It is also required in Islam: “Make oaths only to Allah almighty, the master of all beings and protect them more than your lives.” Sahih Bukhari 45:15.
Many Christians sects, including Mennonites and Quakers argue against the idea of taking oaths based on the words of Jesus: “But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by the heaven, for it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your Yes mean, Yes, and your No mean No; anything else is from the evil one.” Matthew 5:34-37. Those religious groups are legally permitted to ‘affirm’ that what they say is the truth rather than to 'swear' an oath.
Perhaps several of our Congressmen were embarrassed because they did not follow a contrived ceremony correctly. Why it would cause House proceedings to "grind to a halt” I can’t understand. Mr. DeFazio was in his district working for the people who elected him. Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. Sessions were also with “the people.” An oath is no more valid than the integrity of the person who takes it. The historical behavior of many or our elected officials, from tax evasion, to bribery, to sex scandals to a blatant disregard for the desires of their constituents and a disregard for the Constitution, indicates that taking the Oath of Office means little. They may swear an oath on the floor of the Congress, but they often do not “protect (it) more than their lives,” or fear that “the Lord will not hold them guiltless.” Frequently, and sadly, it is not true that their “Yes means Yes and their No means No.”
I will hold my congressman to his promise to serve the people with honesty and integrity, to look out for the best interests of his constituents. Where and when he takes his required Oath of Office means nothing to me. That he does not violate it does.
This Article has been viewed 1,276 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (1 total)I enjoy the calm and easy way you write- you make reading your articles easy and comfortable- your integrity always shows through and your assertion of rightness has a sense of reason- Good article Jack- Always EllaThanks. Ella- it's good to hear from you
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.