A Constitutional Oddity: the Presidential Oath

QUESTION: If the president-elect of the United States refuses to take the oath of office, can he become the president?

ANSWER: No, he may not. According to the US Constitution:

QUOTE: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." UNQUOTE [Art. II, Section I, Clause 8].

Imagine that! Suppose 90% of the voters elected a candidate, who then refused to take this oath. This would rank as a Constitutional contradiction in view of what Article VI has to say:

QUOTE: 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. :UNQUOTE.

Here's the contradiction: If the president-elect stated it was against his religious belief to swear oaths or make affirmations of any kind, then his being denied the presidency by not taking the oath of office would, in effect, constitute a denial based on a failure to pass this "religious test."

Yet Another Obstacle Presents Itself

As you know, I hope to be elected as the next US president. There might, however, be an obstacle if I'm fortunate enough to get elected. First things first: The obstacle I speak of has nothing to do with me taking the oath of office, for I have no problem taking such an oath. However, an objection could be voiced by a challenger:

"Mr. Searle cannot possibly take such an oath, even though he might utter its words. Since he has made it a centerpiece of his campaign for office to totally replace the US Constitution, how could he possibly (as the oath itself states) ‘preserve [as in, maintain its basics, its status quo], protect, and defend' a Constitution which he fully intends to replace?"

A very good question indeed, I have to admit.

But there are even better questions: Who could challenge me and how could they go about effectively preventing me from assuming office? The ugly answer to the question of "how" would probably involve a ruling by the Supreme Court. How sad that an election by a majority of the American people could turn on the decision of (at least) five Dem/Pubs who dare call themselves "Justices." And believe me, the Court would have no problem overturning the will of the American people.

What about Jesus as President?

My legions of Dem/Pub detractors would have no qualms about using every legal trick in the book to stop me, should I win this election. There is, however, a delicious irony in our Constitution's morbid fixation with oaths. Suppose Jesus Christ ran for President and (naturally) won, and He refused to take the oath of office. [And He most emphatically would refuse!]

In His case, the Supreme Court would decide to either not hear the case or would rule in His favor – thereby, in either case, violating their own oath to "support the Constitution" by allowing Him to assume the presidency. In my case, the Court would have no problem ruling against me. Even though I would utter the oath of office (but not, in the view of some, really mean it), while Jesus would not even utter this oath.

Concluding statements

At first blush, it seems odd to require that a President-elect take an oath before he assumes office. After all, if the will of We-the-People is supposed to be so all important, why add the additional requirement of oath-taking or affirmation-making? And why were the highlighted words added in the following?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That entire highlighted section (above) implies that it is not good enough that a duly-elected president merely swear/affirm that he’ll do the job (“execute the Office”) but that he will also “preserve…the Constitution.”

I think I have an answer.

If the President is locked into “preserving” the Constitution, by means of this oath/affirmation, and if language in Article VI (quoted immediately below) locks in all other members of the government, all of these actors would effectively be denied any influence to change or replace the Constitution. How could anyone who swears to “preserve” something also engage in a movement to change/amend it?

QUOTE (from Article VI): 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.: UNQUOTE.

That’s what I call a pre-emptive strike by the Founding Fathers. They wanted their version of the Constitution to last forever, which did not happen in the case of the original constitution known as the Articles of Confederation.

This whole fixation with, and ulterior motive underlying, oath-taking has no place in a Constitution. Any replacement Constitution, which I hope to be instrumental in engineering, should make no mention of such things.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Declare your independence by voting for independents.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com