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

Inauguration Day in the Land of Differences

Inauguration Day, January 20, 2013, will be very different, if I am elected as your next President:

The first difference:

It will not be held in Washington, D.C. It will be held in the exact geographic center of the lower-48 states, which is near Lebanon, Kansas, symbolic heartland of the United States. I thought long and hard about how to compensate Alaska and Hawaii, since they’re excluded in this determination of “exact geographic center.” I will offer my first two State of the Union addresses on their soil. 

The second difference:

Who will swear me in? The United States itself will. Picture this: A sculpture of an extended arm appearing to have risen from the earth (made from the soil of the heartland itself), made the same way children create sandcastles at the beach, which will have a holy book in its open palm.

The third difference:

This holy book will be a Buddhist “Bible,” not a Christian one. When Presidents are sworn in, they don’t have to use any kind of holy book. I will, though; choosing that text which is my holy book: The Lotus Sutra, as translated into English by Burton Watson. I, as a practicing Buddhist, recite from this at least 30 minutes per day.

The fourth difference:

I will not conclude my oath of office with, “so help me God.” Instead, I will conclude with, “...so help me. Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.” N-M-R-K is a basic Buddhist prayer and vow, which I chant on a daily basis, meaning: “I devote myself to the Mystic Law of the Cause and Effect Teaching.” This will serve to remind me that all Presidents must be mindful of the causes they put out, since karmic effects are inevitable and liars are always punished (I’m thinking of you, George). As are false prophets of “change you can believe in” (I’m thinking of you, Barack).

The fifth difference:

There will be no stage with honored guests and dignitaries seated above everybody else. Think of a circle, with that arm I’d mentioned earlier being in the center. That circle would consist of me and 12 randomly-chosen citizens joining hands and facing that arm; we 13 symbolizing a new beginning for this country, much the same way the original 13 colonies symbolized a new beginning over two centuries ago. Outside this circle will be all guests (everybody’s invited), without any special arrangements made for so-called VIP’s (in my eyes, everybody is a VIP).

This would mean no special consideration or space allotted for the media (sweet!).

On Second Thought…

I had posted this “Land of Differences” piece (above) in pretty much the form you’re reading now – back when I was a candidate during the 2008 cycle. [This was on a now-defunct forum called Gaia, but I had also published in a local college newspaper.] Back then, I kept waiting for someone to object, to say “yeah, but…” For instance:

- Lebanon is so far away – being in the middle of nowhere*, it would be a long trek. [*Humorous aside: I am not calling the US “nowhere.”]

 - Lebanon can get awfully cold in the middle of January and doesn’t have the advantage of ample warm-up places for a massive crowd of visitors.

 - Maybe the Inauguration should be held in the geographic center of (all 50) United States, which is near the town of Belle Fourche in South Dakota. [Not only is that even more isolated than Lebanon, Kansas, I’m sure a lot of French-hating jingoists would have a problem with the name: Belle Fourche is French for “beautiful fork” which, by the way, isn’t referring to a dining utensil.]

 - Maybe the Inauguration should be held in the “population center” of the United States, as opposed to the “geographic center.”

All of these are good points. However, I’ll stick with my original choice of Lebanon. Mostly for sentimental reasons, though another pops sheepishly into mind: It never occurred to me that a 50-state center was calculable; and the “population center” option (frankly) occurred to me just now. Oh, well.

I didn’t overlook more practical considerations, though. I thought of the impact a huge crowd might have on the (admittedly few) residents of Lebanon. Not to mention, how to provide a way for this crowd to warm up after standing in the cold for any appreciable length of time. In answer to these issues:

- Provide warming tents and personal, battery-operated heaters (for rent), based on donations I would seek in advance.

 - “Suggest” to the Kansas state government: “Pass some kind of crowd control legislation, with proper enforcement, to limit the size of the crowd that could descend upon Lebanon.”

 - Charge some kind of clean-up fee to attendants, so as not to leave this small town trampled and littered by the festivities.

Sudden Brainstorm

As I said, I had written most of “Land of Differences” years ago. However, while updating this, I thought of two interesting twists. The participants would be chosen by lottery in advance for these post swearing-in activities:

- I would like to host several limited-size groups for informal chat sessions.

 - I would also like 100 citizens (one at a time) to “administer” the oath of office to me. Each would have a card from which to feed me the oath, a few phrases at a time, and I would sign that card for them as a keepsake.

As an added bonus, if any one of those 100 would like me to add “…so help me God” to the oath, I would do so. I would also be agreeable to placing my hand on a Bible or a Quran (“…so help me Allah”) or almost any type of holy book. I could even conclude with “…so help me ______,” filling in the blank with the name of whomever is swearing me in.

I would not, however, conclude with “…so help me Prince of Darkness,” since 99% of my fellow citizens would freak out. And that would be the only reason.

I would not personally have any problem swearing such an oath, since I would be addressing the Buddha-nature of the Prince and not his dark side. For the record, I am aware that “pundits” like Rush Limbaugh et al will mercilessly rake me over the coals for this. But I went ahead and said it anyway…which shows how little I think of, or fear, Rush.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I fancy that such an Inauguration Day could well be the grand beginning to a whole new way of doing business” – Steve.