Oaths and the Judgment of HIstory

Many posts have discussed oaths of office.

William H. Pryor, Jr., Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, writes at The Public Discourse:

Today, judges still take the same oath that Chief Justice Marshall swore. Judges swear before God to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States wherever it leads. We do not swear to follow a prediction or speculation about what future generations will favor.

When modern society substitutes the so-called judgment of history for the historical standard of the oath of office, it raises almost unanswerable questions. How will history “judge” any public official? And how often will any public official’s work matter to any legal historian?

...

When someone argues that the so-called judgment of history matters in some case, he betrays his desired result in a high-profile controversy regardless of what the judge’s oath to uphold the law requires. But asking how future generations will view us is a fool’s errand. The person who asks that question is only projecting his hope about what future generations will think. Yet no one knows whether future generations will be wise or wicked. Nor do we know whether they will be any less divided in their views than previous generations have been.

The most abominable opinions in the history of the Supreme Court were written by jurists who probably thought they stood on the right side of history. Roger Taney probably thought so when he penned Dred Scott. Yet his notorious opinion helped lead to the Civil War. Oliver Wendell Holmes undoubtedly thought he was on the right side of history when he wrote, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough” in Buck v. Bell. But Americans thankfully have since abandoned state-enforced eugenics. Harry Blackmun probably thought history would look kindly on his opinion in Roe v. Wade. A half-century later, the Supreme Court overruled it as an “egregious” mistake. And in each period, the jurist’s peers celebrated those opinions.

Two Military Oaths

Many posts have discussed oaths of office.

Mark Hertling at The Bulwark:

Enlisted members swear to support and defend the Constitution, and to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” And the UCMJ makes crystal clear that the service member’s obligation is to obey “lawful” orders, and that no enlisted member is permitted to carry out an unlawful order. But the enlisted oath is also intentionally anchored in obedience of the chain of command. The accountability lies one level up.

Which brings us to the officer oath—shorter in words, heavier in weight. Officers swear to “support and defend” the Constitution; to “bear true faith and allegiance” to it; and to “well and faithfully discharge the duties” of their office. They also affirm that they “take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.” What they do not swear to do is equally important: Officers make no promise to obey the president and the officers above them.

That omission is not an oversight. Officers give orders, evaluate legality, and act as the constitutional circuit breakers the Founders intended. They are expected—by law, by professional ethic, and by centuries of tradition—to exercise independent judgment when presented with a questionable directive. Officers are duty-bound to refuse an unlawful order. It is not optional. It is not situational. It is their job.

Oath and Resignation

Many posts have discussed oaths of office.

Doug Krugman was a colonel in the US Army.  At WP, he tells why he resigned:

United States military officers take an oath to defend the Constitution without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. I swore or repeated that oath under five presidents, starting with former president Bill Clinton. I risked my life for it, serving as an infantry officer in two wars. I watched Marines die for it.

No commander in chief is perfect. President Clinton’s moral failures are well known. President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq might be one of the worst errors in U.S. history. All recent presidents share responsibility for our failure in Afghanistan. I continued to serve despite all that because I believed the Constitution brought the country more success than failure, and I believed our presidents took their oaths to it seriously.

With President Trump, I no longer believe that. During his first term, his actions became increasingly difficult for me to justify, culminating with the Jan. 6 attack on Congress as it tried to execute its duties. I hoped he had learned from those errors, but it only took a few days of his second term for me to realize he had not. I could not swear without reservation to follow a commander in chief who seemed so willing to disregard the Constitution.

Ethics and Oaths

Many posts have discussed oaths of office.

AG Bondi fired Joseph W. Tirrell. He posted his response on LinkedIn:

Until Friday evening, I was the senior ethics attorney at the Department of Justice responsible for advising the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General directly on federal employee ethics. I was also responsible for the day-to-day operations of the ethics program across the Department. I led a small, dedicated team of professionals and coordinated the work of some 30 other full-time ethics officials, attorneys, paralegals and other specialists across the Department of Justice, ensuring that the 117,000 Department employees were properly advised on and supported in how to follow the Federal employee ethics rules.

My career in public service has so far spanned a quarter of a century. I started as a United States Naval Officer, graduating from the ROTC program at the University of Michigan. After a 6-year military career, I earned a law Degree from the Detroit School of Law at Michigan State University. I started at the FBI in 2006 in the Presidential Management Fellows Program. At the FBI, I worked in a variety of offices thanks to the PMF program and eventually I went to work for the FBI’s Office of Integrity and Compliance. From there, I moved to the Departmental Ethics Office at Main Justice as Deputy Director. Finally, in 2023, I was promoted to the Senior Executive Service and the Position of Director of the Ethics Office.

My public service is not over, and my career as a Federal civil servant is not finished. I took the oath at 18 as a Midshipman to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” I have taken that oath at least five more times since then. That oath did not come with the caveat that I need only support the Constitution when it is easy or convenient.

The Constitution, BIrthright Citizenship, and the Oath of Office

Many posts have discussed oaths of office.

Yesterday, Trump swore to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," which requires him to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed. "  Russell Contreras at Axios:

President Trump has signed an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. — a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court more than 125 years ago.

Why it matters: Trump is acting on a once-fringe belief that U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants have no right to U.S. citizenship and are part of a conspiracy (rooted in racism) to replace white Americans.

The big picture: A coalition of civil rights and civil liberties groups filed a lawsuit on Monday night in an effort to halt the executive order.The order is also expected to face legal challenges from state attorneys general since it conflicts with decades of Supreme Court precedent and the 14th Amendment — with the AGs of California and New York among those indicating they would do so.

Context: Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed to give nearly emancipated and formerly enslaved Black Americans U.S. citizenship."All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," it reads.

Zoom in: Trump signed the order on Monday, just hours after taking office.

Reality check: Thanks to the landmark Wong Kim Ark case, the U.S. has since 1898 recognized that anyone born on United States soil is a citizen.The case established the Birthright Citizenship clause and led to the dramatic demographic transformation of the U.S.

Kevin Butterfield at WP:

The Founding generation believed that oaths have consequences, binding those who took them to a course of action. And so, in the summer of 1787 delegates to the Constitutional Convention knew from the outset that whatever they came up with would include oaths. The famous “Virginia Plan,” a 19-point checklist offered up as a starting point for debate, proposed that all governmental powers within the states “be bound by Oath, to support the articles of Union.”

The final text mentions oaths three times. The Bill of Rights would add one more mention, the 14th Amendment yet another. Article VI of the Constitution empowers Congress to draft an oath for every single officeholder in the nation — federal, state and local — which they did immediately. The first thing signed into law by Washington was the Oaths Act. Every elected or appointed government official in a state or federal role would henceforth “solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

That oath was hugely important. Though it was rewritten by Congress in the wake of the Civil War, as Americans grappled with allowing former Confederates into federal service at all, that oath of office is still with us, for public servants low and high. I took it when I began work at the Library of Congress, incoming Vice President JD Vance will, too, and millions more have spoken the same words.

But only the president takes an oath written into the Constitution. A first draft had the incoming president swear simply to “faithfully execute the office of President of the United States of America.” The last two words disappeared as the oath took shape, with James Madison and George Mason adding “and will to the best of my judgment and power, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

It sat that way until the closing days of the Convention. Washington’s copy, marked up as it received its final changes, shows him scratching out the words “judgment and power” and writing in the word “Abilities” (the final version actually used the word “ability”), a change the delegates must have made for concision, and the text was complete. He would be the first to speak those words.

Ford's Oath

Many posts have discussed oaths of office.

Fifty years ago today, Gerald Ford became president after the resignation of Richard Nixon.  His remarks after taking the oath:

Mr. Chief Justice, my dear friends, my fellow Americans:

The oath that I have taken is the same oath that was taken by George Washington and by every President under the Constitution. But I assume the Presidency under extraordinary circumstances never before experienced by Americans. This is an hour of history that troubles our minds and hurts our hearts.

Therefore, I feel it is my first duty to make an unprecedented compact with my countrymen. Not an inaugural address, not a fireside chat, not a campaign speech--just a little straight talk among friends. And I intend it to be the first of many.

I am acutely aware that you have not elected me as your President by your ballots, and so I ask you to confirm me as your President with your prayers. And I hope that such prayers will also be the first of many.

If you have not chosen me by secret ballot, neither have I gained office by any secret promises. I have not campaigned either for the Presidency or the Vice Presidency. I have not subscribed to any partisan platform. I am indebted to no man, and only to one woman--my dear wife--as I begin this very difficult job.

I have not sought this enormous responsibility, but I will not shirk it. Those who nominated and confirmed me as Vice President were my friends and are my friends. They were of both parties, elected by all the people and acting under the Constitution in their name. It is only fitting then that I should pledge to them and to you that I will be the President of all the people.

Thomas Jefferson said the people are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. And down the years, Abraham Lincoln renewed this American article of faith asking, "Is there any better way or equal hope in the world?"

I intend, on Monday next, to request of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate the privilege of appearing before the Congress to share with my former colleagues and with you, the American people, my views on the priority business of the Nation and to solicit your views and their views. And may I say to the Speaker and the others, if I could meet with you right after these remarks, I would appreciate it.

Even though this is late in an election year, there is no way we can go forward except together and no way anybody can win except by serving the people's urgent needs. We cannot stand still or slip backwards. We must go forward now together.

To the peoples and the governments of all friendly nations, and I hope that could encompass the whole world, I pledge an uninterrupted and sincere search for peace. America will remain strong and united, but its strength will remain dedicated to the safety and sanity of the entire family of man, as well as to our own precious freedom.

I believe that truth is the glue that holds government together, not only our Government but civilization itself. That bond, though strained, is unbroken at home and abroad.

In all my public and private acts as your President, I expect to follow my instincts of openness and candor with full confidence that honesty is always the best policy in the end.

My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.

Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here the people rule. But there is a higher Power, by whatever name we honor Him, who ordains not only righteousness but love, not only justice but mercy.

As we bind up the internal wounds of Watergate, more painful and more poisonous than those of foreign wars, let us restore the golden rule to our political process, and let brotherly love purge our hearts of suspicion and of hate.

In the beginning, I asked you to pray for me. Before closing, I ask again your prayers, for Richard Nixon and for his family. May our former President, who brought peace to millions, find it for himself. May God bless and comfort his wonderful wife and daughters, whose love and loyalty will forever be a shining legacy to all who bear the lonely burdens of the White House.

I can only guess at those burdens, although I have witnessed at close hand the tragedies that befell three Presidents and the lesser trials of others.

With all the strength and all the good sense I have gained from life, with all the confidence my family, my friends, and my dedicated staff impart to me, and with the good will of countless Americans I have encountered in recent visits to 40 States, I now solemnly reaffirm my promise I made to you last December 6: to uphold the Constitution, to do what is right as God gives me to see the right, and to do the very best I can for America.

God helping me, I will not let you down.

A Duty to Uphold the Law

 From the State Bar of California:

In a 128-page ruling, California State Bar Court Hearing Judge Yvette D. Roland found licensee John Charles Eastman (SBN 193726) culpable of 10 of the disciplinary charges filed by the State Bar’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) and recommended that he be disbarred. Absent a challenge, the recommendation goes to the California Supreme Court for review.

As is the case for all State Bar Court disbarment recommendations, Eastman is ordered by the court to involuntary inactive status and cannot practice law in California while the Supreme Court considers the case. The order to inactive status is effective three calendar days after the order is served.

“Every California attorney has the duty to uphold the constitution and the rule of law,” said Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona. “Mr. Eastman repeatedly violated that duty. Worse, he did so in a way that threatened the fundamental principles of our democracy. The substantial evidence presented over 35 days of trial showed, and the court has now held, that Mr. Eastman abandoned his ethical and legal duties as an attorney to conspire with then-President Donald Trump to develop and implement a strategy to obstruct the counting of electoral votes on January 6, 2021, and illegally disrupt the peaceful transfer of power to President-elect Joseph Biden, knowing that there was no good faith theory or argument to lawfully reject the electoral votes of any state or delay the January 6 electoral count. Mr. Eastman’s efforts failed only because our democratic institutions and those committed to upholding them held strong. The harm caused by Mr. Eastman’s abandonment of his duties as a lawyer, and the threat his actions posed to our democracy, more than warrant his disbarment.”

Summarizing the court’s findings, the decision states, “Eastman’s wrongdoing constitutes exceptionally serious ethical violations warranting severe professional discipline,” and recommends his disbarment.

Liz Cheney on Oaths

Many posts have discussed oaths of office.

Liz Cheney, Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning (New York: Little, Brown, 2023), 49.

  In Article VI of our Constitution, the founders required that every member of Congress, all state legislators, and “all executive and judicial officers” of the federal and state governments take an oath to support and defend the United States Constitution. For elected representatives, the oath must supersede any duty to represent their constituents. They must represent constituents’ interests solely in a manner that complies with their representatives’ paramount duty to the Constitution.

The president’s oath is arguably the most consequential. The president has tremendous power to enforce his will—not only as our commander in chief, but as the constitutional officer who can command the actions of critical executive branch agencies. The founders had utmost confidence inthe wisdom and grace of George Washington. But they were not convinced that every future president would be so honorable. This is why Article II of our Constitution details precisely what the president must pledge: to“faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and to“preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”Under our Constitution, the president is selected by a separately organized group of Americans, called Electors, chosen nowadays through popular election in each state. The founders were concerned that a faction in Congress might conspire to control the selection of a president. They granted Congress what is, in most circumstances, only a ministerial role: counting the electoral votes that have been certified and transmitted to Washington by the individual states. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 68, “No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States” can serve as a member of the Electoral College.

She had written a speech against the effort to stop the count.  Because of the insurrection, she never gave it on the floor, but presents it in the book (86-87):

Our oaths are not given to any specific president. They are given to preserve the Constitutional structure that has governed our republic for over 230 years. The oath does not bend or yield to popular sentiment, mob rule, or political threats. We do not compromise our oath. It compels us to adhere to the Constitution and rule of law… always.

 

Pence's Oath

Many posts have discussed oaths of office.

Katherine Faulders, Mike Levine, and Alexander Mallin at ABC:

Speaking with special counsel Jack Smith's team earlier this year, former Vice President Mike Pence offered harrowing details about how, in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, then-President Donald Trump surrounded himself with "crank" attorneys, espoused "un-American" legal theories, and almost pushed the country toward a "constitutional crisis," according to sources familiar with what Pence told investigators.

...

"Not feeling like I should attend electoral count," Pence wrote in his notes in late December. "Too many questions, too many doubts, too hurtful to my friend. Therefore I'm not going to participate in certification of election."

Then, sitting across the table from his son, a Marine, while on vacation in Colorado, his son said to him, "Dad, you took the same oath I took" -- it was "an oath to support and defend the Constitution," Pence recalled to Smith's investigators, sources said.

That's when Pence decided he would be at the Capitol on Jan. 6 after all, according to the sources.

The Presidential Oath and Supporting the Constitution

Asha Rangappa:

You often think that you have heard it all from Trump, or his lawyers, and then you realize you actually haven’t. A lawsuit filed in Colorado challenging Trump’s eligibility to be on the state’s presidential ballot under the Fourteenth Amendment goes to trial on October 30. The case centers around whether the events of January 6 constitute an “insurrection” for purposes of Section 3 of the amendment, which states that:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

But Trump’s lawyers are arguing that Section 3 doesn’t apply to Trump, because the presidential oath of office only required him to “protect, preserve, and defend” the Constitution, not “support” it. To quote the movie Dodgeball, it’s a bold strategy, Donnie, let’s see how this plays out.

The argument that Section 3 doesn’t apply to the president has been made before, but typically it’s focused on whether the President is an “officer” for purposes of the amendment, not the wording of the presidential oath. The lawyers who argue that he isn’t an “officer” are in the minority; most constitutional scholars agree that the President is covered by the amendment. As far as the semantic argument, it seems like an uphill battle to me to argue that “protecting,” “preserving,” and “defending” are not forms of “support.” It would be also be absurd to suggest that the President could not support the Constitution and not be in violation of his oath (or, conversely, that he has license to not support it…what?).

Milley on the Oath

Many posts have discussed oaths .

Eric Bazail-Eimil at Politico:

Gen. Mark Milley used his final speech as Joint Chiefs chair on Friday to emphasize that troops take an oath to the Constitution and not to a “wannabe dictator,” days after former President Donald Trump suggested the nation’s top officer should be put to death.

In an impassioned speech during his retirement ceremony at Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall in Arlington, Va., Milley spoke of the continued bravery of American service members and underscored that the oath they take to protect the Constitution encompasses “all enemies, foreign and domestic,” emphasizing “all” and “and.”

“We don’t take an oath to a king, or a queen, or to a tyrant or dictator, and we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator,” Milley said. “We don’t take an oath to an individual. We take an oath to the Constitution, and we take an oath to the idea that is America, and we’re willing to die to protect it.”

“Every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, guardian and Coast Guardsman, each of us commits our very life to protect and defend that document, regardless of personal price,” Milley continued. “And we are not easily intimidated.”

The Trump campaign did not immediately return a request for comment.

Oath Breaker Gets 18 Years

 The Oath Keepers include current and former military and law enforcement personnel. They traffic in conspiracy theories and violence, including the Capitol insurrection.

Dan Berman and Hannah Rabinowitz at CNN:

Judge Amit Mehta on Thursday handed down an 18-year prison sentence for the leader of the Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election that ended with the violent attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
...

“I dare say, Mr. Rhodes – and I never have said this to anyone I have sentenced – you pose an ongoing threat and peril to our democracy and the fabric of this country,” Mehta said.

“I dare say we all now hold our collective breaths when an election is approaching. Will we have another January 6 again? That remains to be seen.”

The judge, refuting claims Rhodes made during a 20-minute rant earlier in the day, added: “You are not a political prisoner, Mr. Rhodes. That is not why you are here. It is not because of your beliefs. It is not because Joe Biden is the president right now.”

“I dare say, Mr. Rhodes – and I never have said this to anyone I have sentenced – you pose an ongoing threat and peril to our democracy and the fabric of this country,” Mehta said.

“I dare say we all now hold our collective breaths when an election is approaching. Will we have another January 6 again? That remains to be seen.”
...

The sentence is the first handed down in over a decade for seditious conspiracy and Mehta said he wanted to explain the offense to the public. He did not mince words.

“A seditious conspiracy, when you take those two concepts and put it together, is among the most serious crimes an American can commit. It is an offense against the government to use force. It is an offense against the people of our country,” the judge said.

“It is a series of acts in which you and others committed to use force, including potentially with weapons, against the government of the United States as it transitioned from one president to another. And what was the motive? You didn’t like the new guy.”
...

“Nothing has changed, Mr. Rhodes, nothing has changed. And the reality is as you sit here today and as we heard you speak, the moment you are released you will be prepared to take up arms against our government. And not because you are a political prisoner, not because of the 2020 election, because you think this is a valid way to address grievances.”
...

“It’s not simply a conspiracy theory or a false narrative about fraud. It’s about the Constitution,” Rhodes said, later shouting: “I am not able to drop that under my oath. I am not able to ignore the Constitution.”

The judge had none of that, and compared Rhodes’ comments to the heroism of police officers and others protecting the Capitol: “We want to talk about keeping oaths? There is nobody more emblematic of keeping their oaths, Mr. Rhodes.”

January 6: Seditious Conspiracy, Domestic Terrorism, Treason

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIAUNITED STATES OF AMERICA v.ELMER STEWART RHODES III,KELLY MEGGS,KENNETH HARRELSON,JESSICA WATKINS,ROBERTO MINUTA,JOSEPH HACKETT,DAVID MOERSCHEL,THOMAS CALDWELL, andEDWARD VALLEJO, Defendants.Case No. 22-cr-15-APMGOVERNMENT’S OMNIBUS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM ANDMOTION FOR UPWARD DEPARTURE

These defendants were prepared to fight. Not for their country, but against it. In their own words, they were “willing to die” in a “guerilla war” to achieve their goal of halting the transfer of power after the 2020 Presidential Election. As a co-conspirator recognized, their actions made these defendants “traitors.”

Using their positions of prominence within, and in affiliation with, the Oath Keepers organization, these defendants played a central and damning role in opposing by force the government of the United States, breaking the solemn oath many of them swore as members of the United States Armed Forces. To support their operation, they amassed an arsenal of firearms across the Potomac River and led a conspiracy that culminated in a mob’s attack on the United States Capitol while our elected representatives met in a Joint Session of Congress. Two juries found all nine defendants guilty of participating in this grave conduct. These defendants are unlike any of the hundreds of others who have been sentenced for their roles in the attack on the Capitol. Each defendant therefore deserves a significant sentence of incarceration.

...

 “[T]he violent breach of the Capitol on January 6 was a grave danger to our democracy.” United States v. Munchel, 991 F.3d 1273, 1284 (D.C. Cir. 2021). “The chaos wrought by the mob forced members of Congress to stop the certification and flee for safety.” United States v. Fischer, 64 F.4th 329, 332 (D.C. Cir. 2023). As this Court has explained:

January 6, 2021 was supposed to mark the peaceful transition of power. It had been that way for over two centuries, one presidential administration handing off peacefully to the next. President Ronald Reagan in his first inaugural address described “the orderly transfer of authority” as “nothing less than a miracle.” Violence and disruption happened in other countries, but not here. This is the United States of America, and it could never happen to our democracy. Thompson v. Trump, 590 F. Supp. 3d 46, 61 (D.D.C. 2022) (footnote omitted).

But, because of these defendants’ actions, it did happen to our democracy. Rioters injured more than a hundred members of law enforcement and inflicted significant emotional injuries on law enforcement officers and Capitol employees alike. The attack caused substantial damage to the Capitol, resulting in millions of dollars of financial losses. But the cost to our democracy and system of government was incalculable. See United States v. Gardner, No. 21-cr-622 (Mar. 16, 2023), Sent. Tr. at 68 (identifying one of the “victims” on January 6 as “democracy itself”)

...

 In short, the defendants’ conduct displayed a clear, shared intent to stop Congress from certifying the results of the election, including through the organized use of force and the staging of weapons nearby. That conduct—calculated to stop the peaceful transfer of Presidential power for the first time in the nation’s history—is a quintessential example of an intent to influence government conduct through intimidation or coercion and warrants an upward departure pursuant to Note 4. Indeed, the terrorism enhancement in Section 3A1.4 is meant to “punish[] more harshly than other criminals those whose wrongs served an end more terrible than other crimes.” Benkahla, 530 F.3d at 313

Lawyers, Oaths, and the Insurrection

Many posts have discussed oaths .

 Jessica Levinson at MSNBC:

Simply put, with power comes responsibility. Thus, before law students can become lawyers, they must prove that they are of good moral character. This may involve not only taking an exam but also completing something called a moral character application, which is in many ways akin to a background check. Part of this application includes obtaining references who can attest to one’s character. And that’s where law professors like me enter the picture.

Furthermore, once one passes that moral character vetting process, not to mention the bar exam, future lawyers must also take an oath to become a member of the bar. The oath requires that applicants pledge to uphold the U.S. and state constitutions of where they plan to practice, and to faithfully execute their duties as a lawyer. In California, for example, applicants are required to swear to “faithfully discharge the duties of an attorney and counselor at law to the best of my knowledge and ability. As an officer of the court, I will strive to conduct myself at all times with dignity, courtesy and integrity.” put, before someone can enter the hallowed halls of our profession, we need to know we can trust that person. Less than ethical lawyers could abuse that trust — and their clients' trust — by, say, misusing or stealing a client’s money. Other examples could include breaking a trust on a far larger scale. For example, one could advise the president of the United States to file frivolous lawsuits based on lies but not law, or to devise an unconstitutional scheme to steal a presidential election. In these cases, you’ve fundamentally shown yourself undeserving of holding a position of public trust.

The Oath and Rusty Bowers

 From the final report of the January 6 committee:

In Arizona, a primary target of President Trump’s pressure, and ire, was House Speaker Russell “Rusty” Bowers, a longtime Republican who had served 17 years in the State legislature. Throughout November and December, Bowers spoke to President Trump, Giuliani, and members of Giuliani’slegal team, in person or on the phone. During these calls, President Trump and others alleged that the results in Arizona were affected by fraud and asked that Bowers consider replacing Presidential electors for Biden withelectors for President Trump.249 Bowers demanded proof for the claims of fraud, but never got it. At one point, after Bowers pressed Giuliani on the claims of fraud, Giuliani responded, “we’ve got lots of theories, we just don’t have the evidence.”250 Bowers explained to Giuliani: “You are askingme do something against my oath, and I will not break my oath.”251

Brian Kemp's Oath

 

Many posts have discussed oaths .

Molly Ball at Time:

Kemp never stopped being a lib-triggering conservative; he even kept up his crusade against the phantom threat of voter fraud, signing an election law that Democrats including President Biden see as racist voter suppression. Kemp seeks no credit for protecting the vote and saving the election. He argues he was just doing his job, and would prefer to talk about almost anything else. “I have always followed the law and the Constitution,” he says. “I believe that that oath I took is better and bigger than any person including myself, and it’s certainly bigger than any political party.”

Oaths as Bonds

Many posts have discussed oaths of office.

Daniel Knox, Director, Information Protection 88th Air Base Wing, Wright-Patterson AFB:

For most of us in the Department of Defense, federal service became “real” when we first took an oath to “protect (or support) and defend the Constitution of the United States,” even though many of us may not have fully understood what an oath even was at that point in our lives.

Oaths go far back into history, predating the American Revolution by centuries, and they remain the highest standard of commitment. But why is this oath so important today? What sets us apart from corporate employees who have similar skill sets and jobs, but don’t have to swear an oath?

Oaths have been a part of societies since the dawn of time. Historically, they have been tied to deities or sacred in nature. An oath was the ultimate testament of commitment to a person, ideal or task. Men and women would often die rather than break an oath.

Our oath of office in DOD is administered differently for military officers and enlisted — and incorporated in yet another format for civilian personnel, but all contain the same core elements. The oath is usually the last step in a military or civilian employee’s hiring process, signifying the final opportunity for an individual to decline this commitment to serve.

The public utterance of this commitment is important, not just for the employment process, but all those with whom that employee will serve, as well as for those he or she serves, namely other U.S. citizens.

It is a promise to put the Constitution’s values ahead of personal ambitions. It is a promise to always work toward the goal of bettering the government in which that employee serves by holding to individual values that best serve the intent of that Constitution.

You’ll note there is no step to rescind or retract that oath when you leave government service, because again, it is to the Constitution versus any organization or person. It is also inherently part of being a U.S. citizen. If you look online, you might be surprised at the expectations of naturalized citizens in addition to an almost identical fealty to the Constitution to which you publicly affirm as a government employee.

Using the civilian oath of office as a model, let’s look at its seemingly simple parts:

“I do solemnly swear…”

You are verbally committing, in public and formally before witnesses, to perform to a standard that you consider sacred, honor-bound to hold to this commitment. To break this oath would impugn your personal honor, and possibly that of your family. These are possibly the most important words of our oath. It imbues a personal commitment by you and you alone.

“That I will support/protect and defend the Constitution of the United States…”

You aren’t swearing allegiance to any particular person or office, but to the ideals and values of the codified Constitution, a document held as the gold standard by other countries and the highest law of our land.

“Against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”

You vow to protect the law of the land as defined in our Constitution against not just foreign powers threatening our sovereignty, but internal efforts to thwart our constitutional values and articles.

“That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”

You will be faithful to the Constitution’s intent and its articles, and you will hold allegiance to those values versus any person or office of any government or agency. You won’t commit or actively tolerate violations of those articles or the Constitution.

“That I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion…”

You know the gravity of your oath, and you have no reservations in committing your support to the Constitution’s ideals, nor are you taking it with intent to deviate from that promise to hold those values sacred on behalf of all Americans to whom you are bound to serve, and to whom you would answer if you broke that oath.

“And that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God (optional).”

You close your oath of office with a reaffirmation of your promise to do your duty, and if you wish, even ask God for support.

That’s why our leadership emphasizes the oath so much. It is intended to make you think about not only your role as a citizen but its additional importance when taking the mantle of government service.

If you still don’t understand this, just look around at the missions of this installation and how they directly support the nation’s security on a scale broader than most other bases. Whether you are screening personnel at base-entry points, or a research engineer working on top-secret programs, you have committed to basically the same oath.

You serve the same people, and we all work under the same Constitution. Take time to learn what the Constitution entails if you don’t already know, and embrace the spirit of that document in your daily lives.

The oath of office is a bond between you and the people of this nation, all of whom are here because of our Constitution’s principles. It is also a public, verbal commitment of your role as a citizen while serving our country.

Always remember that your service is important to your fellow Americans who haven’t publicly taken that oath, and they expect a higher level of accountability and performance because of your promise. Serve them, and yourself, well.

The Insurrectionist View of the Second Amendment

Contrary to dangerous claims from GOP colleagues, nowhere does the Constitution endorse armed resistance against our police and government.

I count at least seven times our founding document refutes and contradicts this absurd "insurrectionary theory” of the Second Amendment. pic.twitter.com/bGrFg15ZU1

— Rep. Jamie Raskin (@RepRaskin) July 27, 2022

Article IV, sec. 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

Article III, sec. 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Amendment XIV, sec. 4: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Rep. Luria Opening Statement

Rep. Elaine Luria (D-VA) at the July 21 J6 hearing:

Article II of our Constitution requires that the President swear a very specific oath every four years.

Every President swears or affirms to ‘faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States’         and, to the best of their ability, ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.’

The President also assumes the Constitutional duty to ‘take care’ that our nation’s laws be ‘faithfully executed,’ and is the ‘Commander in Chief’ of our military.

Our hearings have shown the many ways in which President Trump tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power in the days leading up to January 6th.

With each step of his plan, he betrayed his oath of office and was derelict in his duty.


...
I served proudly for twenty years as an officer in the United States Navy.

Veterans of our armed forces know firsthand the leadership that is required in a time of crisis: urgent and decisive action that puts duty and country first.

But on January 6th, when lives and our democracy hung in the balance, President Trump refused to act because of his selfish desire to stay in power.

The Oath of Speaker Bowers

 

“You are asking me to do something against my oath and I will not break my oath.”

Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers recalls pushing back against pressure campaign during Nov. 2020 call with former Pres. Trump and Rudy Giuliani. https://t.co/0E6OFQKQI3 pic.twitter.com/OnAQgaDZoH

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) June 21, 2022