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

True Faith

 Former RNC chair Mark Racicot at The Billings Gazette:

The Oath of Office taken by every member of the United States Senate and House of Representatives, as well as the president, requires those office holders to “solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic [and] that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” The Oath concludes with a solemn promise that “I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Bearing true faith means maintaining fidelity to the preservation of the union, fidelity to our fellow citizens, fidelity to a shared set of values and fidelity to the law and the Constitution. That transcendent fidelity or faithfulness to the Constitution is demonstrated by our continuing and unequivocal loyalty, first and above all else, to the United States of America, without interruption, without condition, without exception, without avoidance, without arrogance, without deceit, without connivance and without obfuscation.

The faithfulness referred to in the Oath of Office presumes not just faithfulness to the actual words of the Constitution, but faithfulness to its spirit as well. A spirit recognized and requited by humility, respect for others and the rights of others, honor, decency, integrity and self-discipline. Fidelity is the exact opposite of seeking power for its own sake or craving victory at any cost, each of which history has revealed time and time again to be a fool’s errand.

All of the above is to say that I have discovered no facts nor evidence, anywhere, of the “sabotage” or “persecution” or efforts to “destroy” the former president that serve as the basis for the accusations cited in the RNC Resolution and lodged against Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger. Quite the opposite, the evidence reveals two Republican members of the House of Representatives honorably performing their investigative duties and searching for the truth as members of a duly constituted investigative committee. In other words, they’re doing their job with fidelity and loyalty to the Constitution.

Oath Breakers

 The Oath Keepers include current and former military and law enforcement personnel. They traffic in conspiracy theories and violence, including the Capitol insurrection. Will Carless, Grace Hauck, and Erin Mansfield at USA Today quote some members and disclose where the statements came from:

The statements are part of a massive trove of data hacked from the Oath Keepers website. The data, some of which the whistleblower group Distributed Denial of Secrets made available to journalists, includes a file that appears to provide names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of almost 40,000 members.

A search of that list revealed more than 200 people who identified themselves as active or retired law enforcement officers when signing up. USA TODAY confirmed 20 of them are still serving, from Alabama to California. Another 20 have retired since joining the Oath Keepers.

...

Founded after the election of Barack Obama in 2009 by Yale Law School graduate Stewart Rhodes, the Oath Keepers refuse to acknowledge the authority of the federal government. Members must abide by a declaration of conspiracy-laden orders they will refuse to enforce, including disarming the American people.

...

Just one Oath Keeper serving in a police or sheriff's department is too many, said Daryl Johnson, a security consultant and former senior analyst for domestic terrorism at the Department of Homeland Security.

...

More concerning is the fact that the Oath Keepers make their members swear an oath of allegiance, much like the police and military, Johnson said. That creates a dangerous conflict of interest.

“They look at the U.S. government as an enemy,” he said. “When it comes down to a crisis situation or an investigation involving other militias, where is this person’s allegiance? Most likely with the Oath Keepers and not the police department.”

Cheney Statement

Liz Cheney at the 1/6 Hearing:

Thank you very much, Chairman Thompson. Thank you to all of my colleagues on this committee, and thank you to each of the witnesses appearing before us today. It is because of you — you held the line, you defended all of us, you defended the Capitol, and you defended the Constitution and our Republic, and every American owes you our undying gratitude. Every American, I hope, will be able to hear your testimony today and will watch the videos. The videos show the unbelievable violence and the inexcusable and intolerable cruelty that you all faced, and people need to know the truth.

I want to begin by reflecting briefly on the investigation that we are launching today. Every one of us here on the dais voted for and would have preferred that these matters be investigated by an independent non-partisan commission, composed of five prominent Americans selected by each party, and modeled on the 9/11 Commission. Although such a commission was opposed by my own leadership in the House, it overwhelmingly passed with the support of 35 Republican members, it was defeated by Republicans in the Senate. And that leaves us where we are today.

We cannot leave the violence of January 6th – and its causes – uninvestigated. The American people deserve the full and open testimony of every person with knowledge of the planning and preparation for January 6th. We must know what happened here at the Capitol. We must also know what happened every minute of that day in the White House – every phone call, every conversation, every meeting leading up to, during, and after the attack. Honorable men and women have an obligation to step forward. If those responsible are not held accountable, and if Congress does not act responsibly, this will remain a cancer on our Constitutional Republic, undermining the peaceful transfer of power at the heart of our democratic system. We will face the threat of more violence in the months to come, and another January 6th every four years.

I have been a conservative Republican since 1984 when I first voted for Ronald Reagan. I have disagreed sharply on policy and politics with almost every Democratic member of this committee. But, in the end, we are one nation under God. The Framers of our Constitution recognized the danger of the vicious factionalism of partisan politics – and they knew that our daily arguments could become so fierce that we might lose track of our most important obligation – to defend the rule of law and the freedom of all Americans. That is why our Framers compelled each of us to swear a solemn oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. When a threat to our constitutional order arises, as it has here, we are obligated to rise above politics. This investigation must be non-partisan.

While we begin today by taking the public testimony of these four heroic men, we must also realize that the task of this committee will require persistence. We must issue and enforce subpoenas promptly. We must get to objective truth. We must overcome the many efforts we are already seeing to cover up and obscure the facts.

On January 6th and in the days thereafter, almost all members of my party recognized the events of that day for what they actually were. One Republican, for example, said: “What is happening at the U.S. Capitol right now is unacceptable and un-American. Those participating in lawlessness and violence must be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” No Member of Congress should now attempt to defend the indefensible, obstruct this investigation, or whitewash what happened that day. We must act with honor and duty, and in the interest of our nation.

America is great because we preserve our democratic institutions at all costs. Until January 6th, we were proof positive for the world that a nation conceived in liberty could long endure. But now, January 6th threatens our most sacred legacy. The question for every one of us who serves in Congress, for every elected official across this great nation, indeed, for every American is this: Will we adhere to the rule of law? Will we respect the rulings of our courts? Will we preserve the peaceful transition of power? Or will we be so blinded by partisanship that we throw away the miracle of America? Do we hate our political adversaries more than we love our country and revere our Constitution? I pray that that is not the case. I pray that we all remember, our children are watching, as we carry out this solemn and sacred duty entrusted to us. Our children will know who stood for truth, and they will inherit the nation we hand to them – a Republic, if we can keep it.

Impeachment Trial Oaths

Many posts have discussed oaths of office. 

 From CRS:

The Presiding Officer of the trial takes the oath of office. The Constitution requires that Senators be “on Oath or Affirmation” when sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment. The Senate developed the practice of first swearing in the presiding officer of the trial, who then administers the oath to all Senators. In the case of a presidential impeachment, the Chief Justice acts as presiding officer. Impeachment Rule IV requires that notice be given to the Chief Justice of the time and place of the trial. It further provides that the Chief Justice is to be administered the oath by the “Presiding Officer of the Senate.”  The Chief Justice takes the same oath as the Senators (see below for  text). Although the Vice President of the United States, as President of the Senate, could act as Presiding Officer of the Senate and administer the oath to the Chief Justice, in the Clinton impeachment trial, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate administered the oath to the Chief Justice. In the Clinton trial the Senate also agreed by unanimous consent that a bipartisan group of six Senators escort the Chief Justice to the dais.

Senators are administered the oath of office. The Presiding Officer of the Trial administers the following oath to Senators, as provided in Impeachment Rule XXV:

[Do you] solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of____, now pending, [you] will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help [you] God.

 In modern practice, the Chief Justice asks all Senators, who are standing at their desks, to raise their right hands as he reads the oath, and Senators respond, all together, “I do.” Senators also sign an official oath book, which serves as the permanent record of the administration of the oath. Senators are required to take the oath before participating in the trial, and Senators who might be absent at the time the oath is administered en masse inform the presiding officer as soon as possible so that they can take the oath separately. At this point, any Senator wishing to be excused from participating in the trial could ask to be excused from this service. In the past, the Senate has excused Senators from service in an impeachment trial only at their request.

Liz Cheney's Oath

Many posts have discussed oaths of office. Last month, Dick Cheney signed a statement by former secretaries of defense: "Each of us swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We did not swear it to an individual or a party."

We have sworn an oath under God to defend the Constitution. We uphold that oath at all times, not only when it is politically convenient.

Congress has no authority to overturn elections by objecting to electors. Doing so steals power from the states & violates the Constitution.

— Liz Cheney (@Liz_Cheney) January 6, 2021

A) GOP WY Rep Cheney after state party censured her: My vote to impeach was compelled by the oath I swore to the Constitution. Wyoming citizens know that this oath does not bend or yield to politics or partisanship.

— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) February 6, 2021

Notes on the Insurrection

Tom Dreisbach and Meg Anderson at NPR:

As a violent mob descended on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, lawmakers and aides hid wherever they could, waiting for the military and police to arrive. But many of those who stormed the Capitol were military veterans themselves, who had once sworn to protect the Constitution. In fact, an NPR analysis has found that nearly 1 in 5 people charged over their alleged involvement in the attack on the U.S. Capitol appear to have a military history.

NPR compiled a list of individuals facing federal or District of Columbia charges in connection with the events of Jan. 6. Of more than 140 charged so far, a review of military records, social media accounts, court documents and news reports indicate at least 27 of those charged, or nearly 20%, have served or are currently serving in the U.S. military. To put that number in perspective, only about 7% of all American adults are military veterans, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Amy Worden and Marisa Iati at WP:

A Pennsylvania woman accused of helping to steal a laptop from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office during the attack on the U.S. Capitol in Washington was ordered released from detention Thursday and placed in her mother’s custody.

Riley June Williams, 22, must stay in the home she shares with her mother and abide by other conditions of release, including avoiding contact with any witnesses or victims of the Jan. 6 Capitol storming. Federal Magistrate Judge Martin Carlson said he was releasing Williams in part because she had no prior criminal record, but he warned her that her mother, Wendy Williams, could be criminally charged if she fails to report to the court any violations of the conditions of release.

Unofficial transcript:

Miss Williams, when we met on Tuesday, one of the first things I did was advise you of your constitutional rights. And then I took steps to protect those rights by appointing aggressive, effective counsel to represent you here. That recital of rights wasn't just some hollow invocation of abstract principles. It was affirmation of the rights guaranteed to you by the United States Constitution. And it strikes me that that guarantee says something extraordinary and extraordinarily good about our Constitution. You are embraced by a presumption of innocence.

You are entitled to the assistance of counsel. You have a right to remain silent. All of these matters guaranteed to you by the Constitution, a constitution that protects the rights of those who are accused of transgressing society's rules. Some of the most basic of those rules are set forth in our Constitution. And one of the fundamental pillars of that constitution is the peaceful transition of power. That obligation that all citizens have to facilitate the peaceful transfer of power, it has been honored by generations of Americans for two hundred and thirty two years, it has become so commonplace that we often think very little of it.

But as President Reagan said in his inaugural, that process is a miracle. The allegations that bring you before me involve conduct that allegedly took place on January 6th of this year as Congress was endeavoring to fulfill its constitutional obligation to certify the will of the people and the votes of the Electoral College. You are cloaked in a presumption of innocence with respect to these matters. But the allegations set forth in the complaint relate to conduct that was antithetical to these constitutional values, conduct that involved a riot, a mob that sought to replace constitutional norms with the howling of a crowd.

We know now that the mob failed and the Constitution prevailed. The Constitution prevailed on January 6th of this year because Congress, stepping over the wreckage of its capital, met. and confirmed the vote of the Electoral College, setting the stage for the latest peaceful transition of power in this country yesterday. In the wake of those events on January 6th, it strikes me that the Constitution prevailed yet again in the wake of those events, the men and women of federal law enforcement, including the federal investigator and the assistant US attorney, the federal prosecutor involved in this case, fulfilled a duty that they had under the Constitution. They have sworn an oath under the Constitution to protect and defend that Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

And in pursuit of that constitutional obligation, a series of investigations have been launched into the matters that took place on January 6th. And those investigations have brought us here today together. It also occurs to me, Miss Williams, in a very personal and direct way, that the Constitution has is and will be prevailing in your case. As I noted a few moments ago when we first met, I invoked the Constitution on your behalf and I took steps to protect your constitutional rights by appointing counsel for you, your counsel.

Fulfilling the role of the Constitution contemplated has aggressively represented your interests here today. Wouldn't you agree, Miss Oelrich? [The judge at this point turns to the court appointed public defender in this case]. Wouldn't you agree, Miss Oelrich, that you have aggressively represented your client's interests here today?

Yes, Your Honor, I spent the last two days doing a lot of investigating. 

[And the judge turns to the prosecutor] On behalf of the United States, it is my view that over the past two days, you and your colleagues here and elsewhere have endeavored to fulfill your constitutional obligation to provide equal justice under the law to ensure the protection of individual rights and liberties while ensuring adherence to the rule of law.[

[And then the judge turns back to the defendant, Miss Williams, he says] so Miss Williams, in a very real and direct sense, you are being released today because the Constitution has prevailed, because your counsel has fulfilled her constitutional obligation and because the United States is also fulfilling its constitutional duty to strike hard blows but fair blows in the pursuit of justice. So, Miss Williams, I share that thought with you as you leave here today, that your freedom today, conditioned as it is by the orders that I have entered as a result of the prevailing of the Constitution.

And I'll leave you with this final thought, Miss Williams. The judge closes with us. The Constitution prevails here today and the Constitution will always prevail in this country.

President Biden's Oath

President Biden will take the oath of office today.

Many posts have discussed oaths of office.

 From the Legal Information Institute:

What is the time relationship between a President’s assumption of office and his taking the oath? Apparently, the former comes first, this answer appearing to be the assumption of the language of the clause. The Second Congress assumed that President Washington took office on March 4, 1789,128 although he did not take the oath until the following April 30.

That the oath the President is required to take might be considered to add anything to the powers of the President, because of his obligation to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” might appear to be rather a fanciful idea. But in President Jackson’s message announcing his veto of the act renewing the Bank of the United States there is language which suggests that the President has the right to refuse to enforce both statutes and judicial decisions based on his own independent decision that they were unwarranted by the Constitution.129 The idea next turned up in a message by President Lincoln justifying his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus without obtaining congressional authorization.130 And counsel to President Johnson during his impeachment trial adverted to the theory, but only in passing.131 Beyond these isolated instances, it does not appear to be seriously contended that the oath adds anything to the President’s powers.