Oaths of Office: Legally Binding or Not?

Self | February 26, 2024 | Self

[Fester Chugabrew]

So glad you chimed in here! Based on your legal expertise, are oaths of office legally binding or not? If so, how? If so, what mechanisms need to play out so our Constitutional Republic can be rid of anarchists and advocates for civilization’s self destruction?

[Pilsner]

And I certainly don’t want to imply senior German Officers were in any physical danger. They were not before at least late 1941. They stood by while Hitler made himself dictator because they despised the Weimar Republic, and they were happy to see him kill it, their oaths be damned.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The problem is that no penalty is specified for violation of this clause.

---

This, to me, gets to the heart of things. At minimum the consequence should be no franchise and no pubkic office. Hanging by the neck seems excessive. Deportation...maybe.

But good heavens, what business to these people have in establishing public policy?!

[Olog-hai]

That’s because there is no political opposition currently and we are under de facto one party rule. Trump is the only real opposition to that. The Founding Fathers made much of the power of the people, after all.

[Fester Chugabrew]

What you are pointing out, in effect, is that there can be illegal oaths of office.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Trump is the only real opposition to that.

---

Not quite. God, His people of conscience who dwell on our land, and His holy angels are a part of the picture that cannot be ruled out.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Another thing that strikes me as creating a conundrum are the words “no religious test” when the very words inscribed in our founding document use the words, “endowed by the Creator.”

Yes, they are in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, but the whole meaning and intent of the Constitution is to secure what the Declaration iterates.

In this age I wonder if any man is inclined to be bound by any word, whether written or spoken.

[Dr. Franklin]

So glad you chimed in here! Based on your legal expertise, are oaths of office legally binding or not? If so, how? If so, what mechanisms need to play out so our Constitutional Republic can be rid of anarchists and advocates for civilization’s self destruction?

I think it could be, if there were an enforcement mechanism, either civil, or criminal. Otherwise, it's just another political decision, or between the sworn and the Almighty. It's left to one's sacred honor, and for history to judge mainly. We have laws to enforce many things, but those for public officers tend not to get enforced. Remember, its a crime for a citizen to lie to government officials, but not criminal for government officials to lie to American citizens. The problem with keeping oaths of office is a related issue.

[Fester Chugabrew]

That is a truly pertinent quote. Thanks for posting it.

What’s your sense of this thing?

Mine is one of frustration that we cannot prosecute violations of oath when the characters involved advocate for anarchy and abortion, both of which directly contradict the meaning and intent of the very Constitution they “swear” to uphold and defend (as they wipe thier butts with it.)

[Fester Chugabrew]

What is your referent for “it” in your reply. Need some clarity. Thanks!

[Fester Chugabrew]

Remember, its a crime for a citizen to lie to government officials, but not criminal for government officials to lie to American citizens.

---

Is this what we call justice?

[Fester Chugabrew]

If what you say in your last sentence is true, then “no one is above the law” is a patently false statement.

[Dr. Franklin]

What is your referent for “it” in your reply. Need some clarity. Thanks!

I think oaths could be [enforced], if there were an enforcement mechanism, either civil, or criminal. Otherwise, the issue is just another political decision, or between the sworn and the Almighty. The issue is left to one's sacred honor, and for history to judge mainly.

[Dr. Franklin]

If what you say in your last sentence is true, then “no one is above the law” is a patently false statement.

Judges are completely immune in civil court, and prosecutors are almost completely immune is civil court. They could be criminally prosecuted for taking bribes or suborning perjury, but that almost never happens. The recent explosion of "qualified immunity" does place other government officials above the law for just playing dumb. Yes, many of our elites are above the law.

[NorthMountain]

This, sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility

Exactly. There's no enforcement clause for anything but treason.

[NorthMountain]

Here's the text to which you refer:

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.

No enforcement mechanism, no penalty for violation of oath.

[Pilsner]

What you are pointing out, in effect, is that there can be illegal oaths of office.

I was pointing out that officials either follow their oaths of office without outside coercion, or they do not.

In my opinion, officials regularly, at best, and overwhelmingly, at worst, do not follow their oaths of office. If I am correct, any attempt to create an outside mechanism to coerce said officials into following their oaths of office will be implemented by officials who regularly, at best, and overwhelmingly, at worst, do not follow their oaths of office.

Is that an improvement over our current situation? I don't think so. If humanity could create a Deus ex machina solution, wherein oath breakers were struck down by lightening, or even retired with full pensions, but deprived of power, I would be all for it.

But giving more power to officials who regularly, at best, and overwhelmingly, at worst, abuse the powers they already have? That does not resolve the problem.

[Dr. Franklin]

Is this what we call justice?

It's all about power. Those in our government and courts don't care about justice. Those piling on Trump with the garage criminal charges and civil fines are just demonstrating how our legal system really works. The government piles on people hoping they fail and can no longer afford to fight the powerful elite.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Many thanks for clarifying.

Is this something the common citizen reasonably enjoin upon his representative in congress: to establish mechanisms whereby public officials and citizens can be held accountable where fidelity to the Constitution is concerned?

[Dr. Franklin]

Many thanks for clarifying.
Is this something the common citizen reasonably enjoin upon his representative in congress: to establish mechanisms whereby public officials and citizens can be held accountable where fidelity to the Constitution is concerned?

If people demand action, something might change. The judiciary has been permitted to supervise its own for too long. Another organ is required to check its power, since Congress really never impeaches, let alone removes federal judges. Congress should be the ones to remove executive branch officials, but the Mayorkas is the first impeachment of a cabinet officer in ages. Congress can always amend the Civil Service Act, and I am sure that would threaten the Deep State. Ultimately, the problem is that we live in a massively corrupt nation, and the general morality of the citizens reflects that.