[Olog-hai]

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.

That’s the text of Article 6, paragraph 3 (not designated a section FWICS). As you can see, everyone listed here (the word “executive” looks to me to include the POTUS and state governors and their respective officers) is “bound by oath or affirmation” et cetera.

FWICS, there are several federal laws that deal with violation of oaths of office, since for starters the oathbreaker is guilty of perjury, and of course other crimes; not to mention fighting against the Constitution is equivalent to making war against the USA per Article 3 Section 3.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The word “bound” is in there for sure. What is the nature of that binding, and what are the consequences for violation?

I cannot think of a time where the oath of office, or violation thereof, was the subject of litigation.

Please bear with me. The subject is both deep and intriguing, while I have a tendency to be dense.

[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.