Apparently one can give an oath of office and immediately do “whatever” afterwards as nothing is done to dissuade such.
But honestly, there should be penalties.
Your relationship to God determines the legality of an Oath.
I’m not a lawyer, and I do not play one on TV. But there is already a remedy for those public officials who break their oaths. It’s impeachment. Some states also have a recall option.
It’s a high hurdle to impeach and remove an official on the federal level. I suppose it’s the same in most states. Is it good that the hurdle is so high? I dunno. A decent argument can be made either way.
Who is one swearing to? Witnesses, God?
What about the Oath of Citizenship? If it’s not binding, then what’s the point?
Sorry for the questions. I don’t mean to hijack.
Legally Binding or Not?
Is an oath to tell the truth as a witness in a trial not essentially the same? I think what matters is who is there to hold oath breakers accountable?
The Constitution says oaths and affirmations are binding, per Article 6.
Morally binding is a very different matter
There is a principle of business of integrity. We can not trust our government.
Legally AND morally binding in my opinion.
Similarly, it seems to me that a promise made by a politician, in return for one’s vote, becomes a contract once the vote is cast. If the politician then fails to perform in accordance with his promise, why is that not an actionable breach of contract?
The oath of office is a pledge, but the details of what is required by law of a public official and how that is enforced are different maters entirely.
My suggestion is that our legal code, whether by amendment to the Constitution or by federal code, state code, or local code, explicity prohibits advocates for abortion or avowed anarchists from voting or holding public office.
The only thing that gives me pause is that we are nearly stupidly legislating what nature and conscience already say.
It really depends on the state.
In New York and Vermont, if you don’t take the Oath of Office for an elected position, you won’t be seated for that position. Different issue, for sure.
If you violate an oath of office, you could put yourself in jeopardy of some type, be it removal from office, etc. If the oath was not legally binding, I don’t know how it could argued you could be removed from office.
Depends... If the men of the nation are completely drained of their testosterone and willing to put up with rainbow flags flying over the capital and there are crooks, thieves, liars and faggots in charge of the government, much like our nation is today under O'Biden.. Then, you can be sworn in on a copy of "Mad Magazine" and the oath becomes a joke and it is NOT binding in any way,shape or form. :(
18 U.S. Code § 1918
Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he—
(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia; or
(4) is a member of an organization of employees of the Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day, or both.
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; ...
The problem is that no penalty is specified for violation of this clause. At best, the violation of such an oath should be grounds for a Constitutional challenge in a court of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Federal, District and Supreme). The remedy sought could be injuctive against the action or inaction of the offending party.
I have no idea if such an action has ever been brought, however all persons whose direct representative is in violation of such a claim should have standing against such a person. In cases where the violation is cause by an executive action (including Executive branch agents), ALL who are subject to the consequences of the action (including monetary consequences) should also have standing.
Basically every senior officer in the German Army and Navy, and most of those in the Luftwaffe, was in uniform when Hitler became Chancellor, and had thus taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the Weimar Republic. Ever heard of a senior officer in the German Army, or Navy, getting the boot when Hitler made himself dictator, because he couldn’t violate his oath to the Weimar Republic? Me neither.
Officials do things they don’t want to because:
1. They do have a sense of personal honor.
2. They calculate that the downside of breaking their oath, be the downside social stigma, or being tortured and executed by the Gestapo, is even worse than the downside of doing the thing they are supposed to do, but don’t want to.
Not. They’re total masturbation.