this is factually incorrect---no one has to swear an oath on the Bible. It is a tradition among most, but it is not required. They just have to swear to uphold the Constitution
To force an officeholder to swear an oath on the Bible is prohibited in the constitution, as that could be construed as a religious litmus test as to someone's eligibility for office.
They just have to swear to uphold the Constitution
What's the point? I mean, they all (Ron Paul may be the exception) fail to uphold the constitution when they vote 'Yea' in favor of passing unconstitutional laws.
The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause
How stare decisis Subverts the Law:
...It is difficult to estimate how many unconstitutional legislative provisions are adopted each year by Congress, but a plausible number is more than 20,000, or about as many as the number of bills introduced each year. There is simply no way that the federal courts can handle all the cases that might arise under that many provisions. They are almost forced to rely on the presumption of constitutionality of statutes, but members of Congress are increasingly reluctant to restrain themselves from adopting legislation they know to be unconstitutional, but which is supported by some of their constituents, and passing the duty to the federal courts of striking legislation that should never have been passed in the first place.
"To force an officeholder to swear an oath on the Bible is prohibited in the constitution, as that could be construed as a religious litmus test as to someone's eligibility for office."
Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking.