(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
 . . . . . . . . . .



Constitutional Oaths [1]

['View Profile', 'Dan K', 'Chitown Kev', 'Rob In Vermont']

Date: 2026-05-17  

Soon after I wrote my article on War Crimes Trials in 2009, I lost my hope that President Obama was going to investigate and/or hold the previous administration accountable for their decisions and actions that were in violation of The Constitution and international law. Still not having a realistic understanding of how little influence internet writings by unknown and insignificant authors had on the public discourse, I wrote this article to say that Obama’s own presidential oath obligated him to initiate action against the previous administration for their own violations of the same oaths of office they had taken. I don’t know why I expected it to matter. I hoped I could help move us forward to a greater acceptance of what supporting the actual words of The Constitution obligated our government and leaders to do.

In 1995, when the Republican Party created their ‘Contract with America,’ I was not really very knowledgeable about the actual words and real details of what The Constitution said but what they produced just didn’t sound right to me. So, I sat down and read it. After that, I re-read it several more times, each time focusing more and more on the actual words that the Framers had written, and that the states ratified two centuries before. I read it many more times in the days and years that followed. The more I read it, the more I saw in its words and intentions. That began my personal study of The Constitution, a study that continues to the present.

While my father was an Episcopal priest, and I was raised in the church, I can’t really say that I was ever really a religious person. I stopped regularly attended services around age 16 and pretty much considered myself out of religion by the time I was 20. As much as I considered my religious faith, I would describe myself mostly as a Deist, if anything. My mother once asked me if I was an atheist and after thinking about the question, I replied that no, I was not an atheist because I didn’t have enough faith to be one. That would be how I thought of my relationship with religion for most of my life. Eventually, however, something changed. During our current president’s first term, I realized that I do have a religious faith, that I do have a higher power that I try to follow. That higher power is what we call “Democracy,” and The Constitution is the closest thing I have to a religious text.

Now, being who I am, being the anti-authoritarian I am, I believe that any and everything must be subjected to critical evaluation. I believe that anything that cannot be questioned, doubted, or even laughed at cannot be “truth.” Truth must be able to withstand the harshest criticism, the hardest questions, deepest digging. Anything that cannot survive the deepest scrutiny cannot be truth and must be discarded as something to be followed and held up to the rest of the world as a thing worthy of being followed. As such, although The Constitution is my preferred religious text, it is not perfect and it is not final. When The Constitution is found to be insufficient for any challenge facing us as a nation, then it must be re-examined and, when necessary, modified or changed. The normal way this is done is through amendments, but we also must be willing to question our own interpretations of the words used. If we are unwilling to keep that document relevant to the needs of our nation, then the fault is not that of The Constitution but, rather, the fault of our own.

One of the most important parts of The Constitution is, to me anyway, its reliance on oaths in the belief that the words of those oaths will matter to those who take them. What we have too often seen, especially in the 21st century, is people who take their oaths but view the words as a perfunctory obligation to get through instead of a burden to assume above all other considerations and agendas. Bush II and his administration broke their oaths because following The Constitution was too difficult for doing what they wanted to do. Obama and his administration broke their oaths to serve The Constitution above all else by holding the previous administration accountable, not just for their crimes but for violating their oaths because it would be messy and make the political divide in this country more adversarial. We won’t talk about the violations of their oaths by the next two administrations.

Oaths matter, and if The Constitution matters then constitutional oaths matter above all else. Until we view violations of constitutional oaths as indictable and punishable crimes to which all who take them must be held accountable for then none of the rest of The Constitution matters. Here is what I said to beg a president to abide by his own oaths.

__________________________________________________________________

Constitutional Oaths

By

Rhys M. Blavier

©2009 (March), 2026 (March)

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

This simple thirty-five-word Oath of Office is specified by The Constitution of The United States as the one, single oath which must be taken by every person who is going to serve this nation as our President. After this oath is taken every four years, however, no one seems to ever pay much attention to it, but it is important enough that it is the ONLY oath spelled out word for word in The Constitution. There are also only two specific obligations it places on a President; to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States’, and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” to the best of their ability.

While no other oath is specified in The Constitution, it DOES state in Article VI, clause 3 that:

“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.”

For other federal officials, including members of Congress, it specifies that they “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution.” By federal statute, the oath which must be taken by all members of The House of Representatives and The Senate, as well as by The Vice President, members of the Cabinet, and all other civil and military officers and federal employees other than the President is:

“I, _____ _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.]”

The taking of oaths by all other federal officials in addition to the President dates back to the fourteen word oath created by the first Congress in 1789 (“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support The Constitution of the United States.”), but the current wording is based more on the oaths written during The War Between the States which were intended to allow treason charges to be leveled against those who supported the south or didn’t support the union.

The first Congress also specified in The Judiciary Act of 1789 the oath which would be required of all federal judges in the United States:

“I, _____ _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution, and laws of the United States. [So help me God.]”

In fact, federal judges are currently required to take not just one, but TWO different oaths:

“I, _____ _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _____ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. [So help me God.]”

And:

“I, _____ _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.]”

Federal statute specifically states that this second oath “does not affect other oaths required by law.”

Within the military forces of The United States, the oaths required of both officers and enlisted men are statutory and are prescribed in Section 3331, Title 5 of the United States Code. The oath which officers are required to take is:

“I, _____ _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.]”

While enlisted men are required to take this oath:

“I, _____ _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. [So help me God.]”

An important distinction between the oaths required of officers when compared with that required of the enlisted ranks is that the oath taken by officers does not include ANY provision to obey orders. While enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey LAWFUL orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by their oath to disobey ANY order that violates The Constitution of the United States.

As far as I can tell, these are all of the oaths required by our federal government for any person who is in any way obligated to serve The United States of America (I am obviously not aware of any secret oaths which might exist within the shadowy corridors of secrecy which our country tries to keep hidden from its citizens). I am also not including the oath taken by the National Guard or the elected and appointed officials of the various states as doing so would likely fill a small book. Needless to say, all of those oaths must meet the same constitutional requirements as these federal oaths do.

At this point you are probably wondering why I have spent almost a thousand words just to tell you what the different United States federal oaths are. It is very simple. OATHS MATTER! Whether we pay attention to them or not, our Constitution requires them and many people take them, which means MANY people are BOUND by them. Now, as you read through them, you might have noticed that there is only one thing which they ALL have in common (aside from all being very short). I’ll give you a minute to look back through them in case you haven’t noticed it yet.

Every single oath prescribed by or contained within The United States’ Constitution and/or federal statue, EVERY one, obligates the taker to preserve, protect, defend, uphold, support and/or administer justice agreeably to The Constitution of The United States, not the nation, not the people, not the business interests, not any person, deity, concept, idea or entity other than THE CONSTITUTION itself. Furthermore, where any of the oaths mention enemies, it specifies enemies foreign AND domestic, ALL enemies of THE CONSTITUTION, not enemies of the nation or the people but of THE CONSTITUTION. Thus, by my personal interpretation (and, I assume, that of everyone who demands a strict, literal interpretation of The Constitution), while the economy, national security, foreign affairs, etc. are important concerns of our federal government, as provided for WITHIN The Constitution, the SINGLE most important duty of the President and every member of our federal government is to ensure the health of and obedience TO that Constitution. ALL other considerations come after that one and NO duty or obligation is higher than obedience and faithfulness to it.

If we will not demand that all of our elected and appointed officials and personnel abide by the oaths that every one of them took, then The Constitution itself is meaningless. If that’s the case, then those who support what is being done to our government right now should simply give up their pretenses and declare that they will not obey their oaths. If that’s the case, then they need to just tell us that they have overthrown The Constitution and that it is no longer “the supreme law of the land.”

Rhys M. Blavier

“Truth, Justice and Honor… but, above all Honor”

© copyright 2009 (March), 2026 (March) by Rhys M. Blavier

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/5/17/800040336/community/constitutional-oaths/

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/