Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — '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.'
The oath of enlistment is an oath sworn to and taken by individuals who enlist in military service. This oath can vary among different branches of military service, and typically varies among countries as well. About this object Speaker of the House, Joseph Cannon of Illinois takes the oath of office at the opening of the 59th Congress (1905—1907). Oaths of office and allegiance have been features of government for centuries. When the United States were colonies of Great Britain, officials swore allegiance to the king. Numbers 30:2 - If a man makes a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.
The Framers fittingly placed the Oath of Office Clause between preceding clauses that set forth the organization of the executive department and succeeding clauses that specify the contours of the president’s executive power. The president takes the oath after he is to assume the office, but importantly before he executes it. The location and phrasing of the clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting—the clause limits how the president’s “executive power” is to be exercised.
The clause is one of several that employ the oath concept, but it is the only clause that specifies the actual oath language for a constitutional actor. The clause does not specify who shall administer the oath, though it has been the common, but not universal, practice for the chief justice to do so. While Article VI’s Oaths Clause simply requires the persons specified therein to “be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution,” the Presidential Oath of Office Clause requires much more than this general oath of allegiance and fidelity. The clause, in notable part, enjoins the president to swear or affirm that he “will to the best of [his] Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The Framers undoubtedly drew upon similar provisions in a number of early state constitutions in drafting the clause, but they plainly believed that a special oath for the president was indispensable. At the Constitutional Convention, when George Mason and James Madison moved to add the “preserve, protect and defend” language, only James Wilson objected, on the ground that “the general provision for oaths of office, in a subsequent place, rendered the amendment unnecessary.” The prospect of George Washington’s becoming president cannot be discounted. The Framers perhaps desired an oath that would replicate the public values of the man who was presiding over the Convention. More significantly, because the presidency was unitary, there were no available internal checks, as there were in the other branches with their multiple members. A specially phrased internal check was therefore necessary, one that tied the president’s duty to “preserve, protect and defend” to his obligations to God, which is how the Founders understood what was meant by an oath or affirmation. As Justice Joseph Story noted in his A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1842):
A President, who shall dare to violate the obligations of his solemn oath or affirmation of office, may escape human censure, nay, may even receive applause from the giddy multitude. But he will be compelled to learn, that there is a watchful Providence, that cannot be deceived; and a righteous Being, the searcher of all hearts, who will render unto all men according to their deserts. Considerations of this sort will necessarily make a conscientious man more scrupulous in the discharge of his duty; and will even make a man of looser principles pause, when he is about to enter upon a deliberate violation of his official oath.
Presidents have traditionally sworn the oath on a Bible (Washington kissed the Bible at his inaugural) and have ended with “So help me God,” though the Constitution requires none of these gestures. A suit requesting a court order to prohibit the chief justice from prompting the “So help me God” phrase was dismissed for lack of standing. Newdow v. Roberts (2010).
The clause is tightly linked with Article II’s Take Care Clause, which requires that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The duty faithfully to execute the laws under the Constitution might be thought to presuppose a power to interpret what is to be executed: “to say what the law is,” to borrow a famous phrase from Chief Justice John Marshall. Indeed, some scholars—and presidents—have seized upon the clause as the font of the president’s power of “executive review,” the president’s coordinate power to interpret the Constitution and what is to be “preserved, protected, and defended,” even against conflicting interpretations by the legislative or judicial departments. The penultimate draft of the clause, referred by the Framers to the Committee of Style and Arrangement and reported by that committee, provides some support for this reading. That draft provided that the president act to the best of his “judgment and power,” instead of to the best of his “ability.” However, the Ninth Circuit has declared that the Presidential Oath of Office Clause does not allow the president to suspend the operation of laws that he believes are unconstitutional. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Lehman (1988).
Finally, the “preserve, protect and defend” language of the Presidential Oath of Office Clause might be thought to place a special constitutional duty on the president to fight for the nation’s survival, whether Congress has declared war or not. So thought President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.
Robert F. Blomquist, The Presidential Oath, the American National Interest and a Call for Presiprudence, 73 UMKC L. REV. 1 (2004)
Oath Management
Scott E. Gant & Bruce G. Peabody, Musings on a Constitutional Mystery: Missing Presidents and “Headless Monsters”?, 14 CONST. COMMENT. 83 (1997)
Joel K. Goldstein, The Presidency and the Rule of Law: Some Preliminary Explorations, 43 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 791 (1999)
Paul Horwitz, Honor’s Constitutional Moment: The Oath and Presidential Transitions, 103 NW. U. L. REV. 1067 (2009)
Frederick B. Jonassen, Kiss the Book . . . You’re President . . . : “So Help Me God” and Kissing the Book in the Presidential Oath of Office, 20 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 853 (2012)
Henry P. Monaghan, The Protective Power of the Presidency, 93 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1993)
Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Most Dangerous Branch: Executive Power to Say What the Law Is, 83 GEO. L.J. 217 (1994)
Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash, The Executive’s Duty to Disregard Unconstitutional Laws, 96 GEO. L.J. 1613 (2008)
Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Lehman, 842 F.2d. 1102 (9th Cir. 1988)
Oath Keepers militia leader Stewart Rhodes said that he has armed men on standby outside of Washington, D.C., to supposedly prevent the 2020 presidential election from being stolen from President Donald Trump. Echoing elements of the QAnon conspiracy theory during an appearance on far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ program, Rhodes said the only way to prevent his men from engaging in a “bloody fight” would be Trump declassifying information to supposedly expose pedophiles in the “deep state” and allow the president to stay in power.
Rhodes also indicated his militia will be involved in a rally to support Trump planned for this weekend in the nation's capital.
Oath Man Definition
Rhodes’ Oath Keepers militia, which comprises “former law enforcement officials and military veterans,” is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “one of the largest radical antigovernment groups in the U.S. today.” But, as Rhodes recent public comments have made clear, the organization’s purpose has shifted from opposing the government to instead act as a pro-Trump vigilante group that is willing to violently support Trump’s unjust attempts to stay in power after losing the 2020 election.
Oath Man The Last Kingdom
Rhodes joined Jones and Infowars host Owen Shroyer during the November 10 broadcast of The Alex Jones Show. Rhodes claimed that, in order to stop the election from being stolen from him, Trump needs to declassify information exposing members of the “deep state” so that Americans will “all know exactly who the pedophiles are.” According to Rhodes, judges -- including Supreme Court Justice John Roberts -- politicians, and members of the legal community, academia, and media are all part of the “deep state.” These comments echoed a central tenet of the QAnon conspiracy theory, which claims that Trump is engaged in a battle with a cabal of pedophile elites.
Rhodes said Trump should task special forces leaders in the military to gather and process the information because “he cannot trust the normal military intelligence services.” Noting that he has previously been opposed to U.S. military intervention in domestic matters, Rhodes said that in this case Trump should invoke The Insurrection Act to accomplish this goal.
Rhodes then said that, in support of Trump, “we have men already stationed outside D.C. as a nuclear option in case they attempt to remove the president illegally, we will step in and stop it” and emphasized that these men are “armed” and “prepared to go in, if the president calls us up.” In addition to activity outside of the capital, Rhodes said he will have Oath Keepers inside the city this coming weekend to support a caravan of Infowars supporters being led by Shroyer who say they will hold an event on November 14. The Infowars contingent is one of several far-right groups that say that they will rally in the city to support Trump. Stewart added that his group has been doing “recon” for the past week in the Washington, D.C., area.
Oath Man Meaning
Rhodes called on supporters of Trump to converge on the capital in the same manner as far-right militia members gathered at a Nevada ranch in 2014 to threaten federal law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce a court order against rancher Cliven Bundy. He also made it clear during his appearance that the only alternative to Trump staying in power would be violence, saying, “It’s either President Trump is encouraged, and bolstered, [and] strengthened to do what he must do or we wind up in a bloody fight. We all know that. The fight’s coming.”
Rhodes previously claimed during an appearance on Jones' show to have Oath Keepers stationed outside of Washington, D.C., for Election Day, to prevent an unhinged scenario he predicted in which opponents of Trump, aided by foreign terrorists, would storm the White House, and the Secret Service would run out of bullets, necessitating backup from members of his militia. While making those comments, Rhodes hyped the prospect of his Oath Keepers members engaging in widespread violence against the left in a civil war scenario.