I Sort of Solemnly Swear
"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."
This oath attempts to center the intentions of our Congresspeople on the Constitution.
So. What exactly are our Congresspeople doing to protect and defend the Constitution? I don’t see or hear about anything. I searched my Congressperson’s website. The word “constitution” appeared only twice, and once was an address. “Constitutional” appeared only three times. By contrast, the word “democrat” (my Representative’s party) was used 132 times, and the word “republican” 31 times.
There’s plenty of evidence the oath doesn’t work. If it worked, we as constituents wouldn’t even expect our Representatives to “bring home the bacon.” If it worked, the Senate Majority Leader wouldn’t threaten the Supreme Court with a mob and a bullhorn. If it worked, articles of impeachment would not be the first order of business whenever different parties control Congress and the Presidency. Right now, the oath is simply empty words. Within days, if not hours, of the time that our Congresspeople take this oath, they forfeit its subject to their actual intentions in full view of the public.
In a court of law, we take an oath “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.” When I say, “so help me God,” I feel accountable to God to keep my promise. If I was thinking of misleading, adding those words would cause me to correct my behavior to my best ability. If everyone believed the same, we wouldn’t need further assurance. But just in case, if caught lying to a court, you can be charged with the crime of perjury.
Our oath of office doesn’t have the same backstop. Given the trend toward secular beliefs, how many officeholders actually feel a divine obligation once they’ve uttered those words? The phrase doesn’t do what was expected of it when adopted in the 1860’s. Would it be better to make this phrase elective in the oath? Even then, unfaithful people could deceive by including it.
I doubt many of our Congresspeople speak their oath with malicious intent. Instead, I suspect a casualness that diminishes its impact. If they are awestruck, or overwhelmed by the importance of their charge, it seems only momentary. “Constitution.” Right, said that word, checked that box, now to the reception. Then back to the business of maligning the other party at the behest of my own party’s leaders. Also, got some lobbyists to entertain!
Even those with the best intentions are compromised. Imagine yourself in the situation of a well-meaning new Congressperson. Your party requests (demands?) that you adopt and represent a position on a new issue. You recognize there are constitutional questions. You’ve taken an oath. But there is no consequence to ignoring the oath, and there is huge consequence to challenging your party leaders. You rationalize your choices to “get things done.” That Constitution thingy was great while it lasted.
Every member taking the same oath is a head fake. One would believe, then, that 535 Representatives and Senators are trying to protect and defend the Constitution. But that’s not true. Some have a completely different view of their office. Some want it gone! One way to fix it would be to have each member replace the words “the Constitution of the United States” with their own. Examples might include “the brotherhood of man,” or “the Democratic {or Republican} party platform,” or “the wealth of my constituency,” or “Donald Trump.” Their oath should describe their intention. That way, they wouldn’t mislead us into expecting something more noble. We would know what they stood for.
Assuming at least some of them would choose to keep the Constitution as their subject, they should demonstrate proficiency. To qualify their choice, they should be required to take a course, complete with a test, covering the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the subsequent amendments. Collectively, these documents are not long. But they include huge implications and uncomfortable ambiguities. How could the oath be meaningful to a person without such specific knowledge? And why should such knowledge be assumed? Actually, if the oath remains as is for everyone, wouldn’t it make sense for all new members to take such a course prior to taking the oath?
I acknowledge that our Congresspeople and their staff work very hard. The block-and-tackle effort to navigate the political landscape and operate our government is daunting. Personally, I think they do too much. Scrambling for votes on interminable tax-to-spend bills, or to condemn something, or to name new national days of recognition, leaves little time to share big thoughts on Constitutional issues. The truth is, they don’t have the capacity to take their oath seriously. But if that is their sworn duty, and they don’t have time to do it, who is supposed to do it instead? I think it is this neglect that we all feel so starkly right now.
This upside-down-ness of priorities should be fixed. Step one – change the oath similarly to what is described above. Step two – well, we can’t know until we’ve done step one…