[{"command":"add_css","data":[{"rel":"stylesheet","media":"all","href":"\/sites\/default\/files\/css\/css_veuEhhb1658wti0_ZAig66JOyixENU-N9zhjLQSLfOQ.css?delta=0\u0026language=en\u0026theme=heritage_theme\u0026include=eJwrTi1LzdNPzkksLq7Uy8tPSQUAPMsGtA"}]},{"command":"invoke","selector":null,"method":"openEssay","args":["10000084","\n\n\u003Carticle about=\u0022\/constitution\/articles\/2\/essays\/85\/oath-of-office\u0022 class=\u0022node node--type-constitution-essay node--promoted node--view-mode-embedded clearfix\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Ch1 class=\u0022title\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan\u003EOath of Office\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/h1\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-location\u0022\u003E\n      Article II, Section 1, Clause 8\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-context\u0022\u003E\n      \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EBefore he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: \u2014 \u0022I 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.\u0022\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-body\u0022\u003E\n    \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe 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\u2019s 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\u2014the clause limits how the president\u2019s \u201cexecutive power\u201d is to be exercised.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe 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\u2019s Oaths Clause simply requires the persons specified therein to \u201cbe bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution,\u201d 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 \u201cwill to the best of [his] Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe 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 \u201cpreserve, protect and defend\u201d language, only James Wilson objected, on the ground that \u201cthe general provision for oaths of office, in a subsequent place, rendered the amendment unnecessary.\u201d The prospect of George Washington\u2019s 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\u2019s duty to \u201cpreserve, protect and defend\u201d 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):\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cblockquote\u003EA 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.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EPresidents have traditionally sworn the oath on a Bible (Washington kissed the Bible at his inaugural) and have ended with \u201cSo help me God,\u201d though the Constitution requires none of these gestures. A suit requesting a court order to prohibit the chief justice from prompting the \u201cSo help me God\u201d phrase was dismissed for lack of standing.\u003Cem\u003E Newdow v. Roberts\u003C\/em\u003E (2010).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe clause is tightly linked with Article II\u2019s Take Care Clause, which requires that the President \u201cshall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.\u201d The duty faithfully to execute the laws under the Constitution might be thought to presuppose a power to interpret what is to be executed: \u201cto say what the law is,\u201d to borrow a famous phrase from Chief Justice John Marshall. Indeed, some scholars\u2014and presidents\u2014have seized upon the clause as the font of the president\u2019s power of \u201cexecutive review,\u201d the president\u2019s coordinate power to interpret the Constitution and what is to be \u201cpreserved, protected, and defended,\u201d 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 \u201cjudgment and power,\u201d instead of to the best of his \u201cability.\u201d 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. \u003Cem\u003ELear Siegler, Inc. v. Lehman \u003C\/em\u003E(1988).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EFinally, the \u201cpreserve, protect and defend\u201d 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\u2019s survival, whether Congress has declared war or not. So thought President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--media\u0022\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--info\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Ch4 class=\u0022con-essay-author--name\u0022\u003E\n                      Vasan Kesavan\n                  \u003C\/h4\u003E\n                  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--job\u0022\u003E\n         Investment Analyst, Valinor Management\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-tabs\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cul data-tabs class=\u0022tabs\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000084-taba\u0022\u003EFurther Reading\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000084-tabb\u0022\u003ECase Law\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000084-tabc\u0022\u003ERelated Essays\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n      \u003C\/ul\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv data-tabs-content\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000084-taba\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ERobert F. Blomquist, The Presidential Oath, the American National Interest and a Call for Presiprudence, 73 UMKC L. REV. 1 (2004)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EScott E. Gant \u0026amp; Bruce G. Peabody, Musings on a Constitutional Mystery: Missing Presidents and \u201cHeadless Monsters\u201d?, 14 CONST. COMMENT. 83 (1997)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EJoel K. Goldstein, The Presidency and the Rule of Law: Some Preliminary Explorations, 43 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 791 (1999)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EPaul Horwitz, Honor\u2019s Constitutional Moment: The Oath and Presidential Transitions, 103 NW. U. L. REV. 1067 (2009)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EFrederick B. Jonassen, Kiss the Book . . . You\u2019re President . . . : \u201cSo Help Me God\u201d and Kissing the Book in the Presidential Oath of Office, 20 WM. \u0026amp; MARY BILL RTS. J. 853 (2012)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EHenry P. Monaghan, The Protective Power of the Presidency, 93 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1993)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EMichael Stokes Paulsen, The Most Dangerous Branch: Executive Power to Say What the Law Is, 83 GEO. L.J. 217 (1994)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ESaikrishna Bangalore Prakash, The Executive\u2019s Duty to Disregard Unconstitutional Laws, 96 GEO. L.J. 1613 (2008)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000084-tabb\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ELear Siegler, Inc. v. Lehman, 842 F.2d. 1102 (9th Cir. 1988)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ENewdow v. Roberts, 603 F. 3d1002 (D.C. Cir. 2010)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000084-tabc\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000097\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003ETake Care Clause\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000133\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EOaths Clause\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n\u003C\/article\u003E\n"]}]