[{"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":["10000133","\n\n\u003Carticle about=\u0022\/constitution\/articles\/6\/essays\/134\/oaths-clause\u0022 class=\u0022node node--type-constitution-essay node--promoted node--view-mode-embedded clearfix\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Ch1 class=\u0022title\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan\u003EOaths Clause\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/h1\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-location\u0022\u003E\n      Article VI, Clause 3\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-context\u0022\u003E\n      \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe 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....\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\u003EAlthough the practical application of the Constitution is largely in the hands of state judges, the primacy of the Constitution ultimately depends on officers of the law\u2014in particular, officers of each branch of government\u2014being equally bound to its support. In this sense, the Oaths Clause is the completion of the Supremacy Clause. Stated more precisely, the Oaths Clause, along with the president\u2019s oath of office prescribed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8, is the practiced mechanism to uphold the Constitution\u2019s supremacy as invoked in the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, Clause 2.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EIn England, subjects were required to swear loyalty to the reigning monarch; many early American documents included oaths of allegiance to the British king. During the American Revolution, General George Washington required all officers to subscribe to an oath renouncing any allegiance to King George III and pledging their fidelity to the United States. Most of the new state constitutions included elaborate oaths that tied allegiance to and provided a summary of the basic constitutional principles animating American constitutionalism. There was no oath in the Articles of Confederation.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EAt the Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph proposed, as part of the Virginia Plan, \u201cthat the Legislative Executive \u0026amp; Judiciary powers within the several States ought to be bound by oath to support the articles of Union.\u201d When it was objected that this would unnecessarily intrude on state jurisdiction, Randolph responded that he\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cblockquote\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003Econsidered it as necessary to prevent that competition between the National Constitution \u0026amp; laws \u0026amp; those of the particular States, which had already been felt. The officers of the States are already under oath to the States. To preserve a due impartiality they ought to be equally bound to the Natl. Govt. The Natl. authority needs every support we can give it.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe Oaths Clause helps to fulfill the Framers\u2019 plan to integrate the states into the electoral, policymaking, and executory functions of the federal union, subject to the limits of the Tenth Amendment. For example, the Supreme Court has held that Congress may not \u201cconscript\u201d the legislatures or executive officers of a state directly into federal service. \u003Cem\u003ENew York v. United States\u003C\/em\u003E (1992); \u003Cem\u003EPrintz v. United States\u003C\/em\u003E (1997). In\u003Cem\u003E The Federalist\u003C\/em\u003E No. 27, Alexander Hamilton offered a careful and nuanced description of the Oaths Clause: \u201c[t]hus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government \u003Cem\u003Eas far as its just and constitutional authority extends\u003C\/em\u003E; and will be rendered auxiliary to the enforcement of its laws.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EFor the sake of consistency and unity, the delegates amended the Oaths Clause to cover officers of the national government as well. Later, the delegates added the words \u201cor affirmation\u201d (to oblige the Quakers and other sects that refused oaths as a matter of religious doctrine) as well as the ban on federal religious tests (Article VI, Clause 3).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe simple declaration to \u201csupport the Constitution\u201d has constitutional significance at all levels of government. An opinion of the attorney general in 1875 declared that members of Congress do not assume office until the completion of the oath, but that a state may not question a state representative\u2019s motives and refuse to allow him to take the oath and his seat. \u003Cem\u003EBond v. Floyd\u003C\/em\u003E (1966). The oath was at the heart of Chief Justice John Marshall\u2019s opinion in \u003Cem\u003EMarbury v. Madison\u003C\/em\u003E (1803), obliging judges to give priority to the Constitution over ordinary legislative acts. Justice Joseph Story likewise stated in his \u003Cem\u003ECommentaries on the Constitution of the United States\u003C\/em\u003E (1833) that officers sworn to support the Constitution are \u201cconscientiously bound to abstain from all acts, which are inconsistent with it,\u201d and that in cases of doubt they must \u201cdecide each for himself, whether, consistently with the Constitution, the act can be done.\u201d But taking the oath does not relieve a judge from obedience to higher judicial authority, even if he thinks the higher court is acting contrary to the Constitution. \u003Cem\u003EGlassroth v. Moore \u003C\/em\u003E(2003). Beyond the mechanism of the separation of powers, the Oaths Clause places an independent obligation on officeholders to observe the limits of their authority.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe Framers\u2019 general understanding was that proscribing religious tests did not necessarily remove the religious significance of the general oath. \u201cThe Constitution enjoins an oath upon all the officers of the United States,\u201d Oliver Wolcott noted at the Connecticut ratifying convention. \u201cThis is a direct appeal to that God who is the avenger of perjury.\u201d Customarily, officeholders add the words \u201cso help me God\u201d at the completion of their oaths.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe very first law passed by the first session of the House of Representatives was \u201cAn Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain Oaths.\u201d Two days later, the chief justice of New York administered to the representatives an oath to \u201csolemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.\u201d The Senate amended the legislation to apply to state officers, who are also subject to Article VI. When Representative Elbridge Gerry objected that Congress had no authority to specify the oath of state officers, the response was that Congress was implicitly authorized by Article VI itself, if not by the Necessary and Proper Clause, to prescribe oaths for the states.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ECongress\u2019s argument was that the Constitution, by requiring public officials to be \u201cbound by Oath or Affirmation\u201d to support it, also empowered the Congress to decide on when such oath would be taken and what the oath would be. This understanding carried a broad interpretation of implied congressional power that was later used as justification for the Fugitive Slave Act in 1793\u2014another instance of Congress legislating specific rules for states to follow the much broader Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3). The breadth of Congress\u2019s authority would later be upheld, on similar grounds, by the Supreme Court in \u003Cem\u003EPrigg v. Pennsylvania\u003C\/em\u003E (1842). There is some doubt, however, whether Congress could constitutionally require an oath of state officials, because Article VI is not a grant of power to Congress and therefore cannot be implemented by the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18), though Congress can use the Necessary and Proper Clause to prescribe the oath for federal officers.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EDuring the Civil War, Congress promulgated an oath to require civil servants and military officers not only to swear allegiance to the United States but also to affirm that they had not engaged in any previous disloyal conduct. Congress repealed the latter condition in 1884, leaving wording that is nearly identical to the current oath taken by members and federal employees.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EUnder current law any individual elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, except the president, shall take the following oath: \u201cI, [name], 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.\u201d (5 U.S.C. \u00a7 3331.) By federal statute, all state officers shall take an oath in the simple form first promulgated in 1789. (4 U.S.C. \u00a7 101.)\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              \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--photo\u0022 style=\u0022background-image: url(\/sites\/default\/files\/Matthew_Spalding.jpg)\u0022\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--info\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Ch4 class=\u0022con-essay-author--name\u0022\u003E\n                      Matthew Spalding\n                  \u003C\/h4\u003E\n                  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--job\u0022\u003E\n         Associate Vice President and Dean of Educational Programs, Hillsdale College\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-10000133-taba\u0022\u003EFurther Reading\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000133-tabb\u0022\u003ECase Law\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000133-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-10000133-taba\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003E14 Op. Att\u0027y Gen. 406 (U.S. 1 AG 1875)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EPatrick O. Gudridge, \u003Ci\u003EThe Office of the Oath\u003C\/i\u003E, 20 Const. Comment. 387 (2003)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EHarold M. Hyman, To Try Men\u0027s Souls: Loyalty Tests in American History (1981)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGary Lawson, The Constitution\u2019s Congress, 89 B.U. L. REV. 399 (2009)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGary Lawson, Rebel Without a Clause: The Irrelevance of Article VI to Constitutional Supremacy, 110 MICH. L. REV. FIRST IMPRESSIONS 33 (2011)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ENash E. Long, The \u201cConstitutional Remand\u201d: Judicial Review of Constitutionally Dubious Statutes, 14 J.L.\u003Cbr\u003E\n\u0026amp; POL. 667 (1998)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EMATTHEW A. PAULEY, I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR: THE PRESIDENT\u2019S CONSTITUTIONAL OATH (1999)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EVic Snyder, You\u2019ve Taken an Oath to Support the Constitution, Now What? The Constitutional Requirement for a Congressional Oath of Office, 23 U. ARK. LITTLE ROCK L. REV. 897 (2001)\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-10000133-tabb\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EMarbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EPrigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 539 (1842)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EBond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116 (1966)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ENew York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EPrintz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGlassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2003)\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-10000133-tabc\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000016\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003ETrial of Impeachment\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000058\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003ENecessary and Proper Clause\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000084\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EOath of Office\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000132\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003ESupremacy Clause\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000134\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EReligious Test\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n\u003C\/article\u003E\n"]}]