PLEDGING TO DO ONE’S UTMOST, EVEN AT THE COST OF ONE’S LIFE
This language about “defending…against all enemies” connects
directly with another core part of the history of the oath that
illuminates the meaning of the promise being taken: the oath of fealty
taken by the person of lower rank (whether it be a knight to the king,
or a serf to the noble).
In exchange for the protection provided by the lord, the “obliged” person swears an oath of fealty — from the Latin word
fidelitas, or faithfulness — to commit himself fully to fight to protect the lord from enemies.
In that medieval world — a world beset by anarchy and the constant “war
of all against all” that anarchy entails — these reciprocal commitments
were a way of introducing a degree of order and coherence and
faithfulness to limit the general chaos and the brutal rule of raw
power. And the oath is brought in to harness the power of the sacred
order — and the power of people’s allegiance to it — to bolster this
effort to displace the chaos of mere gangsterism with the better order
of promises made in good faith.
In the oath of fealty, the vassal commits himself to defend the lord whenever needed —
no matter what, and to the utmost of his powers.
In the American system of government, the place of the “lord” (the
higher party, who is the overarching protector to those below him) is
taken by the Constitution of the United States. And quite fittingly,
too: for the Constitution is indeed the most vital protector of the
people of these United States.
And so each member of Congress is swearing a kind of fealty to that
great protective document, the Constitution of the United States.
AN OATH LEAVES NO ROOM FOR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
What is it, then, that they are promising to do? In particular,
what are they obligated to do under circumstances like the present,
when the Constitution of the United States is under unprecedented and
concerted assault from a lawless presidency? (Or even if there is a
reasonable suspicion — and who can honestly deny this much — that the Constitution is in need of defense?)
They have obligated themselves to defend the Constitution — and the
promise they make is complete and without any room for exceptions,
without any room for allowing
any other consideration to overrule it.
A politician — looking at the play of political forces currently in the
United States — might judge that it would be political suicide to
defend the Constitution against the present assault upon it, and he/she
might be right.
But the oath says, that doesn’t matter, Other considerations are
completely irrelevant. An oath has been taken — not qualified in any
way — to defend the Constitution, and so the oathtaker is obliged to
defend the Constitution even at the cost of his/her political career,
if that’s what it takes.
Just as the honorable knight is prepared to die in the defense of
the king, the honorable Member of Congress must be prepared to commit
political suicide in defense of the Constitution.
The word “utmost” appears in various forms of such oaths. And
accordingly, defending the Constitution in a partial or half-hearted
manner — defending it just “up to a point” — is a failure to honor the
oath. If the Member of Congress sees the Constitution under threat, the
Member is not only obliged to support measures to defend it, not only
obliged to take all possible measures to defend it, he/she is obliged
to strive to the utmost of his/her powers to defend it.
To do anything less is to break the oath. And to break the oath, as we
have seen, is to betray the sacred order that is invoked in the oath,
it is to commit a kind of treason against the political order, and it
is to invite punishment from the highest sources (political and/or
religious) of moral order.
IT IS UP TO US, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
Just as the Members of Congress cannot allow the president to get
away with his assault on the Constitution, so also we the citizens of
the United States cannot let the Members of Congress get away with
their failure to honor their oath of office.
That last statement points answers the objections I have heard that, in
stressing the importance of the oath, I am making an unwarranted
assumption that the people taking these oaths — i.e. our Members of
Congress — have a conscience and/or care about the sacred realm they
may invoke when placing a hand upon the Bible to swear to defend the
Constitution.
Although it would certainly help if the Members of Congress did have a
conscience and did take seriously the sacredness of their oath, that’s
in no way necessary for the success of the “You Swore on the Bible”
strategy.
The strategy of “You Swore on the Bible” is not one of a private
communication, in which an appeal to conscience is made. It is an
entirely public statement, intended to apply pressure on the Members of
Congress by affecting how they are perceived — and thus also how they
are regarded — by their constituents.
These people get elected to Congress by persuading the public that they
are upright, patriotic, God-fearing people. How can you be God-fearing
if you break a promise made before God — if you can commit “a crime
against God” — and think nothing of it? How can you be a patriot if —
by violating your oath of office — you indifferently commit a
treasonous act? How can you be upright if your promises mean nothing?
It all hinges on whether the American people can be roused to take the
oath of office seriously, and to see how thoroughly and dangerously
these politicians are violating that oath.
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
