It the US Presidential oath unconstitional?

[Number Six]

I was skimming through the US Constitution for other reasons and I came across the oath for the Presidency. I didn't even know the oath for the Presidency was in the US Constition.

Anyway, every oath I've ever heard a President take said "so help me God" at the end. But the verison in the Constitution doesn't have that. I wonder when they started using "so help me God" at the end. Here is what it says:


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 Don]

I don't have a real problem with the individuals in question taking that oath on the grounds that Presidents need to express a belief in a Christian God to get elected. Tacking that on to the end of the oath seems to me to say that they're taking the oath really seriously.

If, by some chance, someone got elected who didn't believe in a single god was able to say "so help me Gods", or miss that bit out then fair enough.

What does annoy me is that the chance of someone like that getting elected any time in the forseeable future is zero. My atheist position leads me to consider that believing in God is as rational as believing in the tooth fairy. Do I really want a loony in charge of the whole world ?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Number Six
Anyway, every oath I've ever heard a President take said "so help me God" at the end. But the verison in the Constitution doesn't have that. I wonder when they started using "so help me God" at the end. I don't remember who first used the phrase "so help me God" at the end of the oath, but it's a personal (and now traditional) addition and isn't required for taking the office.

I don't see it as conflicting with the First Amendment, per se.

[Brown]

Correct, "so help me God" is not a part of the oath. Presidents choose to use it. (I have heard that when Judge Hughes swore in Lyndon Johnson, she added it without prior approval, but Johnson would almost certainly have asked her to add it anyway.)

Notably, presidents do make arrangements with the judge prior to the oath, so that the judge will say the proper thing. One thing the judge needs to know is the name to be used in the oath. President Carter, for example, took the oath as "Jimmy Carter" (not as James Earl Carter) to the surprise of many (including Dan Aykroyd, who spoofed him taking the oath: "I, James Earl 'Jimmy...'").

It would take a courageous president to take the oath without adding "so help me God," but I believe it could be done. The president could remind the people that "so help me God" is not a part of the Constitutional oath, and s/he could say that s/he chose to take the oath as written in the Constitution.

[Brown]

Adding the words "so help me God" does not offend me, Constitutionally or otherwise (as long as the one taking the oath does indeed believe in God).

Neither would I be offended if the swearing party invoked the name of any other deity (although it would certainly bother quite a few people).

If memory serves, not all presidents have taken the oath in exactly the correct way. Richard Nixon in 1972 added a word, saying that he would "preserve and protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Nixon went on to face impeachment for violation of this oath (resigning 9 August 1974 before impeachment was accomplished), but his "unconstitutional" addition of the word "and" to the oath was never in issue.

[Skeptic]

Things like saying "so help me God" on taking an oath, or swearing on the bible in the courtroom, or having the phrase "in god we trust" on money, are constitutional.

The reason is that these things fall into the category known as "ceremonial deism". If such a mention of God has traditionally been used, and lost through rote repetition any actual meaning it might have had, and is done without any intention to convert or force people to any religion, (presumably no Hindu or Buddhist, say, ever converted to Christianity since he saw the phrase "in god we trust" on an American dollar), then it is constitutional, presumably since it isn't really a religions statement any more, but a meaningless ceremony.

Many people disagree with the idea that any mention of God by the government could truly be "ceremonial". But as it is, it IS constitutional, at least until challaged again and the SC reversing itself, which could happen.

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by Number Six
I was skimming through the US Constitution for other reasons and I came across the oath for the Presidency. I didn't even know the oath for the Presidency was in the US Constition.

Anyway, every oath I've ever heard a President take said "so help me God" at the end. But the verison in the Constitution doesn't have that. I wonder when they started using "so help me God" at the end. Here is what it says:


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."

Un-Constititional, No. Un-Christian? Yes!

"33": Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: "34": But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: "35": Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. "36": Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. "37": But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

[Ladewig]

The reason is that these things fall into the category known as "ceremonial deism". If such a mention of God has traditionally been used, and lost through rote repetition any actual meaning it might have had, and is done without any intention to convert or force people to any religion, (presumably no Hindu or Buddhist, say, ever converted to Christianity since he saw the phrase "in god we trust" on an American dollar), then it is constitutional, presumably since it isn't really a religions statement any more, but a meaningless ceremony.


Usually, I can find a way to state my position without raising hackles on fundamentalists (e.g. "I don't want school prayer because I believe prayer is too important to leave to public school teachers"). If I ever want to raise the level of discourse in such a situtation, I will throw out the ceremonial deism argument: "Oh, I have no trouble with the mention of God on the money or in the oath of office, Reverend Billy Bob, because like the U.S. legal system, I realize that it doesn't mean anything when used in this way."

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Things like saying "so help me God" on taking an oath, or swearing on the bible in the courtroom, or having the phrase "in god we trust" on money, are constitutional.

The reason is that these things fall into the category known as "ceremonial deism". If such a mention of God has traditionally been used, and lost through rote repetition any actual meaning it might have had, and is done without any intention to convert or force people to any religion, (presumably no Hindu or Buddhist, say, ever converted to Christianity since he saw the phrase "in god we trust" on an American dollar), then it is constitutional, presumably since it isn't really a religions statement any more, but a meaningless ceremony.

Many people disagree with the idea that any mention of God by the government could truly be "ceremonial". But as it is, it IS constitutional, at least until challaged again and the SC reversing itself, which could happen.

If these references to God are meaningless ceremony, why are so many people adamantly against their removal? :confused: