Oath to the Constitution: What Adherence Truly Means
“If their duty, their honor, and their oaths will not bind them, let us not put into their hands our liberty and all our other great interests.”
These are the powerful words of Gouverneur Morris, the “Penman of the Constitution” and author of its preamble.
Morris did not mince words during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, and his warning remains essential today.
Politicians across the spectrum routinely violate their oaths to the Constitution, and rarely, if ever, face accountability.
Why? Perhaps the answer lies in ignorance, fear, or a lack of self-respect among the people who tolerate these transgressions.
Let’s explore the original understanding of the oath to the Constitution, its foundational importance, and the dire consequences of its neglect.
The Oath: A Foundational Principle
The Constitution clearly outlines the requirement of an oath in two places.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 prescribes the presidential oath: “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.”
For all other officers – federal and state – Article VI, Clause 3 mandates an oath or affirmation “to support this Constitution.”
This comes with a critical caveat: no religious test “shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
The founding generation viewed the oath as so essential that Congress made it their first legislative act, and President George Washington signed it into law on June 1, 1789.
This landmark legislation regulated the administration of oaths, and provided a straightforward text: “I, A.B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”
This simplicity underscores the oath’s critical importance to the founding generation.
Violating the Oath: A Serious Breach
St. George Tucker, a leading legal scholar of the early Republic, articulated the gravity of violating one’s oath.
In his View of the Constitution of the United States, Tucker wrote: “Acts of Congress, to be binding, must be made pursuant to the Constitution; otherwise, they are not laws, but a mere nullity or, worse, acts of usurpation.”
Tucker emphasized that unconstitutional acts amount to a theft of power from the people – a betrayal that turns final authority over to those who seize power unlawfully.
“Every such act is an act of usurpation in the government, and, as such, treason against the sovereignty of the people, which is thus endeavored to be subverted, and transferred to the usurpers.”
Tucker explained the duty under the oath to oppose all usurpations of power:
“The people are not only not bound by them, but the several departments and officers of the governments, both federal, and state, are bound by oath to oppose them.”
He then elaborated on the gravity of this responsibility:
“For, being bound by oath to support the constitution, they must violate that oath, whenever they give their sanction, by obedience, or otherwise, to any unconstitutional act of any department of the government.”
By this standard, any official who enforces or supports unconstitutional acts – even through mere acquiescence – is guilty of violating their oath.
The Modern Reality
Today, the federal government operates far beyond the limits of the Constitution, making it virtually impossible for officials to remain faithful to their oaths.
As Tucker observed, even mere obedience to an unconstitutional act constitutes a violation of one’s oath.
The consequences of this systemic failure are profound. As Gouverneur Morris warned, entrusting power to those who disregard their oaths jeopardizes liberty itself.
If people with power lack the honor and integrity to uphold the Constitution, what is the point of giving them authority over our lives and freedoms?
An Appeal to Heaven
The founding generation understood an oath as an appeal to a higher power. As Oliver Wolcott explained during the Connecticut Ratifying Convention, an oath was “a direct appeal to that God who is the Avenger of Perjury.”
Similarly, James Iredell of North Carolina described it as “a solemn appeal to the Supreme Being for the truth of what is said.”
This belief reflected the deeply ingrained notion that an oath bound individuals to their word under divine scrutiny. It was not merely a formality but a sacred commitment.
Skepticism and Debate
Despite the widespread reverence for oaths, some of the founders expressed concerns.
Anti-Federalists feared the consolidation of power under the new Constitution and questioned whether the oath might exacerbate this trend.
Luther Martin, for instance, opposed requiring state officers to swear allegiance to the federal Constitution, arguing that it could conflict with their obligations under state constitutions.
Melancton Smith of New York proposed a reciprocal oath, requiring federal officials to swear to uphold state constitutions.
Without such balance, he believed the federal government would eventually overwhelm the states.
On the Federalist side, skepticism also existed. James Wilson dismissed oaths as a mere “left-handed security” and argued that good governance depended more on the character of officials than on formal promises.
Wilson elaborated during the Philadelphia Convention: “A good government did not need them, and a bad one could not or ought not to be supported.”
Edmund Pendleton similarly questioned the efficacy of oaths, suggesting they were meaningless without a belief in divine accountability.
Pendleton elaborated in a letter to James Madison: “My last Criticism you will probably laugh at, tho’ it is really a Serious one wth. me. Why require an Oath from Public Officers, and yet interdict all Religious Tests, their only Sanction?”
Pendleton believed this contradiction undermined the moral force of oaths. He continued:
“Those hitherto adopted have been narrow & illiberal, because designed to preserve Established modes of Worship; But since a belief of a future State of Rewards & Punishments, can alone give consciensious Obligation to Observe an Oath, It would seem that Test should be required or Oaths Abolished.”
Despite this opposition from both sides, the vast majority at the founding were on board with the principle behind the oath – adherence to the Constitution. Edmund Randolph described that principle like this:
“The senators and representatives, members of the state legislatures, and executive and judicial officers are bound by oath or affirmation to support this constitution, but this only binds them to support it in the exercise of the powers constitutionally given.”
A Call to Action
The founding generation recognized that the ultimate responsibility for holding officials accountable rests with the people.
As John Dickinson explained, it’s up to the people of the several states to keep the federal government within the bounds of the Constitution:
“IT IS THEIR DUTY TO WATCH, AND THEIR RIGHT TO TAKE CARE, THAT THE CONSTITUTION BE PRESERVED.”
This duty is not passive. Dickinson likened it to the Roman tradition of vigilance during perilous times: “TO PROVIDE, THAT THE REPUBLIC RECEIVE NO DAMAGE.”
Government-run schools and mainstream narratives often obscure this truth, promoting the illusion that only the government can check its own power.
In reality, it is up to the people to enforce the Constitution in part by refusing to support those who betray their oaths.
As St. George Tucker and others emphasized, acts of usurpation should be met with firm resistance, not compliance.
This principle remains as relevant today as it was in the founding era. Restoring fidelity to the Constitution also requires a vigilant and informed populace willing to hold their representatives to the highest standards.
The question remains: will “We the People” rise to this challenge, or will they allow the betrayal of the Constitution to continue unchecked?
Latest posts by Michael Boldin (see all)