THE JURISPRUDENTIA CLUB
imprisonment; that law does not explicitly refer to violating the oath of office, which maybe violated with impunity in a variety of ways besides blatantly seditious advocacy.The Constitution requires a ritual oath or affirmation to be made by the elected presidentbefore taking office: “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take thefollowing Oath or Affirmation:—‘
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfullyexecute 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
.’ In 1789, the FirstCongress rendered the Presidential oath required by the Constitution into a simplefourteen-word assertion for all officers: "
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I willsupport the Constitution of the United States
."Again, an affirmation does not require swearing nor should it be called an oath. Anaffirmation, strictly speaking, would not include the imprecation, “so help me God,”which was later added, and its addition converts the preceding into an oath whether theperson privately considered his promise to be an affirmation or an oath. Neither should anaffirmation include the word ‘swear,’ but should allow for ‘declare’ instead.As for Congress, the Constitution provides a clause relevant to the silence the swearer ordeclarer may maintain on whether the she or he is swearing or affirming: “The Senatorsand Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several StateLegislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of theseveral States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but noreligious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust underthe United States.”The Constitution provides that, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try allImpeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.”Well, they promised to do impartial justice according to the Constitutions and the laws.President Clinton apparently perjured himself, wherefore, according to the prevailinginterpretation of the Constitution in respect to impeachment, which holds that presidentsshould only be removed from office for criminal behavior, period, i.e. for Treason,Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors, according to Article II of theConstitution.As for the judges referenced in Article III, their tenure depends on Good Behavior, yetsophists have managed to confuse that express provision with the requirement of ArticleII in order to secure the independence of judicial officers. Their confusion ends with theirself-interest, since they do not argue, for example, that a Secretary of State cannot beremoved except by impeachment. Congress, dominated by the legal profession, hasprovided for withholding cases from judges and for reprimanding them for misbehavior;however, the judges responsible for handling complaints against judges, although theymay recommend voluntary retirement, are not empowered to remove Article III judgesfrom the bench even though they may be deciding cases contrary to law, or engaged incriminal behavior, or are stark raving mad or otherwise incompetent.