A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
April 14, 2006SwearingOaths, that is. A newly-elected Florida village councilman is refusing to take his oath of office because it requires him to swear to support and defend the government of the United States. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution, and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida against all enemies, domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, loyalty and allegiance to the same and that I am entitled to hold office under the Constitution and that I will faithfully perform all the duties of the office of Councilmember of the Village of Tequesta on which I am about to enter so help me God." No oath, no office. Posted by Tully at April 14, 2006 11:21 AMComments
That indeed is going too far. Posted by: JP at April 14, 2006 12:02 PMAgreed. This clown is perfectly free to refuse to take this oath, unless he decides he wants the job after all. Posted by: bk at April 14, 2006 12:36 PMI guess this guy has refused to pay his taxes as well. That's far more supportive than taking an oath. Posted by: WHQ at April 14, 2006 02:00 PMFunny thing, Tully, after reading your intro graf, I didn't know whether this guy was an ultra conservative from Florida with Confederate sympathies or a loony on the Left who hated America just to hate it. Strange how when you get to the polar extremes, the differences tend to blur. Posted by: Staunch Moderate at April 14, 2006 02:30 PMI left out his specific objection on purpose, because the more important point is that if you want the job, you follow the rules under which you applied for it. Don't whine afterwards that they have to change the rules to suit you unless you want to be fired. He knew the rules. He's had the job before. Notice that he didn't come up with his stand until AFTER he won the election. Telling the voters about it when asking for their votes doesn't seem to be part of his personal equation. Posted by: Tully at April 14, 2006 03:27 PMPlus the Consititution of the United States requires it. Posted by: Cavalier829 at April 14, 2006 04:01 PMWell, no. The laws of the state of Florida and the city charter of his village do. I'm not familiar enough with the Florida constitution to know if it requires oaths for local (versus state) office. Posted by: Tully at April 14, 2006 04:59 PMIt is a part of the villages charter. Not required under the Florida Constititution. However, the charter is considered to get its authorization from the Florida Constitution. It would take the community voting on a charter amendment to change the oath. Not all charters contain these loyalty oaths to this level. I am guessing this is a 1940's or 1950's era charter by the wording. Most tend to just refer to upholding the Florida Constitution, et al. Posted by: Jim M at April 14, 2006 05:04 PMFrom the wording I suspect your dating is dead on target. All of my oaths have been "support and defend" the constitution(s) of the US and/or my state, and "bear true faith and allegiance to same" with no mental reservations or evasions. Never a word about the governments themselves, just about obeying lawful orders of superiors and such, yada yada. Posted by: Tully at April 14, 2006 05:24 PMOk, confirmed the intial incorporation as 1957. The oath is Section 2.03 and has never been amended according to the chater history. My guess is that it is possible a state court or state Supreme Court could invalidate the oath. The Florida Supreme Court tends to be one of the most unpredictable and independent. I would not be surprised to see them come up with some kind of reason to invalidate the oath. Nor would I be surprised to see them uphold it. Otherwise, the only way to change it is for the council to put an item into a referrendum to amend the charter. Posted by: Jim M at April 14, 2006 05:54 PMIs it possible his objection is on religious grounds and that he doesn't feel he can "swear by god" for whatever reason? Posted by: Wriley at April 14, 2006 06:26 PMThe oath in the charter does cover that by allowing the option to affirm instead of swear. So that is not an issue here. Posted by: Jim M at April 14, 2006 07:15 PMWriley--his objection is that he refuses to "support" the current administration because of the war, and thus is not obliged to swear and/or affirm that he will support the US government. Which is irrelevant--he has held the office before, he knew the conditions of assuming said office, and he refuses to abide by them. Had he objected before the election, I might have some sympathy. The voters would have had informed consent. But he did not. He waited until he was elected, and then he announced his desire to contest the established oath of office. IOW, he stood for election under false pretenses, actively lying to the voters. Were he one of MY elected officials, the counter-suit to bar him from taking his seat would be underway, as would the recall election as a backup. I'd lead the charge. In my mind, his objection in these circumstances is no different than knowingly breaking the oath he is supposed to take. And that's an opinion that would not change, regardless of his reasons. No oath, no office. That oath is the sovereign will of the people of his municipality, codified. If he doesn't like it there's a procedure for changing it, but that's not the one he's taking. Posted by: Tully at April 14, 2006 10:42 PMCavalier829 said... Plus the Consititution of the United States requires it.Actually, it doesn't. Article VI requires, inter alia, that "the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers . . . of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution." An oath of public office must include an oath to support the Constitution, but it is not required by the Constitution to include an oath to support the government. However, the Constitution does not prohibit states or any subdivision thereof from being bound and governed by additional oaths of office, and so I concur with Tully. No oath, no office. In the U.K., incidentally, members of Parliament have to swear an oath of fidelity to the Crown. This, needless to say, does not sit easily with those who would abolish the monarchy, so most of those who are elected to Parliament choose to lie, and take the oath anyway (needless to say, this oath will make abolishing the monarchy a difficult task indeed). In any event, to my knowledge, the only people elected to Parliament who have refused to take this oath are MPs who belong to Sinn Fein, who want to take Northern Ireland out of the Union to be incorporated into the Republic of Ireland. Needless to say, being of this view, they do not feel much like swearing an oath of fidelity to the Crown, and thus refuse. And are thus denied their seats, office space, staff and so on. No oath, no office. Posted by: Simon at April 18, 2006 09:12 AM |
Archives
July 2008
June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
July 4: Gasbag Edition
Independent Open Thread: Whatcha Doing This Weekend? Long Tail Controversy and Explanations Canadian Human Rights Commission No, Slavery Wasn't Competive With Free Labor Back online Irish Blogger Charged For Blogging Friday open thread Headline: Obama and Clinton Together in Unity There Is No EPA Document, There Is No EPA Document
|
