Philadelphia Says BSA's Land Use in Jeopardy

[OldGreyEagle]

Ok you history nuts, and presidential trivia experts as well. Can anyone name one president of the United States (I only know one, there may be others) who never took the Oath of Office?

 

And yes there is a point

[NJCubScouter]

OGE asks:

 

Ok you history nuts, and presidential trivia experts as well. Can anyone name one president of the United States (I only know one, there may be others) who never took the Oath of Office?

 

And yes there is a point

 

Hmm. I never heard of a president not taking the oath of office but I can take a guess. Both Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon were Quakers. Quakers do not believe in taking oaths or in "swearing" (as in "I swear to faithfully execute the laws" etc.) They instead "affirm" (which is one of the reasons you often see in a written oath "I swear (or affirm." In fact, here is what the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, clause 8, says about the "oath of office" for the president:

 

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."

 

So right there, it says "oath or affirmation," and the new president may "affirm" rather than "swear."

 

So if the president who "never took the oath of office" is either Hoover or Nixon, I suspect that what one or both of them actually did was to take it as an affirmation rather than an oath. And my guess would be that Nixon took it as an oath but that Hoover did not.

 

How close am I?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

Pierce and Hoover affirmed:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pinotable.html

 

ed mori still won't understand that swearing is required to be optional under US law; even state constitutions that require swearing are voided by Torcaso v. Watkins.

[OldGreyEagle]

Nixon was the one I was thinking of, I knew those with more of a history background would point out if there were more. Related to this is Courtroom procedure, do you really think it means much to a muslim, hindu, etc to swear to tell the truth with his/her hand on the bible? (do they do that anymore? I havent been in a courtroom in a long time and try to stay as far away as legally possible)

 

Was just wondering what an Atheist president would do, would he/she swear or affirm? He/she would have to do something that did not compromise his belief or lack there of system.

 

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

I had heard that Nixon didn't swear too, but the Library of Congress site doesn't mention that, so I guess he did.

 

For courtrooms, I've heard it varies; some areas have a religious oath as the default, and you have to ask for the affirmation, while others just have you raise your right hand and say "do you swear or affirm..." and you would need to ask if you wanted to use a bible. Plus the ocassional buddhist who wants to break a plate.

 

I assume an atheist president would just affirm.

[NJCubScouter]

OGE asks:

 

Related to this is Courtroom procedure, do you really think it means much to a muslim, hindu, etc to swear to tell the truth with his/her hand on the bible? (do they do that anymore? I havent been in a courtroom in a long time and try to stay as far away as legally possible)

 

First of all, yes they still do that. (And as far as avoiding courtrooms, you are a wise man.) At least, in New Jersey they still do it, and I assume elsewhere as well. However, the witness is specifically asked to "swear or affirm." The affirmation is not an oath, it is a promise (sound familiar? Scout Oath or Promise? Swearing an oath, or affirming, or promising -- as far as the law is concerned, it is all the same thing. The point is that a witness, or person about to take a public office, is stating in a solemn manner that he/she will tell the truth or faithfully execute the duties of office, and the ceremonial aspect (hand raised, hand on Bible) is designed to impress upon that person (as well as the court, the jury, the public, etc.) the special importance of doing what he/she has promised to do. The "religious" aspect, in calling it an "oath" and saying "I swear," is optional. I suspect, though I am not positive, that placing one's hand on the Bible must also be optional. So if a Hindu or Muslim person did not want to place his/her hand on the Bible (or if a Jewish person decided not to place his/her hand on a Bible containing the New Testament), I do not think there would be any consequences. (Other than, if he/she was a witness in court, the jury might look at him funny and might be less receptive to his/her testimony, which they aren't supposed to do, but I am sure it happens.)

 

Was just wondering what an Atheist president would do, would he/she swear or affirm? He/she would have to do something that did not compromise his belief or lack there of system.

 

An atheist could "affirm" or possibly could feel that "swear" had no special significance to him/her other than a promise, and do it that way. By the way, presidents generally say the oath with their hand on a Bible, but I believe they provide the Bible -- usually a family bible. It could be the Koran or other book that is special or holy to that person. Or I guess it could be no book at all. And by the way, if Senator Lieberman were elected president or vice president (as he very nearly was), I assume he would take the oath on a family bible -- which would not include the New Testament.

 

This business of the oath (or affirmation) of office applies to every level of public office -- including all attorneys, including those in private practice. I have twice taken the oath of office as a member of my local school board, though as it happens we do not have the custom of taking the oath on a Bible. We currently have one member who was (from all appearances, anyway) born in India, I do not know whether he is Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or otherwise. We said the oath as a group so I do not know whether he actually said "swear" or "affirm."

 

 

[OutdoorThinker]

No where in the Consititution does it say that the President of the United States (or any other office holder) must place their hand on a Bible in order to take an oath of office. It just happens to be one of the long standing traditions and most presidents do either use a family Bible or a Bible of historic significane (like one that another president has been sworn in on). I dont think it would be a legal issue if someone wanted to take an Oath on the Koran or a Bible without the new testitment. I suppose a President could even take his or her oath of office on the Boyscout Handbook, if he or she really wanted to.