Oaths questioned as Trump's backers fight against loss

A Bible?

An atheist or non-Christian could easily argue that the oaths are outdated and don't apply to them.

I'm not a communist, so if I took an oath with my hand on Karl Marx's manifesto I would not consider it binding.

Sorry comrade, but American law states that the oath does not have to be on a Bible. In fact, it can be on anything or even nothing. Congress members have been sworn in on various texts including the Torah and the Quran.

So no, that ridiculous comment holds no water.

Also, I dare ANY of the seditious ReTrumplicans state that they didn't swear in on a Bible that they hold dearer to their heart than their own mothers. They'd be eaten alive by their own supporters.

We know that Trump never took his oath seriously....

But what happens when they are accused of doing the opposite?

That question needs to be asked to Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley and all other Republicans who turned their backs on the republic and joined the anti-American sedition caucus.

I can take an oath on an Archie comic or a copy of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition... really?

Yes, comrade. As the story puts it: "Legally, if not diplomatically." For swearing in federal office, which by the very Constitution does not permit a 'religious test,' you can swear in on anything or nothing.

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-brief-history-of-oaths-and-books

One can swear or affirm on anything and nothing. The text is immaterial. It is the act itself that binds one legally. Just like in certain contracts that can be legally binding, your word is your bond. The book doesn't matter, crossed fingers don't matter. Anyone who swears or affirms to uphold the constitution cannot "get out of it" because they were winking. Welcome to the real world, not the Trump/Hannity world. One is measured by their word and to break one's word or lie has consequences, legally so depending on the context.

A soldier who is ordered to shoot a civilian based on a order from a commanding officer can defy that order if they feel it violates their religion or conscience.

And that has what to do with your nonsensical line of questioning about oaths of office?

Nothing. In fact, three Presidents took the oath of office on a non-religious text. John Quincy Adams used a book of law. Teddy Roosevelt didn't use a Bible when he was sworn in after McKinley's assassination, and Lyndon Johnson used a Catholic missal after Kennedy was assassinated.

Typical silliness. One's decision to act in a certain manner based on their belief in a god does not abrogate their other obligations. If one breaks their extant oaths based upon a farcical aquatic ceremony, they have still broken their oaths. If one decides that their religion demands they kill their wife for coveting someone else's oxen, they still go to prison for murder. If one swears to uphold the constitution of the USA and chooses not to do so because a god told them to, they will be in great with their god but still on trial as an oath-breaker. One can stack their duties higher than a Texan steer, but they still go to the pokey for shop-lifting even if a god told them it was the right thing. Moreover, these are voluntary oaths at point. If one volunteers to make an oath they cannot keep, they are going to the place with pitchforks and flames, not harps halos and potted plants.

Not for religious people, they would consider their duty to their God above those to their government.

Most conservatives must not take their "duty" to god seriously.

I would say their duty is to the people first, by way of the constitution.

Who can take swearing on a bible or a stack of bibles (metaphor previously coined for just the type of hypocrisy exhibited by conservatives) serious anymore given the lack of "duty" shown.

A soldier who is ordered to shoot a civilian based on a order from a commanding officer can defy that order if they feel it violates their religion or conscience.

A soldier would be discharged for failing to meet their duty to defend the constitution they would be required to uphold. In the past, they have even been treated as criminals.

Conservatives in office should also be discharged for their failure to defend the constitution.

Where is the social distancing and mask wearing in that photo?

The elderly and minority groups are most at risk from the virus are they not?

There's a clause in the Constitution that says protect the Republic from enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Another vague accusation or is it an aspersion?

Seems that "domestic enemies" depends on the point of view if you are a so-called conservative.

A Bible?

An atheist or non-Christian could easily argue that the oaths are outdated and don't apply to them.

I'm not a communist, so if I took an oath with my hand on Karl Marx's manifesto I would not consider it binding.

Why is it often the case that those who protest most loudly about something know the least about it?

A Bible?

An atheist or non-Christian could easily argue that the oaths are outdated and don't apply to them.

I'm not a communist, so if I took an oath with my hand on Karl Marx's manifesto I would not consider it binding.

You definitely reveal here your lack of knowledge about how the USA works. For someone who argues so passionately for the US's leader, you really should learn more about how the US works - it's obviously quite different to your country.

A soldier who is ordered to shoot a civilian based on a order from a commanding officer can defy that order if they feel it violates their religion or conscience.

That is not what the Nuremburg trials said. It said a soldier given an order that violates the internationally accepted laws of war is bound to refuse to obey such an order. The Code of Conduct training we had in the US military was very specific on this matter. The US is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. The treaties were signed by a US President and ratified by the US Senate, effectively making them US Federal law. All military members are therefore bound by the rules of war laid out in the Geneva Conventions. We were taught that any order contrary to these was illegal and not to be obeyed. There was never once any mention of an order violating your religion or conscience. None whatsoever. It is all very legalistic. If an order bothers your conscience but is legal under the laws of war, then you can resign or refuse the order and take your punishment.

The problem with claiming those Representatives who protested the Electoral College votes of some states is somehow a violation of their oath of office is that these reps were following the procedure laid out in the Constitution for exactly that purpose. The Constitution allows members of Congress to object to Electoral College delegates. Whether one likes that or not, the process is right there in the US Constitution. One can make a legitimate argument they were doing their Constitutional duty. Now inciting a rebellion falls outside their Constitutional duties and a few members of both houses could possibly be prosecuted for this. For clarity I do not support their protest of the Electoral College results and think the claims of voter fraud are themselves a massive fraud. However they were within their rights under the law to raise the matter on January 6th.

The Bible and an oath mean nothing to the immoral religious right. They are just props to propagate their debased ideology!!!

All those who are pinning their hopes on the pious Pence need to realize that his pretentious piety is just that!!!

In our modern era oaths have long lost their power over the minds of men and have become meaningless mouthings, but that shouldn't mean that politicians should not be held accountable by law when they violate their oaths so brazenly as Trump and his Republican co-conspirators have done. It's no secret that the only oaths Trump takes seriously, knows or respects are the unprintable ones that pepper his vulgar language and help fill in for his tremendous deficit of "the best words".

I reckon a Dudist would put their hand on a copy of the "The Dude De Ching" for their swearing in. I'm surprised Mr. Trump didn't get sworn in on a stack of Penthouse magazines.

In nominating Merick Garland, Joe pointedly mentioned that the DOJ takes an oath to be loyal to the Constitution, not to him personally.

Way to twist the knife, Joe!

"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything."—Albert Einstein.

Every single one of these anti-democratic Trump enablers should be labeled and prosecuted by their rightfully earned name - coup plotter...