U.S. Senate Oath of Office


Oath of Office

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.History of the Oath

At the start of each new Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate performs a solemn and festive constitutional rite that is as old as the Republic. While the oath-taking dates back to the First Congress in 1789, the current oath is a product of the 1860s, drafted by Civil War-era members of Congress intent on ensnaring traitors.

The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution.” In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

For nearly three-quarters of a century, that oath served nicely, although to the modern ear it sounds woefully incomplete. Missing are the soaring references to bearing “true faith and allegiance;” to taking “this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;” and to “well and faithfully” discharging the duties of the office.

The outbreak of the Civil War quickly transformed the routine act of oath-taking into one of enormous significance. In April of 1861, a time of uncertain and shifting loyalties, President Abraham Lincoln ordered all federal civilian employees within the executive branch to take an expanded oath. When Congress convened for a brief emergency session in July, members echoed the president’s action by enacting legislation requiring employees to take the expanded oath in support of the Union. This oath is the earliest direct predecessor of the modern oath.

When Congress returned for its regular session in December 1861, members who believed that the Union had as much to fear from northern traitors as southern soldiers again revised the oath, adding a new first section known as the “Ironclad Test Oath.” The war-inspired Test Oath, signed into law on July 2, 1862, required “every person elected or appointed to any office … under the Government of the United States … excepting the President of the United States” to swear or affirm that they had never previously engaged in criminal or disloyal conduct. Those government employees who failed to take the 1862 Test Oath would not receive a salary; those who swore falsely would be prosecuted for perjury and forever denied federal employment.

The 1862 oath’s second section incorporated a more polished and graceful rendering of the hastily drafted 1861 oath. Although Congress did not extend coverage of the Ironclad Test Oath to its own members, many took it voluntarily. Angered by those who refused this symbolic act during a wartime crisis, and determined to prevent the eventual return of prewar southern leaders to positions of power in the national government, congressional hard-liners eventually succeeded by 1864 in making the Test Oath mandatory for all members.

The Senate then revised its rules to require that members not only take the Test Oath orally, but also that they “subscribe” to it by signing a printed copy. This condition reflected a wartime practice in which military and civilian authorities required anyone wishing to do business with the federal government to sign a copy of the Test Oath. The current practice of newly sworn senators signing individual pages in an elegantly bound oath book dates from this period.

As tensions cooled during the decade following the Civil War, Congress enacted private legislation permitting particular former Confederates to take only the second section of the 1862 oath. An 1868 public law prescribed this alternative oath for “any person who has participated in the late rebellion, and from whom all legal disabilities arising therefrom have been removed by act of Congress.”  Northerners immediately pointed to the new law’s unfair double standard that required loyal Unionists to take the Test Oath’s harsh first section while permitting ex-Confederates to ignore it. In 1884, a new generation of lawmakers quietly repealed the first section of the Test Oath, leaving intact today’s moving affirmation of constitutional allegiance.Taking the Oath

At the beginning of a new term of office, senators-elect take their oath of office from the presiding officer in an open session of the Senate before they can begin to perform their legislative activities. From the earliest days, the senator-elect—both the freshman and the returning veteran—has been escorted down the aisle by another senator to take the oath from the presiding officer. Customarily, the other senator from the senator-elect’s state performs that ritual. Occasionally, the senator-elect chooses a senator from another state, either because the same-state colleague is absent or because the newly elected senator has sharp political differences with that colleague. Such public displays of these differences do not go unnoticed by journalists.

A ban on photography in the Senate chamber has led senators to devise an alternative way of capturing this highly symbolic moment in their Senate careers. In earlier times, the Vice President invited newly sworn senators and their families into his Capitol office for a reenactment for home-state photographers. Beginning in the late 1970s, following the restoration of the Old Senate Chamber to its appearance at the time it went out of service in 1859, reenactment ceremonies have been held in that deeply historical setting, resplendent in crimson and gold.

Source: senate.gov

Jeff Sessions can’t explain why the FBI investigates ‘Black extremists’ but not the KKK


Jeff Sessions and the FBI are making up Black extremist groups to justify surveillance of our protest movements.

Dear Friends,

Jeff Sessions and the FBI are working to undermine Black organizers. Which is why we have been suing the FBI and Homeland Security to release documents demonstrating their years of surveillance and criminalization of our movements.

We can win this case, but we need your help. Lawsuits like this can take months or even years. They’re hoping that we’ll back down before we can win. They’re hoping we run out of resources and money. We can’t let that happen. Will you join the legal fund to fight against anti-Black surveillance and become a sustaining donor?

On Tuesday, Jeff Sessions was intensely grilled by Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) about the FBI’s fallacious “Black Identity Extremist” classification – a nonsense term the FBI uses to intentionally conflate Black activists and organizers with dangerous domestic terrorist organizations, like the KKK and violent neo-Nazi groups.1

When asked whether he believes there is an organization of Black people that identify themselves as “Black Identity Extremists” and whether they have committed violence against police officers Sessions invented an unnamed Black group he claims killed four police officers in the last year.2 When asked whether he’s using the “Black Identity Extremist” classification to illegally surveil the movement for Black lives – Sessions refused to comment.

Even though Sessions refuses to come clean about the extent of the government’s anti-Black surveillance, we have the power to force the FBI to answer us through our lawsuit.

Help us win our lawsuit against the FBI and DHS to expose their anti-Black surveillance by becoming a monthly donor. 

Government surveillance of Black organizes serves not only to keep tabs on our people, but also to intimidate from fighting for justice. Surveillance is a tool of fear. It is a tactic to reinforce white supremacy. Again and again, we’ve seen these agencies target activists of color for simply demanding an end to police violence:3

  • In 2015, DHS revealed they had been tracking protesters and attendees of the Funk Music Parade, in Washington, DC and a walk to end breast cancer in a historically Black neighborhood.4 5
  • Before the Republican National Convention last year, the FBI and DHS agents went door-to-door to the homes of Black Lives Matter activists and community organizers in Cleveland, Ohio, to interrogate them about their protest plans.6
  • In 2014, a FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force surveilled a December 2014 BLM protest at the Mall of America.7

The new “Black Identity Extremist” classification will make this surveillance even easier. This surveillance violates the First Amendment, chilling protesters from speaking out, and is eerily reminiscent of the surveillance of the Black Panther Party under FBI’s notorious and illegal COINTELPRO program.

Because of these revelations, in 2016, we decided to file a lawsuit in partnership with the Center for Constitutional Rights after the FBI and DHS refused to disclose documents about their surveillance of people protesting police brutality and racial injustice. Winning this lawsuit will uncover documents that show a long-standing agency culture that criminalizes Black dissent and paints Black protest as a domestic terror or extremist threat.

The “Black Identity Extremist” classification seeks to make being Black and against police violence a crime. But being Black and exercising our right to protest are not crimes, let alone activities that justify being monitored or repressed by counterterrorism units. We have the right to know how and why the federal government is surveilling our constitutionally protected protests of police violence and we will not stop until we get answers and end these illegal tactics.

Help us win our lawsuit against the FBI and DHS to expose their anti-Black surveillance by becoming a monthly donor. 

— Brandi, Rashad, Arisha, Johnny, Evan, Jade, Corina, Chad, Saréya and the rest of the Color Of Change team.

References

1. “‘Jeff Sessions Knows There Are Definitely Black Terror Groups but Can’t Seem to Remember Any White Ones,” Splinter News, 14 November 2017. https://act.colorofchange.org/go/10647?t=18&akid=8179%2E1174326%2EYkw5Dv

2. “Rep. Karen Bass blasts Jeff Sessions over Justice Department report on ‘black identity extremists’,” RawStory, 14 November 2017. https://act.colorofchange.org/go/10648?t=20&akid=8179%2E1174326%2EYkw5Dv

3. “EXCLUSIVE: FEDS REGULARLY MONITORED BLACK LIVES MATTER SINCE FERGUSON,” The Intercept, 24 July 2015. https://act.colorofchange.org/go/5394?t=22&akid=8179%2E1174326%2EYkw5Dv

4. “Homeland Security Is Tracking Black Lives Matter. Is That Legal?,” Mother Jones, 30 July 2015. http://act.colorofchange.org/go/10649?t=24&akid=8179%2E1174326%2EYkw5Dv

5. “EXCLUSIVE: FEDS REGULARLY MONITORED BLACK LIVES MATTER SINCE FERGUSON,” The Intercept, 24 July 2015. https://act.colorofchange.org/go/5394?t=26&akid=8179%2E1174326%2EYkw5Dv

6. “FBI AND POLICE ARE KNOCKING ON ACTIVISTS’ DOORS AHEAD OF REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION,” The Intercept, 23 July 2016. https://act.colorofchange.org/go/10650?t=28&akid=8179%2E1174326%2EYkw5Dv

7. “WHY WAS AN FBI JOINT TERRORISM TASK FORCE TRACKING A BLACK LIVES MATTER PROTEST?,” The Intercept, 12 March 2015. https://act.colorofchange.org/go/10651?t=30&akid=8179%2E1174326%2EYkw5Dv