When a New President Swears In, Do They Actually Swear to Defend the Entire US Constitution?

The Oath of Office and Its Implications

When a new president takes the oath of office, many wonder if they are required to defend the entire US Constitution. In reality, the answer is more nuanced and less about a blanket defense than some might think. The oath does not state that the president must defend the entire Constitution, but rather that they must defend the portions of the Constitution that they personally prioritise. This article delves into the intricacies of the presidential oath of office and its implications for constitutional defense.

The President's Constitutional Responsibilities

The presidential oath of office clearly states:

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.

The key phrase here is 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.' However, it is important to note that the words 'whole' or 'entire' are not explicitly mentioned. This is a critical point often overlooked by those who suggest that a president can cherry-pick which parts of the Constitution they defend.

The Historical Context

The U.S. presidential oath of office has remained largely unchanged since George Washington took the oath over 220 years ago. It has been a cornerstone of the American political system, ensuring that every president swears to uphold the Constitution. This historical consistency underscores the fact that the oath is not meant to be selective but is a commitment to the entire document, albeit with the words 'preserve, protect, and defend' taken to mean a commitment to all its parts.

Modern Interpretations and Criticisms

In recent times, some critics, particularly those from the Republican Party, argue that the Constitution should be seen more as a guideline than a rigid set of rules. This perspective is fundamentally different from the traditional view that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It suggests that a president can prioritize certain parts of the Constitution over others, based on political or personal preferences.

Historically, presidents have often taken a broad approach to their constitutional responsibilities, with a focus on national security, diplomacy, and domestic affairs. However, the post-Bush 41 era has seen a shift, with some presidents, perhaps due to strategic or political priorities, engaging in foreign interventions that some critics view as unnecessary or misguided.

The Alleged Breach of Constitutional Oath

Biden, like many other presidents, has not faced legal consequences for not fully adhering to the entire Constitution. This has led some to argue that presidential oaths of office are merely symbolic and not binding in the way they should be. However, the Constitution itself does not impose specific penalties for non-compliance. Instead, it relies on the democratic process to hold elected officials accountable.

It is worth noting that the real test of whether a president has upheld their constitutional obligations lies in how they govern, make decisions, and interact with other branches of government. Compliance is often a matter of degree and interpretation, rather than a strict adherence to every jot and tittle.

Conclusion

While the presidential oath of office does not explicitly state that the president must defend the entire Constitution, the commitment to 'preserve, protect, and defend' suggests a duty to uphold the document as a whole. The oath remains a crucial part of the American political system, affirming the importance of the Constitution in guiding the executive branch. Whether a president prioritises certain parts of the Constitution over others, and to what extent they live up to their oath, is a subject of ongoing debate and scrutiny.