[Home] || [Previous] || [Contents]

CONCLUSION
A Proposed Alternative Oath

At first glance, the current oath seems so bland and unintrusive. Who could object to it? Let's review.

The Remedy

I would have thought that the State Bar would be much happier allowing me to take the oath I proposed than the one currently required by State Law. It more closely resembles the oaths required before World War II, before Nazis and Communists were given free reign in this country. Allowing religious beliefs to modify the oath is keeping with the spirit of the Constitution. Christians did not "support" the Constitution when it was first proposed. They believed that the "unalienable rights" which God had given to man transcended any particular form of government. The Free Exercise of Religion is one of those rights. My religion requires the taking of Theocratic oaths. The Constitution itself does not require an Attorney to take an oath to support a particular form of civil government.[11] Christians should thus be permitted to take a Theocratic Christian oath to support the legitimate moral interests of the State, without having to support the State itself.

I proposed to the State Bar, first, the addition of the lines struck down by the Torcaso decision. I believe the wording of the oath in the Delaware Constitution (1776) meets the Biblical requirements.

As a Christian, I would be swearing falsely if I affirmed the first half of the current oath. Under no possible interpretation do I "support the Constitution." But I do not object to any of the interests articulated by the State in requiring an oath of some kind. I therefore proposed the following lines, to be substituted for the lines concerning "support" for any constitution.

"Peaceful settlement of disputes"

The Court in Law Students Civil Rights Research Council, Inc. v. Wadmond, 401 U.S. 154 at 166, 91 S.Ct. 720 at 728, 27 L.Ed.2d 749 (1971), declared that the "support oath" assured the government that the applicant is "dedicated to the peaceful and reasoned settlement of disputes between men, and between a man and his government."

But America was built on the violent, revolutionary settlement of disputes between the colonists and their government. Whereas the regulation in Law Students was likely directed against leftists and communists, today the government is worried about militias and abortion-clinic bombers in a "vast, right-wing conspiracy."

Although for nearly ten years I have been a part of a movement widely regarded as "left-wing" (the Catholic Worker), I often attend John Birch Society and "militia" meetings. There I find a growing number on the "right" who, suspecting fundamental problems with the U.S. Government (and seeing the American flag waving on the tanks at Waco), are now unwilling even to say the Pledge of Allegiance. The words of Jefferson -

God forbid that we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
What country before, ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that his people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.[12]

- are summed up on a JBS bumper-sticker: "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."

In contrast, while agreeing with the diagnosis of the political "right," I believe that instead of shooting the British, we should have prayed for them.[13] Violent revolution - even that of 1776 - is never justified. Not even against ruthless kings, oppressive parliaments, or "unrepresentative" taxation. Christians do not shoot tax collectors, and therefore cannot "support the Constitution" -- a product of violent revolution against the State.

But if the government truly desires assurances concerning peaceful settlement of disputes, I can surely give them.

"Dissuading Others from Resorting to Violence."

Compare the concerns in the Schwimmer case.[14] The Court said Ms. Schwimmer could not become an American because she was a writer and speaker and might use her skills to persuade Americans not to trust their government.[15] It should be recalled that while courts and legislatures have carefully guarded against resort to force or violence,[16] the use of such force to overthrow an oppressive government is said to be a fundamental right of man (according to the Declaration of Independence) and the exercise of the right to violent revolution was instrumental in the founding of the present constitutional system.[17] Nevertheless, as a "non-violent anarchist," I repudiate violent revolution and am committed to persuading others to obey God's Law.

"Not Loyal to any Foreign State."

Cases concerning the inability of applicants to take support oaths or answer questions concerning political association have also turned on the question of their loyalty to a foreign state.[18] If I am not "loyal" to the American State, it follows a fortiorari that I am not loyal to any other contemporary State!

The oath I have suggested meets all the state's "compelling interests" and satisfies my desire to be true to God's Word.

I think I should be admitted to the Bar with this oath. Your comments or advice would be gratefully appreciated.

[Previous]  [Table of Contents]  [Home Page of Vine & Fig Tree]

NOTES

1. Del. Const. art. 22 (adopted Sept. 20, 1776), 1 Del. Code Ann. 117 (Michie, 1975).  [Return to text]

2. Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. 676, 685, 92 S.Ct. 1332, 1337; 31 L.Ed.2d 593 (1972).  [Return to text]

3. Ibid, 405 U.S. at 683, 92 S.Ct. at 1337.  [Return to text]

4. Ibid., 405 U.S., at 682, 92 S.Ct., at 1336. Citing Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. at 135, 87 S.Ct. at 349, 17 L.Ed.2d 235 (1966).  [Return to text]

5. Ibid., 405 U.S., at 684, 92 S.Ct., at 1337.  [Return to text]

6. In re Summers, 325 U.S. 561, 65 S.Ct. 1307, 89 L.Ed 1745 (1945); reh. den. 326 U.S. 807, 66 S.Ct. 94, 90 L.Ed. 491 (1945).  [Return to text]

7. Cole, above, note 2, 405 U.S., at 682, 92 S.Ct., at 1336. In the space of 2 [S.Ct.] pages, the Court uses the words "simply" or "merely" no less than five times (emphasis added to each occurrence in the notes above). But if obeying America's organic law is such a "simple" task, why have so many been unable to keep their solemn oaths? Perhaps they felt such an obligation was unimportant.  [Return to text]

8. In Whitehill v. Elkins, 389 U.S. 54, 88 S.Ct. 179, 19 L.Ed.2d 228 (1967), Maryland required teachers to affirm the following:

I, ____________, do hereby . . . certify that I am not engaged in one way or another in the attempt to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the State of Maryland, or any political subdivision of either of them, by force or violence. (389 U.S. at 55, 88 S.Ct at 185, 19 L.Ed at 230)

The Supreme Court would hear nothing of such an obviously unconstitutional oath. ("Are you now, or have you ever been Timothy McVeigh?") See the discussion of Schneiderman v. U.S., above, text at note 178.

In striking down an oath which on its face says nothing more than the oath upheld in Cole, dissenting Justice Harlan, joined by Justices Stewart and White, noted, "The only thing that does shine through the opinion of the majority is that its members do not like loyalty oaths." Whitehill, 389 U.S. at 63, 88 S.Ct. at 189, 19 L.Ed.2d at 235.  [Return to text]

9. Levinson, Constitutional Faith, at 148.  [Return to text]

10. The motto on The Great Seal of the United States. See on the reverse of the one-dollar Federal Reserve Note in your wallet, under the All-Seeing Eye atop the Pyramid (that great Christian symbol of liberty [?!?]). Interestingly,

This "reverse seal" was ignored by the government for a century and a half until Henry A. Wallace, Franklin Roosevelt's politically radical Secretary of Agriculture* and resident occult mystic, persuaded the Secretary of the Treasury to restore it to public view by placing it on the back of the one dollar bill, the most common currency unit. This was done in 1935, and remains with us still.
* It was under Wallace's Department of Agriculture, in the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) that the first major Communist cell in the federal government was formed in 1933, the Ware group. See Allen Weinstein, Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case (New York: Knopf, 1978), ch. 4: "The Ware Group and the New Deal."

G. North, Political Polytheism, above, note 127 at 405 [* - North's footnote.]  [Return to text]

11. California Petition, II.C., "The U.S. Constitution does not require sworn "support" of the Constitution from Petitioner," pp. 22-24; Petition for Certiorari, 16-17. (Citing Cammer v. U.S., 350 U.S. 399, 405, 76 S.Ct. 456, 459 (1956); In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717, 728, 93 S.Ct. 2851, 2858, 37 L.Ed.2d 910, 919 (1973).) See also New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274, 283n.15, 105 S.Ct. 1272, 84 L.Ed.2d 205, 212-213n.15 (1985).  [Return to text]

12. The Great Thoughts 209 (G. Seldes, ed., 1985).  [Return to text]

13. Matthew 5:41,44; Romans 13:1-10.  [Return to text]

14. U.S. v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, 49 S.Ct. 448, 73 L.Ed. 889 (1929).  [Return to text]

15. Discussed in the California petition at 16, text at note 36.  [Return to text]

16. Ibid., at 20, note 51.  [Return to text]

17. Ibid., at 27, note 79.  [Return to text]

18. Pre-American Common Law: Imbrie v. Marsh, 3 N.J. 578 at ---, 71 A2d 352 at 357, 363, 18 ALR2d 241 at 247, 253 (1950)(rival sovereigns);
Revolutionary America [Article VI, Section 3]: Imbrie at A2d 364, ALR2d 255; (England);
Civil War Era: Cohen v. Wright, 22 CalRptr 297 at 299 (1863)(brief for appellant), 307, 310, 311, 330; Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277 at 317, 327, 18 L.Ed 356 at 361, 364 (1867); Imbrie v. Marsh at A2d 365, ALR2d 256 (the Confederacy);
Cold War Era: Konigsberg (I) v. State Bar of California, 353 U.S. 252 at 298, 77 S.Ct. 722 at 745 (1957); cf. Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 at 130n31, 79 S.Ct. 1081 at 1095n.31 (1959); cf. Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 367 U.S. 1 at 5-9, 13-14, 51-55, 57, 81 S.Ct. 1357 at 1363, 1364, 1365, 1366, 1368, 1387, 1388, 1389, 1390 (1961); Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11 at 21, 86 S.Ct. 1238 at 1243 (1966); cf. Wilkinson v U.S. 365 U.S. 399 at 401, 404n5, 81 S.Ct 567 at 569, 571n5 (1961)(the Soviet Union);
Present: Imbrie at A2d 354, 355, 371, ALR2d 244, 245, 362; Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 at 515-16, 78 S.Ct. 1332 at 1336 (1958).  [Return to text]