What if you break an oath

I see the oath as having 3 important aspects. First, the employee swears to support and defend the Constitution against enemies. Federal workers often hear a career supervisor or political appointee talking about loyalty to the agency or the boss.

One purpose of the Oath of Office is to remind federal workers that they do not swear allegiance to a supervisor, an agency, a political appointee, or even to the President. The oath is to support and defend the U. Constitution and faithfully execute your duties. The intent is to protect the public from a government that might fall victim to political whims and to provide a North Star — the Constitution — as a source of direction.

Other laws have been enacted that support that view. For example, in , Congress passed and President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Hatch Act. The Oath does not remove ambiguity and it is not always easy for an employee to know what to do. Here are a few examples:. Federal workers are accountable to the people. Whether an employee was a Trump supporter or a Biden supporter, a supporter of another candidate, or someone who chooses not to vote at all is not relevant to the oath of allegiance to the Constitution.

Nor is it relevant to the promise to do a good job. Most federal employees are highly professional. They understand their oath of office and take it seriously. Even though many political appointees in every Administration do not recognize the professionalism of federal workers on the day they take their own oath of office, as their experience with federal workers increases, in previous Administrations they have come to recognize the vital role federal employees play.

I have been hearing more and more from people who say that federal workers should support the President more, or that federal workers should actively work against the President. I heard that to a lesser degree in previous Administrations too. The Canadian House of Commons has from the beginning reserved the right to refuse to let a Member take his or her seat, and to discipline or expel any of its Members. There is ample precedent for this practice in Canada, and in other parliamentary systems.

Before Confederation, expulsions were effected in Canada in , , , and Members have frequently challenged the right of other Members to sit and vote. In addition to the expulsion of Louis Riel, there have been a number of serious investigations with respect to the propriety of allowing certain Members to remain in office. Members of provincial legislatures and assemblies are required by section of the Constitution Act, to take the same oath as federal Members of Parliament.

Individuals advocating various forms of separation have been elected to provincial legislatures in Canada. For example, in the wake of Confederation, the anti-confederates gained control of the provincial legislature in Nova Scotia, and eventually formed the government. There is no evidence that any problem or issue arose over their taking the oath of allegiance. As such, the Queen represents the state or the province , and is a symbol rather than an identifiable individual.

Section 15 of the National Assembly Act. Writers on parliamentary law Beauchesne, 4th ed state that the oath of allegiance to the Queen required by section of the British North America Act refers to allegiance to the country, while the oath required by section 15 of the National Assembly Act is an oath of allegiance to the people and Constitution of Quebec.

This distinction between the two oaths, and description of the constitutionally required oath, presumably enables Members to take the oaths who might otherwise object to doing so. There have been cases where "separatist" parties and individuals have been elected to legislatures in other countries. Again, few specific examples have been found of the failure or refusal to take an oath of allegiance or of allegations that a Member violated or breached such an oath.

Such individuals have often advocated devolution, and other forms of political restructuring. As they would not necessarily have opposed the continuation of the monarchy, however, they would probably have had no great difficulties in swearing an oath of allegiance to the Crown.

More problematic is the case of Irish Catholic members of the British Parliament who advocate unification of Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland. No cases have been found, however, where a duly elected Member did not take the oath, or was alleged to be in violation of it.

There were problems, however, before the establishment of the Republic of Ireland, when Members of the British Parliament representing constituencies in what was known as the Irish Free State and Eire were constitutionally required to take an oath of allegiance to the British Crown. Similarly, as various former colonies in the British Empire gained their independence, no doubt legislators were elected who advocated independence, separation, a break from Britain, and other policies that were not necessarily consistent with the oath of allegiance.

Even so, the issue does not appear to have arisen in any significant way. This is virtually the only case found where a legislator lost his or her seat for violating an oath of allegiance. Even this case seems to have been based on political and personal grounds as much as anything else.

There do not appear to be any cases to illustrate what would constitute a betrayal of the oath of allegiance. The taking of an oath or indeed an affirmation is essentially a question of morality. It is generally believed that people do not take the oath or affirmation lightly, and will consider themselves bound by it. If the person taking the oath lies, on one level that is a matter between that person and his or her conscience or God. At the same time, just as witnesses lie in court, despite having been sworn to tell the truth, people do on occasion break their oaths.

Moreover, in the present, less religious era, it is likely that many people are not as intimidated by oaths as was previously the case. When an oath is broken, penalties are usually imposed. For example, witnesses who lie in court can be charged with perjury or held in contempt of court. It is up to the legislature to punish such contraventions by legislators. Punishment can consist of a motion of censure, or, in the most severe cases, expulsion of the individual.

There can be significant difficulties in establishing whether politicians have broken an oath. Some see the oath not as one of allegiance to the Queen as an individual so much as one of allegiance to the Crown as a symbol. The Queen can be seen as representing or symbolizing the state, either nationally or provincially, or as the embodiment of a democratic and constitutional form of government.

It is extremely difficult to define what activities would be considered to be a breach of the oath of allegiance. Would the test be objective or subjective?

While an individual might feel honestly and sincerely that his or her actions did not breach the oath, others might disagree. Moreover, if the oath is considered to be to the Queen as representative or symbolic of a parliamentary and democratic system, one is arguably remaining faithful to it so long as one does not advocate a violent overthrow of the government.

In a courtroom setting, it may be a relatively simple matter to determine whether someone has told the truth in sworn testimony. In considering concepts like "allegiance," though, determination of a breach is much more difficult. What one person considers to be in the best interests of the country may not seem to be so to other people. An individual may honestly believe that a communist form of government would be good for the people: would this belief be contrary to his or her oath of allegiance?

Does how the person goes about achieving the goal make a difference? A distinction could also be drawn between those who seek a new constitutional arrangement and those who seek the break-up of the country. Parliamentary Business Parliamentary Business - Home. The House. Procedural Reference Material Library of Parliament. Parliamentary Diplomacy. Members - Home. Members and Roles. Related Information. Participate - Home. About the House - Home.

Transparency and accountability. Arts and Heritage. In pictures. Employment - Home. Career opportunities. Youth Opportunities.

Working at the House. Search Search. Table of Contents. Home Page. Introductory Pages. Parliamentary Institutions. Parliaments and Ministries. An example of this oath for Minnesota No-Fault Arbitration proceedings can be found here.

Failure to tell the truth after swearing to do so—if done knowingly—results in the crime of perjury. Those who wish to become naturalized citizens of a country are required to take an oath of allegiance or oath of citizenship. In the United States, this is governed by 8 U.