    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 115th Congress]
    [115th Congress]
    [House Document 114-192]
    [The United States Constitution]
    [Pages 84-89]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                   ARTICLE VI.

    Sec. 194. Validity of debts and engagements.

      \1\All  Debts
    contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this
    Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this
    Constitution, as under the Confederation.

    [[Page 85]]

    any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
    notwithstanding.

    Sec. 195. Constitution, laws, and treaties the supreme
    law of the land.

      \2\This  Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
    shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which
    shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
    supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
    thereby,

    Sec. 196. Oaths of public officers; and prohibition of
    religious tests.

      \3\The  Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and
    the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
    judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States,
    shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but
    no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any
    Office or public Trust under the United States.

    Sec. 197. Form of oath.

      The  form of the oath is prescribed
    by statute (5 U.S.C. 3331; I, 128): ``I, AB, 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.''

    Sec. 198. Administration of oath at organization.

      The  Act of
    June 1, 1789 (2 U.S.C. 25), provides that on the organization of the
    House and previous to entering on any other business the oath shall be
    administered by any Member (generally the Member with longest continuous
    service) (I, 131; VI, 6) to the Speaker and by the Speaker to the other
    Members and Clerk (I, 130). The Act has at times been considered in the
    House as directory merely (I, 118, 242, 243, 245; VI, 6); but at other
    times has been observed carefully (I, 118, 140). The Act was cited by
    the Clerk in recognizing for nominations for Speaker as being of higher
    constitutional privilege than a resolution to postpone the election of a
    Speaker and instead provide for the election of a Speaker pro tempore
    pending the disposition of certain ethics charges against the nominee of
    the majority party (Jan. 7, 1997, p. 115).

    [[Page 86]]

    votes to remove mention of them, and (2) ratifying the following
    activities involving one or both of them: election to and participation
    in standing committee; introduction and numbering of measures;
    submission of items to the Congressional Record; co-sponsorship of
    measures; and non-voting participation in floor proceedings (Jan. 7,
    2011, p. 227).
      Previously it was the custom to administer the oath by State
    delegations, but beginning with the 71st Congress Members-elect have
    been sworn in en masse (VI, 8). The Clerk supplies printed copies of the
    oath to Members and Delegates who have taken the oath in accordance with
    law, which shall be subscribed by the Members and Delegates and
    delivered to the Clerk to be recorded in the Journal and Congressional
    Record as conclusive proof of the fact that the signer duly took the
    oath in accordance with law (2 U.S.C. 25). See Deschler, ch. 2. Where
    two Members-elect participated in various House and committee business
    before taking the oath of office, the House adopted a resolution (1)
    correcting the results of record

    Sec. 199. Functions of the Speaker in administering the
    oath.

      The  Speaker possesses no arbitrary power in the administration of
    the oath (I, 134), and when objection is made the question must be
    decided by the House and not by the Chair (I, 519, 520). An objection
    prevents the Speaker from administering the oath of his own authority,
    even though the credentials be regular in form (I, 135-138). The Speaker
    has frequently declined to administer the oath in cases wherein the
    House has, by its action, indicated that the Speaker should not do so
    (I, 139, 140). And in case of doubt the Speaker has waited the
    instruction of the House (I, 396; VI, 11). There has been discussion as
    to the competency of a Speaker pro tempore to administer the oath (I,
    170), and in the absence of the Speaker a Member-elect waited until the
    Speaker could be present (I, 179), but in 1920 a Speaker pro tempore
    whose designation by the Speaker had been approved by the House,
    administered the oath (VI, 20). The House may authorize the Speaker to
    administer the oath away from the House (I, 169), or may, in such a
    case, authorize another than the Speaker to administer the oath (I, 170;
    VI, 14). For forms used in this procedure, see VI, 14. On one occasion,
    the Speaker requested that guests in the gallery rise with the Members
    during the administration of the oath of office to a Member-elect (Nov.
    12, 1991, p. 31255).

    Sec. 200. Administration of the oath as related
    to the quorum.

      Members-elect  have been sworn at the beginning of a second session
    before the ascertainment of a quorum (I, 176-178), but when the Clerk
    called the second session of the 87th Congress to order, Members-elect
    were not sworn before ascertainment of a quorum and election of Speaker
    McCormack to succeed Speaker Rayburn, who had died during the
    adjournment sine die (Jan. 10, 1962, p. 5). Members-elect have also been
    sworn where a roll call or other ascertainment has shown the absence of
    a quorum (I, 178, 181, 182; VI, 21) but in one instance, however, the
    Speaker declined to administer the oath under such circumstances (II,
    875).

    [[Page 87]]

    Whole (Oct. 3, 1969, p. 28487) or pending engrossment and third reading
    (June 19, 2008, pp. 13047-49). A division being demanded on a resolution
    seating several claimants, the oath may be administered to each as soon
    as his case is decided (I, 623). If a Member-elect whose right to a seat
    has been determined by the House is present to take the oath, the right
    to be sworn is complete and cannot be deferred even by a motion to
    adjourn (I, 622), but the Speaker has entertained the motion to adjourn
    after adoption of a seating resolution but before the Member-elect was
    present in the Chamber to take the oath (May 1, 1985, p. 10019).

    Sec. 201. Privilege of administration of the
    oath.

      A  proposition to administer the oath is a matter of high privilege
    (VI, 14). It has been administered during a call of the roll and during
    an electronic vote on a motion to agree to rules at the time of
    organization (I, 173; VI, 22; Jan. 4, 2005, p. 46) and during an
    electronic vote taken during House deliberations interlocutory to an
    ongoing joint session to count the electoral votes (Jan. 6, 2005, p.
    242). It also has been administered before the reading of the Journal
    (I, 172), in the absence of a quorum (VI, 22), on Calendar Wednesday
    (VI, 22), before a pending motion to amend the Journal (I, 171), and
    after the previous question has been ordered on a bill reported back to
    the House from the Committee of the

    Sec. 202. Challenge of the right to take the oath.

      The  right
    of a Member-elect to take the oath is sometimes challenged, usually at
    the time of organization of the House. The challenge may be made by a
    Member-elect who has not yet taken the oath (I, 141). The Member
    challenging does so on his responsibility as a Member or on the strength
    of documents (I, 448) or on both (I, 443, 474). And where an objection
    was sustained neither by affidavit nor on the responsibility of the
    Member objecting, the House declined to entertain it (I, 455).

    Sec. 203. Consideration of an objection to the taking of
    the oath.

      It  has been held, although not uniformly, that in cases in
    which the right of a Member-elect to take the oath is challenged, the
    Speaker may direct the Member to abstain temporarily (I, 143-146, 474;
    VI, 9, 174; VIII, 3386). The Member so challenged is not thereby
    deprived of any right (I, 155). Similarly, the seating of a Member-elect
    does not prejudice a pending contest, brought under the Federal
    Contested Elections Act (2 U.S.C. 381-396), over final right to the seat
    (Jan. 7, 1997, p. 120; Jan. 4, 2007, p. 5). When several are challenged
    and abstain, the question is first taken on the Member-elect first
    required to abstain (I, 147, 148). In 1861 it was held that the House
    might direct contested names to be passed over until the other Members-
    elect had been sworn in (I, 154). Motions and debate are in order on the
    questions involved in a challenge, and in a few cases other business has
    intervened by unanimous consent (I, 149, 150). By unanimous consent the
    consideration of a challenge is sometimes deferred until after the
    completion of the organization (I, 474), and by unanimous consent also
    the House has sometimes proceeded to legislative business pending
    consideration of the right of a Member to be sworn (I, 151, 152).

    [[Page 88]]

    3, 1949, p. 8). If the prima facie right is contested the Speaker
    declines to administer the oath (I, 550), but the House admits on a
    prima facie showing, and without regard to final right, a Member-elect
    from a recognized constituency whose credentials are in due form and
    whose qualifications are unquestioned (I, 528-534). If the status of the
    constituency is in doubt, the House usually defers the oath (I, 361,
    386, 448, 461). In the 99th Congress, the House declined to give prima
    facie effect to a certificate of election, the results of the election
    being in doubt, and referred the issue of initial as well as final right
    to the Committee on House Administration (H. Res. 1, Jan. 3, 1985, pp.
    380-87). After a recount of the votes was conducted by that committee,
    the House on its recommendation declared the candidate without the
    certificate entitled to the seat (H. Res. 146, May 1, 1985, p. 9998).
    The House also may defer the oath when a question of qualifications
    arises (I, 474), but it may investigate qualifications after the oath is
    taken (I, 156-159, 420, 462, 481), and after investigation unseat the
    Member by majority vote (I, 428).

    Sec. 204. Relation of credentials to the right to
    take the oath.

      Although  the House has emphasized the impropriety of swearing a
    Member without credentials (I, 162-168), yet it has been done in cases
    in which the credentials are delayed or lost and there is no doubt of
    the election (I, 85, 176-178; VI, 12, 13), or in which the governor of a
    State has declined to give credentials to a person whose election was
    undoubted and uncontested (I, 553). A certificate of election in due
    form having been filed, the Clerk placed the name of the Member-elect on
    the roll, although he was subsequently advised that a State Supreme
    Court had issued a writ restraining the Secretary of State from issuing
    such certificate (Jan.

    Sec. 205. Sanity, loyalty, and incapacity as related
    to the oath.

      Questions  of sanity (I, 441) and loyalty (I, 448) seem to pertain
    to competency to take the oath as a question of qualifications, although
    there has been not a little debate on this subject (I, 479). In one case
    a Member-elect who had not taken the oath was excluded from the House
    because of disloyalty, in which the resolution of exclusion and the
    committee report thereon concluded that he was ineligible to take a seat
    as a Representative under the express provisions of section 3 of the
    14th amendment (VI, 56-59). This action by the House was cited in the
    Supreme Court decision of Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 545 fn. 83
    (1969), which denied the power of the House to exclude Members-elect by
    a majority vote for other than failure to meet the express
    qualifications stated in the Constitution. In Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S.
    116 (1966), the Supreme Court held that the exclusion by a State
    legislature of a member-elect of that body was unconstitutional, where
    the legislature had asserted the power to judge the sincerity with which
    the Member-elect could take the oath to support the Constitution of the
    United States. In the 97th Congress, the House declared vacant by
    majority vote the seat of a Member-elect unable to take the oath because
    of illness, in which the medical prognosis showed no likelihood of
    improvement to permit the Member-elect to take the oath or assume the
    duties of a Representative (H. Res. 80, Feb. 24, 1981, pp. 2916-18).

    [[Page 89]]

    Sec. 206. Decisions of the Court.

      Decisions  of the Supreme
    Court of the United States: McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.)
    316 (1819); Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1867); Davis v.
    Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890); Mormon Church  v. United States, 136 U.S. 1
    (1890).