[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).