Ask Jordan: Did Trump have to swear with his hand on a Bible at his inauguration?
'This has been bothering me since Inauguration Day. Why was Trump permitted to take the Oath without placing his hand on the Bible?'
— Sue Wilson, Wallington, N.J.
Hi Sue,
Presidents don't have to swear with their hand on a Bible when they take office.
To understand why, let's look at the Constitution.
Article II, Section I says: 'Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– 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.'
Nothing about the Bible there.
While religion is baked into much of American law, politics and tradition, the Constitution rejects religious tests for office.
A couple of historical points are worth noting here, too.
Perhaps contrary to the popular imagination, presidents haven't always used Bibles during inaugurations. That wouldn't make it a legal requirement if they had, but it hasn't even been the uniform practice.
And consider that Trump and Chief Justice John Roberts didn't redo the oath with Trump's hand on the Bible. I mention this because Roberts and Barack Obama botched the oath at Obama's first inauguration in 2009, and they later redid it with the exact wording to be safe. It's unclear what the legal implications (if any) would've been had they not done a second take. But their motivation was to render the Constitution's words precisely.
So, while Trump's second term has already been packed with provocations against the Constitution, this wasn't one of them.
Have any questions or comments for me? I'd love to hear from you! Please email deadlinelegal@nbcuni.com for a chance to be featured in a future newsletter.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
35 minutes ago
- USA Today
Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? 'We'll see,' he says
Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? 'We'll see,' he says Show Caption Hide Caption Anti-ICE raid demonstrators protest into fourth night Anti-immigration raid protests are continuing into the fourth night as the Pentagon deployed active-duty U.S. Marines. President Donald Trump mulled invoking the Insurrection Act, which would give him more leeway to use the military for domestic purposes, as he deploys troops to Los Angeles in response to protests prompted by ICE raids in the region. "If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it,' Trump said June 10 during an event in the White House. 'We'll see. But I can tell you, last night was terrible. The night before that was terrible." Trump deployed the California National Guard to Los Angeles over the objection of Gov. Gavin Newsom, sparking a lawsuit from the state. Marines were also sent to help the guard after protests erupted over his immigration enforcement efforts. The troops are limited to protecting federal property and law enforcement officers. The Insurrection Act would give Trump authority to use them more broadly. More: 'High-stakes game': Trump-Newsom clash pits two political heavyweights Trump said there were parts of Los Angeles on June 9 where "you could have called it an insurrection. It was terrible." Newsom described Trump's actions as "the acts of a dictator" and accused the president of 'inciting and provoking violence,' 'creating mass chaos,' and 'militarizing cities.' Legal experts say invoking the Insurrection Act is an extreme step. It has been done 30 times in U.S. history. "The invocation of it would be viewed as a pretty dramatic act," said Duke Law Professor H. Jefferson Powell. Powell said the law is "dangerously broad." The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in May 1992, by President George H.W. Bush at the request of California's governor, to quell rioting in Los Angeles after four White police officers were acquitted for beating Black motorist Rodney King.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What the 'Big, Beautiful' tax bill means for municipal bonds
JPMorgan raised its forecast for municipal bond sales in 2025 to $560 billion as US lawmakers deliberate over President Trump's "big, beautiful" tax and spending bill in the Senate. Goldman Sachs Asset Management co-head of municipal fixed income Sylvia Yeh weighs in on what policy changes to the US tax code could mean for municipal bond investors, as well as valuation catalysts in comparison to Treasury yields (^TYX, ^TNX, ^FVX). Goldman Sachs manages several municipal bond ETFs (GMUB, GCAL, GMNY, GUMI). To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Catalysts here. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
LA protests far different from '92 Rodney King riots
The images of cars set ablaze, protesters tossing rocks at police and officers firing nonlethal rounds and tear gas at protesters hearkens back to the last time a president sent the National Guard to respond to violence on Los Angeles streets. But the unrest during several days of protests over immigration enforcement is far different in scale from the 1992 riots that followed the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. President George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to call in the National Guard after requests from Mayor Tom Bradley and Gov. Pete Wilson. After the current protests began Friday over Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of 4,100 National Guard troops and 700 Marines despite strident opposition from Mayor Karen Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom. Trump cited a legal provision to mobilize federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit Monday saying Trump had overstepped his authority. Outrage over the verdicts on April 29, 1992 led to nearly a week of widespread violence that was one of the deadliest riots in American history. Hundreds of businesses were looted. Entire blocks of homes and stores were torched. More than 60 people died in shootings and other violence, mostly in South Los Angeles, an area with a heavily Black population at the time. Unlike the 1992 riots, protests have mainly been peaceful and been confined to a roughly five-block stretch of downtown LA, a tiny patch in the sprawling city of nearly 4 million people. No one has died. There's been vandalism and some cars set on fire but no homes or buildings have burned. At least 50 people have been arrested for everything from failing to follow orders to leave to looting, assault on a police officer and attempted murder for tossing a Molotov cocktail. Several officers have had minor injuries and protesters and some journalists have been struck by some of the more than 600 rubber bullets and other 'less-lethal' munitions fired by police. The 1992 uprising took many by surprise, including the Los Angeles Police Department, but the King verdict was a catalyst for racial tensions that had been building in the city for years. In addition to frustration with their treatment by police, some directed their anger at Korean merchants who owned many of the local stores. Black residents felt the owners treated them more like shoplifters than shoppers. As looting and fires spread toward Koreatown, some merchants protected their stores with shotguns and rifles.
