EDMOND — In some form or another, the word “oath” has held an exalted position in the English language for more than 1,000 years. Words taken “on oath” were the most solemn and powerful utterances humanly possible. Originally, oaths were not directed to any human being. An oath was a commitment to God. One willfully violating any oath was doomed to condemnation and punishment in this world and beyond and any such lawbreaker forfeited all hope of appeal for mercy.

The oath was so much more grave than day-to-day speech that it could only be uttered after all required formalities were observed. Oaths always were accompanied by impressive ceremony. Oaths only could be “administered” by some important personage in the presence of witnesses. Oath breakers were reviled as people without honor and unworthy of respect.

Even today, almost any formal undertaking in discharge of public duty is accompanied by an oath. For many Americans, the first oath taken occurs upon induction into the armed forces where we swear to uphold and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Anyone called to jury duty takes an oath to faithfully discharge all obligations the law imposes upon jurors. The judge and every attorney appearing in court have taken an oath. Every witness giving testimony takes an oath to tell the truth. At the citizenship ceremony those who fulfill all the lawful requirements swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

No person elected to public office can lawfully fulfill the duties of that office unless and until they take “the oath.”

The fabric of this country unravels if the oaths we take become degraded to the point they are mere words, nothing more than cosmetic trappings uttered as senseless formality. It’s no exaggeration to say that in order for this country to survive, those of us who take our solemn oaths must seriously internalize the duties imposed by those oaths.

After a couple of missteps in the public ceremony, Chief Justice John Roberts administered the following oath to President Barack Obama on Jan. 21, 2009: “I, Barack Obama, 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.” Justice Roberts concluded with the phrase “so help me God.” By taking this oath, President Obama made a solemn promise. He swore to subordinate his personal desires in favor of those obligations imposed upon his office by the Constitution. This means, of course, that no matter how his ego might be bruised, he must conform his conduct to constitutional requirements.

On Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2011, President Obama took action clearly contravening his constitutional authority. He violated his oath of office. He appointed Richard Cordray as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau even though law requires Senate confirmation for that appointment. He might have been able to justify this as a lawful recess appointment, but the Senate was not in recess.

In taking this extremely questionable and highly antagonistic action, Mr. Obama declared “I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer.” Unfortunately for us all, in this instance, it’s the Constitution that says “no.” And by ignoring this lawful restraint on his power, President Obama declared his willingness to ignore his oath in order to promote a personal agenda.

Some cynical politicians, uninformed partisans and underhanded social insurgents defend and applaud this dangerous maneuver. These are people who find the Constitution an inconvenient obstacle to far-ranging expansion of central power.

The ostensible justification for sidestepping the Constitution in this instance is this: Someone must look out for the little guy. But if you flatten the law to help the little guy, where will the little guy hide when unfettered government power threatens to flatten him?

This is why we have a Constitution. This is why the president takes an oath to defend it. It’s just as wrong for public officials to recruit “the little guy” in a scheme to circumvent the law as it would be to recruit one race or one class or one sex or one age group to join any such endeavor.

If we embrace conduct we know to be a violation of the law, even if that violation works in our behalf, we have no one but ourselves to blame if the law is later violated by that same person and we are crushed as a result.

If people feel free to treat their oaths as empty words, God help the United States. I’m Hink and I’ll see ya.



MIKE HINKLE is an Edmond resident and retired attorney.