NationStates Jolt Archive

I was at work today as an assistant at the local community college writing center. Basically, that means that Eng 101 students will come in to let me look over their paper, and I will tell them what a thesis statement is, and then turn them loose to make revisions. Today, however, my work was interrupted by the secretary handing me a form that must be signed today. The form states as follows:

I, ___________, do solemnly swear that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States, and the Constitution and Government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that Iwill bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty ot the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any State notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ____________ on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (in an affirmation) under the pains and penalties of perjury.

_________________
(Signature)

It was made clear to me by the secretary that were such a loyalty oath either not signed or not returned, my new contract with the state will not be accepted.

Now offhand, I have absolutely no problem with either the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of Nevada, or support for a republican form of government. I have some problems with structural elements of the Constitution of Nevada, but I tend to be enthusiastically supportive of the other two. Nonetheless, at a personal level, I am deeply offended by the presumption of guilt inherent in this loyalty oath. At a constitutional level, I feel that this violates the Due Process clause, possibly the bill of attainder statute, and it is certainly void for vagueness: by supporting the "Government of the United States", for instance, am I to understand that as supporting republicanism or the current Republican administration (one of which I wholeheartedly endorse, the other I wholeheartedly oppose)?

Nonetheless, I need help determining what the caselaw on the matter is. The best I can find thusfar is Adler v. New York Board of Education, which places my views on the matter squarely in league with the minority viewpoint as given by Justice Black. If so, that would make this loyalty oath squarely constitutional, barring any considerations I have yet to uncover. So I ask for your help in this matter: is such a loyalty oath unconstitutional, and if so, what is the caselaw on the matter.

Where on earth is there a presumption of guilt in the oath? :confused:

I would contact the "evil" ACLU over this.

Where on earth is there a presumption of guilt in the oath? :confused:

In the justification for relieving me of employ if I don't sign.

Where on earth is there a presumption of guilt in the oath? :confused:

Usually you don't take "loyalty" oaths to do a job.

In the justification for relieving me of employ if I don't sign.
That's standard in any company you want to work for. You agree to support the structure you are entering, and if you refuse to play by the rules, you don't get a job. This is no different just because it's a State, rather than private, company.

Usually you don't take "loyalty" oaths to do a job.
Of course you do. "Do it our way, or no job." Simple.

Usually you don't take "loyalty" oaths to do a job.

thats pretty bad!

In the justification for relieving me of employ if I don't sign.
That and the 'on penalty of perjury' bit looks rather unpleasant.

Of course you do. "Do it our way, or no job." Simple.

No that is following the definition of your job.

The loyalty oath that he has shown is usually reserved for the military or the defense industry. I took the oath when I worked for the Government many years ago. I had access to defense secrets.

What threat is a person at a local community college?

thats pretty bad!

How so?

That and the 'on penalty of perjury' bit looks rather unpleasant.

That isn't what concerns me: I'm not a Communist, member of the Communist Party, a terrorist, or a member of any other organization alien to the basic ideal of republican form of government in the United States. Therefore, I can sign that form without fear of perjury. My concern is that the oath of loyalty is being administered at all, and whether or not it is Constitutional for them to ask for such a signing.

My concern, in short, is whether by signing I undermine the very principles I'm being asked to affirm.

That isn't what concerns me: I'm not a Communist, member of the Communist Party, a terrorist, or a member of any other organization alien to the basic ideal of republican form of government in the United States. Therefore, I can sign that form without fear of perjury. My concern is that the oath of loyalty is being administered at all, and whether or not it is Constitutional for them to ask for such a signing.

My concern, in short, is whether by signing I undermine the very principles I'm being asked to affirm.

Didn't they do a background check on you?

any ordinance, resolution or law of any State notwithstanding

Any idea what this part is supposed to mean?

No that is following the definition of your job.

The loyalty oath that he has shown is usually reserved for the military or the defense industry. I took the oath when I worked for the Government many years ago. I had access to defense secrets.

What threat is a person at a local community college?
Any information you see about people in an official setting should be confidential, whether it is their medical records or the books they withdraw from a library. So, an oath of loyalty is acceptable.

How so?

coz one should not have to sign a loyalty pledge like that...

at most a NDA...

Any information you see about people in an official setting should be confidential, whether it is their medical records or the books they withdraw from a library. So, an oath of loyalty is acceptable.

It must be a UK thing then.

My mom is in the medical field and she didn't have to swear an oath of loyalty to the government.

coz one should not have to sign a loyalty pledge like that...

at most a NDA...

Ah! Just a clarification question. ;)

It must be a UK thing then.

My mom is in the medical field and she didn't have to swear an oath of loyalty to the government.
Well, it's actually quite rare to swear oaths of allegance to the State here unless you're in some of the roles you highlighted above. I just don't see a problem with signing something so harmless.

Ah! Just a clarification question. ;)

no worries....:)

snip

Given that, I would contact a civil liberties organization, and if they told me that the oath was constitutional, I would quit immediately.

I have no loyalty to this government beyond the services it provides me, if they are only going to be paying me wages in compensation, I will only perform the job asked.

The government should have no more claim to my allegiance than my present employer.

I am deeply offended by the presumption of guilt inherent in this loyalty oath.
It would be nore more presumption of guilt that the oath conveyed between a husband and wife, a new citizen and his country, a serviceman and his country or a president and his citizens.

I was at work today as an assistant at the local community college writing center. Basically, that means that Eng 101 students will come in to let me look over their paper, and I will tell them what a thesis statement is, and then turn them loose to make revisions. Today, however, my work was interrupted by the secretary handing me a form that must be signed today. The form states as follows:

I, ___________, do solemnly swear that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States, and the Constitution and Government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that Iwill bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty ot the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any State notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ____________ on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (in an affirmation) under the pains and penalties of perjury.

_________________
(Signature)

It was made clear to me by the secretary that were such a loyalty oath either not signed or not returned, my new contract with the state will not be accepted.

Now offhand, I have absolutely no problem with either the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of Nevada, or support for a republican form of government. I have some problems with structural elements of the Constitution of Nevada, but I tend to be enthusiastically supportive of the other two. Nonetheless, at a personal level, I am deeply offended by the presumption of guilt inherent in this loyalty oath. At a constitutional level, I feel that this violates the Due Process clause, possibly the bill of attainder statute, and it is certainly void for vagueness: by supporting the "Government of the United States", for instance, am I to understand that as supporting republicanism or the current Republican administration (one of which I wholeheartedly endorse, the other I wholeheartedly oppose)?

Nonetheless, I need help determining what the caselaw on the matter is. The best I can find thusfar is Adler v. New York Board of Education, which places my views on the matter squarely in league with the minority viewpoint as given by Justice Black. If so, that would make this loyalty oath squarely constitutional, barring any considerations I have yet to uncover. So I ask for your help in this matter: is such a loyalty oath unconstitutional, and if so, what is the caselaw on the matter.

If I had deep moral convictions against signing the document I would not do so and I would seek employment elsewhere and hope I found another job before I was released. If I had no moral convictions against signing the document I would do so. I would not refuse to sign the document and demand to keep my job via litigation. Thats just me though.

At a constitutional level, I feel that this violates the Due Process clause, possibly the bill of attainder statute, and it is certainly void for vagueness: by supporting the "Government of the United States", for instance, am I to understand that as supporting republicanism or the current Republican administration (one of which I wholeheartedly endorse, the other I wholeheartedly oppose)?

Nonetheless, I need help determining what the caselaw on the matter is. The best I can find thusfar is Adler v. New York Board of Education, which places my views on the matter squarely in league with the minority viewpoint as given by Justice Black. If so, that would make this loyalty oath squarely constitutional, barring any considerations I have yet to uncover. So I ask for your help in this matter: is such a loyalty oath unconstitutional, and if so, what is the caselaw on the matter.


Its kind of a murky issue. The supreme court has generally upheld loyalty oaths, but most of the cases were cold-war era cases involving oaths that stated one was not a communist. Even then the supreme court has a pretty narrowly defined situation and wording that it considers acceptable. Garner v. Los Angeles Board is a good case to read for an idea of how loyalty oaths can be applied.

The basic idea is that the government has the right to make sure that individuals applying for government jobs must not either personally advocate the violent or unlawful overthrow of the government or be members of groups which do. Further, there seems to be a sense(though the court has gone both ways on this subject) that the individual's job must be theoretically able to effect national security.

Honestly, if you want to challenge it, you can, but you'll probably lose, especially with the court we have now. Were you to challenge the oath, I'm guessing your best argument would be a 14th amendment claim based on equal protection. You cannot be denied a job from the government for excercisng your first amendment rights. Any such oath that would bind you from excercisng your rights would be unenforcable and void. Still, in this climent, its a long shot.

Its kind of a murky issue. The supreme court has generally upheld loyalty oaths, but most of the cases were cold-war era cases involving oaths that stated one was not a communist. Even then the supreme court has a pretty narrowly defined situation and wording that it considers acceptable. Garner v. Los Angeles Board is a good case to read for an idea of how loyalty oaths can be applied.

The basic idea is that the government has the right to make sure that individuals applying for government jobs must not either personally advocate the violent or unlawful overthrow of the government or be members of groups which do. Further, there seems to be a sense(though the court has gone both ways on this subject) that the individual's job must be theoretically able to effect national security.

Honestly, if you want to challenge it, you can, but you'll probably lose, especially with the court we have now. Were you to challenge the oath, I'm guessing your best argument would be a 14th amendment claim based on equal protection. You cannot be denied a job from the government for excercisng your first amendment rights. Any such oath that would bind you from excercisng your rights would be unenforcable and void. Still, in this climent, its a long shot.

I was familiar with Garner v. Las Angelos Board; in point of fact, that was the decision that led me to the Adler decision.

Does anyone else have any information on this matter? *wonders where TCT is when you need her*