Why do Presidents swear in on the bible?

[ElectionsGuy]

I've wondered this for a while, why the bible? Wouldn't the constitution make a lot more sense, since they're swearing to uphold the constitution!? And is it even constitutional considering this country isn't supposed to establish a religion, and it shouldn't be governed by a religion in any way?

[dead0man]

Lip service/tradition.

[Simfan34]

How do you swear on the constitution? Serious question, surely it's too short. Of course, you are missing the whole point of an oath, but whatever.

[SteveRogers]

I've wondered this for a while, why the bible? Wouldn't the constitution make a lot more sense, since they're swearing to uphold the constitution!? And is it even constitutional considering this country isn't supposed to establish a religion, and it shouldn't be governed by a religion in any way?

Yes, it's fine because nothing in the law requires them to use a bible. The President gets to choose the bible used for their swearing in, and a hypothetical non-Christian would be totally free to choose an alternative holy book (or lack thereof).

[Blue3]

Some Presidents have not been sworn in on the Bible.

[Free Bird]

What if an atheist won the presidency and refused to swear in on a Bible? How big of an uproar would there be?

[Joe Republic]

What if an atheist won the presidency and refused to swear in on a Bible? How big of an uproar would there be?

The uproar would emerge from an atheist being elected in the first place, or hell, even being a frontrunner for the nomination.  Nobody would therefore be surprised when he/she swears in on something other than a Bible.

(Granted, Obama is one, but of course he can't admit it lest he add another reason for the rubes to hate him.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While it is possible that BHO isn't the Christian he claims to be, it's still a stretch to go from that to inferring that he's an atheist.

[DemPGH]

Christian nationalism, unfortunately, despite the better intentions of our founders.

How do you swear on the constitution?

The same way you swear in on the Bible. At least the Constitution has something to do with what you will be doing.

Some Presidents have not been sworn in on the Bible.

I always read that Teddy Roosevelt did not swear in on a Bible.

I wouldn't swear in on anything. I would take the oath of office and that would be enough.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I don't believe Theodore Roosevelt is known to have used any book--he specifically did not use a Bible. John Quincy Adams used a book of law under the logic that it really was the Constitution on which he should have been swearing. Lyndon B. Johnson used a Catholic missal because it was all that was available.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The idea is that they are swearing before god to uphold X, in this case the Constitution.

I don't believe Theodore Roosevelt is known to have used any book--he specifically did not use a Bible. John Quincy Adams used a book of law under the logic that it really was the Constitution on which he should have been swearing. Lyndon B. Johnson used a Catholic missal because it was all that was available.

That reminds me, with all that is happened in the last few months I forgot to find out, but I read in Manchester's book about how the JFK bible was lost in 1963 because the Judge handed it to someone she thought was Secret Service but it turned out to be some random person. Of course the book was published in the late 1960's and I was wondering if it had been found since then.

[Joe Republic]

While it is possible that BHO isn't the Christian he claims to be, it's still a stretch to go from that to inferring that he's an atheist.

Apatheist, secular, whatever you want to call it.  It doesn't matter.

[Del Tachi]

Yeah, swearing upon the Constitution to uphold the Constitution doesn't make any sense if you have a correct understanding of what it means to swear upon something.  The idea being, of course, that by swearing to uphold the Constitution upon the Bible then to dishonor the Constitution would be tantamount to defacing the Bible.  So, to swear to uphold the Constitution upon the Constitution and then disregarding the Constitution would mean that one is defacing the Constitution, but in the prescribed scenario that obviously doesn't represent a moral dilemma to the person involved in taking the oath.       

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because nobody cares to actually implement the 1st Amendment seriously.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Because nobody cares to actually implement the 1st Amendment seriously.

Despite what some may think, the first amendment calls for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Because nobody cares to actually implement the 1st Amendment seriously.

Despite what some may think, the first amendment calls for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

That's a really, really facile thing to say. So much so that it's basically meaningless, except to needle people.

[GaussLaw]

Because nobody cares to actually implement the 1st Amendment seriously.

Despite what some may think, the first amendment calls for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Seriously.  If the Founding Fathers themselves allowed something under the Constitution (like swearing in on the Bible), it's probably constitutional.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Because nobody cares to actually implement the 1st Amendment seriously.

Despite what some may think, the first amendment calls for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Seriously.  If the Founding Fathers themselves allowed something under the Constitution (like swearing in on the Bible), it's probably constitutional.

Like the Alien and Sedition Acts?

[GaussLaw]

Because nobody cares to actually implement the 1st Amendment seriously.

Despite what some may think, the first amendment calls for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Seriously.  If the Founding Fathers themselves allowed something under the Constitution (like swearing in on the Bible), it's probably constitutional.

Like the Alien and Sedition Acts?

All the Founding Fathers were cool with swearing-in on the Bible.  The Alien and Sedition Acts were repealed by Jefferson.  I'm talking about something with a large degree of consensus here.

[SteveRogers]

Because nobody cares to actually implement the 1st Amendment seriously.

As much as I'm a firm believer in separation of church and state, I don't think the First Amendment was intended to literally prohibit any elected official from touching a bible.

[bullmoose88]

Because nobody cares to actually implement the 1st Amendment seriously.

Respectfully disagree, though not for the reason ernest did. 

In my view, it is not the government endorsing the Bible...it is the private individual choosing a text upon which in his own mind solemnizes the oath...so the prospect of breaking that oath should weigh more heavily in his or her mind.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Because nobody cares to actually implement the 1st Amendment seriously.

Respectfully disagree, though not for the reason ernest did. 

In my view, it is not the government endorsing the Bible...it is the private individual choosing a text upon which in his own mind solemnizes the oath...so the prospect of breaking that oath should weigh more heavily in his or her mind.

See, this I can agree with. Nobody says that an elected official has to give up his or her religion. It's pretty clear that the role of the holy book is a personal one, not an official one. There are other things in our society that I'd say fall on the other side of that line, but this isn't really one.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Because nobody cares to actually implement the 1st Amendment seriously.

Respectfully disagree, though not for the reason ernest did. 

In my view, it is not the government endorsing the Bible...it is the private individual choosing a text upon which in his own mind solemnizes the oath...so the prospect of breaking that oath should weigh more heavily in his or her mind.

I'd say it's the same reason, just expressed differently, and a bit more broadly.  The freedom of religion justly enshrined in the Constitution does not amount to a freedom from religion that prevents public officials from expressing their religion in the performance of their official acts, so long as that expression does not force others to participate in an official's religion.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Because nobody cares to actually implement the 1st Amendment seriously.

What? Not only is it not a 1st Amendment violation, you could argue that not allowing a President to swear in on a religious text of their choice would be. It's not a requirement, as shown by members of Congress, Keith Ellison swore in on the Koran, Tulsi Gabbard did on a Hindu sacred text, and Krysten Sinema did on the Constitution. If any of those were elected President they could do so on the same preferred book as well.

[© tweed]

Because nobody cares to actually implement the 1st Amendment seriously.

What? Not only is it not a 1st Amendment violation, you could argue that not allowing a President to swear in on a religious text of their choice would be. It's not a requirement, as shown by members of Congress, Keith Ellison swore in on the Koran, Tulsi Gabbard did on a Hindu sacred text, and Krysten Sinema did on the Constitution. If any of those were elected President they could do so on the same preferred book as well.

I seem to recall something about congresspeople's "oaths" not being actual oaths, only serving a ceremonial function, whilst the oath taken by the president is constitutionally mandated.