Re:U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize P...
by dragonwriter on Thursday February 21, 2019 @08:50AM
(#19216812)
> Is there not also a weird clause where you have to agree in the existence of a supreme being (it can be any supreme being, I think) because otherwise you can't take the oath of office?
No, in addition to the clause which directly prohibits religious tests, there is no clause which does anything like that; the required oath or affirmation is:
“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.”
No supreme being required or even directly relevant. You may be confusing the Presidency with Alcoholics Anonymous, which requires acknowledging a “higher power”.
No, in addition to the clause which directly prohibits religious tests, there is no clause which does anything like that; the required oath or affirmation is:
“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.”
No supreme being required or even directly relevant. You may be confusing the Presidency with Alcoholics Anonymous, which requires acknowledging a “higher power”.