Atheist as President - constitutional question

Orion

This isn't an A&A question or a religious one at all - I'm posting in Politics on purpose imo it's a political question.

There was an article in the IT on Saturday and it raised the point as to what would happen if a someone refused to take the presidential oath after being elected on the basis of being an atheist.

Constitution wrote:

"In the presence of Almighty God I ... May God direct and sustain me."

What actually could happen? Could the person be denied the presidency despite being democratically elected? Or could someone be president without taking that constitutionally proscribed oath? It's not like in court where you can make an non-denominational oath - this one is in the constitution.

It's a situation obviously never envisaged by the drafters of the Constitution and my own reading of the document does not give any quick answers. It's idle curiosity now but it may become reality sooner rather than later.

beeftotheheels

I would think since the framer of the Bunreacht himself advocated the taking of empty oaths in the interests of political expediency that there should be no problem.

Mark200

I was under the impression that judges also had to take an oath referencing a God?

(Article 34 Section 5 of the constitution).

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I would think since the framer of the Bunreacht himself advocated the taking of empty oaths in the interests of political expediency that there should be no problem.

He took the oath to save his party but he wouldn't take it to save the nation from civil war.

loldog

The issue is whether it is a legal oath or not, the personal beliefs of the oath taker are not really an issue, it's just a formula of words, a formal ceremony.

.

later12

This doesn't just affect atheists. A Quaker could also have a problem in taking an oath such as this, so it could be objectionable even on religious grounds. At least an atheist can dismiss it as an empty formula (nod to DeValera), but the taking of oaths has historically been a bar to members of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) from taking public offices.

A significant piece of legislation in the United Kingdom is the Oaths Act 1888 under which the oath of allegiance to the Queen* might be affirmed on a personal basis (like a promise) as opposed to sworn to almighty God. Unfortunately, nothing similar exists in Ireland.


*Of course, one still has to swear allegiance to the Queen, regardless of views toward the monarchy, which is unfortunate.

later12

loldog wrote: »

The issue is whether it is a legal oath or not
.

It is a constitutional requirement, so the answer must be found in the constitution and whether or not the constitution is in conflict with itself.

Edit: these lines below do not contradict one another, but may contradict the constitutional requirement that an oath to God be sworn in order that an elected individual be installed into office.

Article 44 Section 2 Paragrah 2 states
The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

Article 44 Section 2 Paragrah 3 states
The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

EXTRA, EXTRA! SHOCK OVER CONTRADICTIONS IN IRISH CONSTITUTION! READ ALL ABOUT IT!

We really need to sort that thing out, its getting more outdated and self-contradictory by the minute.

Orion

Mark200 wrote: »

I was under the impression that judges also had to take an oath referencing a God?

(Article 34 Section 5 of the constitution).

Good point - but judges aren't elected by the people. In their case someone else can be appointed in their place. That would of course leave opening for discrimination proceedings but it's not the same scenario.

later10 wrote: »

This doesn't just affect atheists. A Quaker could also have a problem in taking an oath such as this, so it could be objectionable even on religious grounds. At least an atheist can dismiss it as an empty formula (nod to DeValera), but the taking of oaths has historically been a bar to members of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) from taking public offices.

A significant piece of legislation in the United Kingdom is the Oaths Act 1888 under which the oath of allegiance to the Queen* might be affirmed on a personal basis (like a promise) as opposed to sworn to almighty God. Unfortunately, nothing similar exists in Ireland.

That would be an alternative. The ideal would be to remove the wording from the constitution and leave it to legislation which could then allow for multiple oaths depending on the faith or lack of of the oathtaker.

later10 wrote: »

It is a constitutional requirement, so the answer must be found in the constitution and whether or not the constitution is in conflict with itself.

Article 44 Section 2 Paragrah 2 states
The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

Article 44 Section 2 Paragrah 3 states
The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

I don't think they are actually in conflict there. Swearing an to God can be done in any religion. The oath does not specify who's god it is. p.3 may apply but it's a very grey area.

I've thrown out the paper so I can remember who actually made the case but seemingly Kenny asked Bruton to look into it. Presumably it will form part of the constitutional convention.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Orion wrote: »

I don't think they are actually in conflict there. Swearing an to God can be done in any religion. The oath does not specify who's god it is. p.3 may apply but it's a very grey area.

Not all religions are theist, Buddhists usually don't believe in a god. And Hindus don't believe in a single god.

later12

Orion wrote: »

I don't think they are actually in conflict there.

Just to clarify, those quotes that I posted are not in conflict with one another, they might be seen as being in conflict with the necessity of the oath

Swearing an to God can be done in any religion. The oath does not specify who's god it is. p.3 may apply but it's a very grey area.

Quakers are one example, from the top of my head, for whom swearing an oath to or by God, can be problematic. Atheists could also put forward a faith based objection.

Fbjm

92% of Americans believe in the guy, so it's not likely to happen THERE any time soon. It might happen here when Mary hands over the reigns, but If it were me, I would just say it anyway if I honestly believed I could benefit the country by being president.

EDIT: why would someone NOT say it? If you believe in god, of course you're gonna take the oath. If you don't, there's no higher power to answer to in another life if it's an empty oath.

KeithAFC

Orion wrote: »

This isn't an A&A question or a religious one at all - I'm posting in Politics on purpose imo it's a political question.

There was an article in the IT on Saturday and it raised the point as to what would happen if a someone refused to take the presidential oath after being elected on the basis of being an atheist.



What actually could happen? Could the person be denied the presidency despite being democratically elected? Or could someone be president without taking that constitutionally proscribed oath? It's not like in court where you can make an non-denominational oath - this one is in the constitution.

It's a situation obviously never envisaged by the drafters of the Constitution and my own reading of the document does not give any quick answers. It's idle curiosity now but it may become reality sooner rather than later.

Has an Atheist ever been the president of your country?

Einhard

Fbjm wrote: »

EDIT: why would someone NOT say it? If you believe in god, of course you're gonna take the oath. If you don't, there's no higher power to answer to in another life if it's an empty oath.

Because not every religious person believes in a single deity, or even the idea of an over-arching God figure. As for atheists- in a liberal, pluralistic society, people shouldn't have to hide or sublimate their beliefs to avail of opportunities.

beeftotheheels

Einhard wrote: »

Because not every religious person believes in a single deity, or even the idea of an over-arching God figure. As for atheists- in a liberal, pluralistic society, people shouldn't have to hide or sublimate their beliefs to avail of opportunities.

I don't think anyone disagrees that change is necessary and indeed the article which brought this up brought it up in conjunction with the constitutional review

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2011/0604/1224298366216.html

bearing in mind we have an atheist Táiniste.

However, absent the possibility that we elect a devout quaker, Hindu or Buddist before we get a chance to change it I can't see the taking of an empty oath as being a problem in Ireland given our history with them. I'm agnostic yet were I required to read an oath which meant nothing to me, verbatim, I would have no problem with doing so provided it was widely understood that I was taking it only in the name of expediency.

Presumably were any candidates running in a presidential election, for whom the oath would be a problem, we could tack a referendum onto the election. While this would technically leave open the possibility of a majority rejecting the referendum while electing the candidate (because the same number of votes would not be required) I really cannot see the referendum being a big deal in this day and age and would expect it to be passed.

In the alternative we test the priority of the oath against the provisions protecting religion both under the Bunreacht and under EU and ECHR law and leave it to the Supreme Court to strike it down.

drkpower

later10 wrote: »

It is a constitutional requirement, so the answer must be found in the constitution and whether or not the constitution is in conflict with itself.

Article 44 Section 2 Paragrah 3 states
The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

It is an interesting question. There are 3 possibilities here:
1. The newly elected president refuses to take the oath
2. The newly elected president refuses to take the oath and takes case as regards its constitutionality .
3. The newly elected president takes the oath, but someone challenges it on the basis that he cannot swear the oath on the basis that he does not believe in God.

If (1), he cant be president and there would need to be another election pronto!! (if he refused on the day of the swearing in ceremony, there might be a real constitutional crisis!)
If (2) (and assuming the SC is convened and gives its decision quickly), it really could go either way but I suspect the SC would rely on the contradiction in the Constitution raised by Later.
If (3), given the wording of the oath i dont think a challenge would suceed. Most importantly because the constitution only says that someone must 'take and subscribe' the declaration, not that they must believe it. Second, and if the above is not accepted, the oath refers to 'in the presecence of God' and 'may God sustain me'. As noone can say whether they are in the presecence of God' or whether God is sustaining them, I dont believe that an atheist can be said to be 'lying' or in any other way breaching the cnstitution.

walrusgumble

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

He took the oath to save his party but he wouldn't take it to save the nation from civil war.

ha, and you think that the members of the IRA (Irregulars), like Lynch, Barry, O'Connor, Mellon actually paid any heed as to what De Valera had to say or could have influenced the Irregulars to step down.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

walrusgumble wrote: »

ha, and you think that the members of the IRA (Irregulars), like Lynch, Barry, O'Connor, Mellon actually paid any heed as to what De Valera had to say or could have influenced the Irregulars to step down.

Maybe not, but the fact is that he would take the oath when his party was in jeopardy, not when the country was in danger.

FreudianSlippers

Fbjm wrote: »

92% of Americans believe in the guy, so it's not likely to happen THERE any time soon.

Source? I find that number to be astronomically and unbelievably high.

The_Minister

drkpower wrote: »

2. The newly elected president refuses to take the oath and takes case as regards its constitutionality .

If (2) (and assuming the SC is convened and gives its decision quickly), it really could go either way but I suspect the SC would rely on the contradiction in the Constitution raised by Later.

The Supreme Court cannot amend the Constitution - they would have to uphold the oath as constitutional.

later12

The_Minister wrote: »

The Supreme Court cannot amend the Constitution - they would have to uphold the oath as constitutional.

The oath would still be constitutional, but the above is not necessarily correct in that the SC would not have to uphold it.

In cases where the constitution may contradict itself, the Supreme Court would weigh up both (or all) conflicting provisions (each with equal status) and decide in this particular case which provision is the most important.

jakdelad

swearing on the bible
the real truth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E&feature=related

T runner

KeithAFC wrote: »

Has an Atheist ever been the president of your country?

Possibly, but mainly Protestants and Catholics have been President of this state. Has a non Protestant ever been head of State in the UK? Is a non Protestanta llowed to be head of State there? Has a non-Protestant ever lead NI?

G_R

The_Minister wrote: »

The Supreme Court cannot amend the Constitution - they would have to uphold the oath as constitutional.

No they cant, the constitution can only be amended by a Referendum of the People. They can, however, interpret the constitution (Judicial Review). In the words of an American Judge from the early 20th century who's name escapes me "The constitution is what the Judges say it is". That goes for the Irish one too.

The_Minister

Grand_Rajnah wrote: »

No they cant, the constitution can only be amended by a Referendum of the People. They can, however, interpret the constitution (Judicial Review). In the words of an American Judge from the early 20th century who's name escapes me "The constitution is what the Judges say it is". That goes for the Irish one too.

They cannot intepret the Constitution to mean something other than its actual wording - the Constitution specifically lays down an oath, the Supreme Court cannot with 'interpret' that away.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Judges also have to swear an oath to take their position.

drkpower

The_Minister wrote: »

They cannot intepret the Constitution to mean something other than its actual wording - the Constitution specifically lays down an oath, the Supreme Court cannot with 'interpret' that away.

Read Later's answer above.

While you are correct in that the SC cannot interpret the presidential oath out of the constitution, there has long been a principle of the hierarchy of constitutional rights/norms. The SC can determine whether there is a conflict within the terms of the constitution and then go on to rank one higher than the other so that one prevails (and therefore one right/norm loses, or is essentially ignored).

The result would not be a declaration that the oath as unconstitutional; it would be a declaration that, in this case, the rights guaranteed under Article 44 rank higher than the presidential oath and that those rights prevail (with the conclusion that the President need not take the oath as to do so would be to infringe upon his higher ranking rights).

G_R

The_Minister wrote: »

They cannot intepret the Constitution to mean something other than its actual wording - the Constitution specifically lays down an oath, the Supreme Court cannot with 'interpret' that away.

True, but the SC could in theory interpret the constitution

CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND – BUNREACHT NA h&#201 wrote: »

8. The President shall enter upon his office by taking and subscribing publicly, in the presence of members of both Houses of the Oireachtas, of Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Court, and other public personages, the following declaration:

"In the presence of Almighty God I ,do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will maintain the Constitution of Ireland and uphold its laws, that I will fulfil my duties faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and that I will dedicate my abilities to the service and welfare of the people of Ireland. May God direct and sustain me."

as meaning that the president shall enter upon his office by taking and subscribing publicly except where he does not believe in God...
or something to that effect.

Take the X case for example, the Supreme Court interpreted the "prohibition on abortion" as a "prohibition on abortion, except when the life of the mother is at risk; including at risk from suicide"

Its improbable, but in theory it could happen. My lecturer on Politics has said that if the Judges Interpret black as meaning white, black now means white, there is no limits on what the can/cannot do, with relation to the constitution.

Grand_Rajnah

Grand_Rajnah wrote: »

True, but the SC could in theory interpret the constitution



as meaning that the president shall enter upon his office by taking and subscribing publicly except where he does not believe in God...
or something to that effect.

Take the X case for example, the Supreme Court interpreted the "prohibition on abortion" as a "prohibition on abortion, except when the life of the mother is at risk; including at risk from suicide"

Its improbable, but in theory it could happen. My lecturer on Politics has said that if the Judges Interpret black as meaning white, black now means white, there is no limits on what the can/cannot do, with relation to the constitution.

Sorry to drag up an old thread but I was reading this and realised that the final post in the thread was completely wrong.

First off the X Case did not just add on "except when the life of the mother is at risk" to Art. 40.3.3. The Irish people did that in 1983 when they amended the Constitution. The Supreme Court just interpreted "due regard to the life of the mother" as including serious suicide risks. It also lead directly to the 1992 referendum specifically excusing travel rights from the ambit of Art. 40.3.3.

As for the interpretation of the Constitution, the section quoted above is a "shall" provision and is extremely specific. The person saying the words doesn't have to mean them but they absolutely have to say them. Enumerated Constitutional duties are rare but where they exist, such as here, they are absolutely clear cut.

EDIT: Also your lecturer in politics should stick to politics. He could not be more wrong about the powers of the Supreme Court with regard to the Constitution.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

The person saying the words doesn't have to mean them but they absolutely have to say them.

And if they are fussy, the atheist in question could name a Teddy Bear "Almighty God" and bring it along to the ceremony.

stevenmu

I think the problem an atheist would have with the oath is that it would be dishonest to swear an oath to a deity they do not believe exists.

And possibly more importantly, it would be dishonest in an unequivical way that they could easily be called out on at a later stage.

Zubeneschamali

stevenmu wrote: »

And possibly more importantly, it would be dishonest in an unequivical way that they could easily be called out on at a later stage.

Well, if it was me, I'd be sure to defuse any possible misunderstandings by introducing my teddybear to the press beforehand.

HellsAngel

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

He took the oath to save his party but he wouldn't take it to save the nation from civil war.

True enough, but maybe it was a case of taking it to advice his political career.

stevenmu

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, if it was me, I'd be sure to defuse any possible misunderstandings by introducing my teddybear to the press beforehand.

Good plan, I can't see any possible issues with that

lemarquis

Is there anyone out there from the Labour party - a secular party - that could comment on how their candidate Michael D should approach this issue? Personally I do not wish to vote for any candidate that is willing to swear the oath as it is currently phrased.

dvpower

One real problem is that a non theist would be disadvantaged in an election campaign by the fact that the oath exists.

A non theist would be asked how he would approach the oath if elected. If he says he would take it, but not really mean it, the charge is bound to be put that he is supposed to be the gaurdian of the Constitution, but he is saying during the campaign that he could simply ignore a part of it.

How could someone who is prepared to selectlvely disregard one bit of the Constitution be trusted not to selectively disregard other bits.

lemarquis

Should, therefore, not someone make a stand on this now? Otherwise the situation is maintained and non-theists (or more accurately, non-Christians) can never honestly run for the position.
How for example could an elected president having taken the oath then stand over constitutional reform that would remove the judeo-christian phraseology?

dvpower

lemarquis wrote: »

Should, therefore, not someone make a stand on this now?

The Humanist Association of Ireland have made a submission on this and other constitutional changes.

They had a campaign on this issue last year with a lot of ads on the DART etc.

Tomk1

dvpower wrote: »

The Humanist Association of Ireland have made a submission on this and other constitutional changes.

They had a campaign on this issue last year with a lot of ads on the DART etc.

Didn't see that in my part of Ireland etc.

''I swear on the almighty FSM to ....cut noodles of ribbons''
That should be ok ?? or pick Thor??

lemarquis

Strange that Ireland's "secular" media is so disinterested about this issue. Far too concerned about some obscure ex-singer's American dream.

goose2005

dvpower wrote: »

One real problem is that a non theist would be disadvantaged in an election campaign by the fact that the oath exists.

A non theist would be asked how he would approach the oath if elected. If he says he would take it, but not really mean it, the charge is bound to be put that he is supposed to be the gaurdian of the Constitution, but he is saying during the campaign that he could simply ignore a part of it.

How could someone who is prepared to selectlvely disregard one bit of the Constitution be trusted not to selectively disregard other bits.

Then again, Dana seems to think that she can veto laws, so it's no great problem.