Timeline for How would a mute person take an oath of office in the United States?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 16, 2020 at 3:34 | comment | added | Damila | @DarrelHoffman in addition to what James K said, I believe presidents bring their own bible usually. Certainly they can. | |
| Oct 15, 2020 at 21:06 | comment | added | James K | @DarrelHoffman It's very simple; they can affirm. The oath can be delivered without any book. The oath taker can say "I do solemnly affirm..." No bibles are required and such an oath is explictly permitted in the constitution. As a juror, in the trial I mentioned above, I affirmed. | |
| Oct 15, 2020 at 20:18 | comment | added | Darrel Hoffman | @JamesK The mention of the bible now makes me think: "How would an atheist/agnostic take an oath of office?" Or a member of any other religion besides Christianity? I guess they can pull out an Old Testament or a Koran for Jewish or Muslim office-holders, and maybe they've got a library full of the holy books of every other major religion, but for those without any religion, I'm not sure what the equivalent would be... | |
| Oct 15, 2020 at 19:33 | comment | added | Asteroids With Wings | @fectin The mute ones don't. Or the ones without hands... | |
| Oct 15, 2020 at 8:34 | comment | added | FrederikVds | @Graham It's not necessarily that simple in countries with multiple official languages. In Belgium for example, exactly half the government needs to be Dutch-speaking and the other half French-speaking, and also some votes in parliament need a majority among both Dutch speakers and French speakers. Most people are at least partially bilingual though, and the language of their oath is taken as a proxy for their "main" language. It would be extremely controversial if someone takes their oath in what is perceived as not their "actual" language to get around these rules. | |
| Oct 14, 2020 at 22:33 | comment | added | fectin | @Damila US civil service employees raise their right hand and recite the civil service oath aloud. Not sure where your info is from. | |
| Oct 14, 2020 at 21:58 | comment | added | ohwilleke♦ | @Graham The U.S. does not have an official language. Neither do most U.S. states. | |
| Oct 14, 2020 at 21:57 | comment | added | ohwilleke♦ | I once had a trial where one of the jurors was hearing impaired and unable to speak orally. A translator was brought in and the swearing in of the jurors proceeded in much the way that @JamesK indicated (although a Bible wasn't used in that case). | |
| Oct 14, 2020 at 18:51 | comment | added | Graham | @FrederikVds ... More relevant is the fact that the US only has one official language shared by all states, English, so it's implicit that anyone in public office has to be able to communicate in that language. In other countries with more than one official language, you can indeed take oaths of office in any of those official languages. Some US states have more than one official language though; whether they allow oaths in other languages I guess would be up to those states. | |
| Oct 14, 2020 at 18:50 | comment | added | Graham | @FrederikVds Courts routinely provide translators for witnesses and defendants to ensure justice happens though, because what matters is the information. So this isn't really an applicable comparison. | |
| Oct 14, 2020 at 17:36 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @FrederikVds That's a fascinating question, that might be pertinent on Law as well. Open for interpretation, of course, is what it means to "take" an oath. I have always thought of it as an internal thing, where the ritual is simply a tool used to convince others that the oath has been undertaken. Unless Sapir-Whorf is true, we don't fundamentally think in spoken language anyways, so there was always one interpretation involved. A second interpretation shouldn't change the concept of taking an oath (I would think). | |
| Oct 14, 2020 at 16:01 | comment | added | Azor Ahai -him- | Signed Exact English does exist. So if the relevant legal counsel thought ASL wasn't sufficient (IMO which would be dumb), the inaguree can sign in "English." | |
| Oct 14, 2020 at 15:50 | comment | added | Damila | @FrederikVds You are correct abut ASL. Honestly, I was going to mention that in my answer, that ASL is not English, but rather it's own language. My apology for not acknowledging that. That said, it says 'he shall take the following oath..." so written, accepting ASL anyway, etc. would probably work. It's one of those things I guess we would not know for sure until someone did it and someone challenged it. On the other end of the hierarchy, regular federal employees sign a paper on entry. | |
| Oct 14, 2020 at 15:36 | comment | added | FrederikVds | ASL is not English though (the grammar is very different), so they're not saying those words, they're saying a translation of those words. If signing it in ASL is okay, that would also seem to imply it's okay to say it in another language, or even to convey the same meaning in English using different words. I think a mute person would mostly get a pass because of their disability, but I do wonder about the controversy that would ensue if someone tried to take a constitutionally mandated oath in Spanish. | |
| Oct 13, 2020 at 22:55 | vote | accept | qarz | ||
| Oct 13, 2020 at 19:04 | comment | added | James K | I was a juror in a trial with a deaf-mute defendant. The defendant placed one hand on a bible. The orderly asked "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth...." The court appointed interpreter translated. The defendant replied in sign language (saying "I do"") the interpreter indicted to the judge that the defendant had assented. And the case continued, with the barristers questioning (which was interpreted) So its not impossible. | |
| Oct 13, 2020 at 18:54 | history | answered | Damila | CC BY-SA 4.0 |