By: LINDSEY O’NEILL, ESQ.
The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, recently issued a legal opinion regarding religious objections to oath of office. The Office of Legal Counsel concluded that requiring postal workers to take the “oath of office” does not “burden a person’s exercise of religion” or violate their civil rights.
Under federal law, Postal Service employees must subscribe to the following oath or affirmation:
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.”
As more fully described in the legal opinion, apparently some postal workers/applications objected to taking the oath of office – particularly to having to pledge to (1) “support . . . the Constitution,” (2) “defend the Constitution,” and (3) “bear true faith and allegiance to” the Constitution on the ground that doing so would violate their sincerely held religious views. Those who objected argued that that their religions forbid military service or placing an allegiance to a temporal power over God. However, it was concluded that oath of office would not interfere with applicants’ right to freely exercise their religious beliefs.
Highlights from the opinion concluding that the oath of office does not violate applicants’ freedom of religion include that:
- Supporting the Constitution against all enemies requires simply that a person abide by the nation’s constitutional system of government and its laws. It was not intended to create specific responsibilities per se, but to assure that those in positions of public trust are willing to live by the constitutional processes of our system.
- The reference to “defending the Constitution against all enemies” does not require anyone to take up arms, or burden the religious exercise of persons who object to resorting to arms, but requires only that a person abide by the nation’s constitutional system of government and defend its laws by rejecting the use of force to overthrow it.
- Pledging that one will “bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution does not require one to subordinate his or her allegiance to God to the United States. The phrase refers only to requiring that one pledge an honest and faithful commitment to the Constitution as opposed to other temporal powers—not as opposed to God.
The legal opinion also notes that the Postal Service has a “…compelling interest in ensuring, including through an oath, that prospective employees both support the Constitution and [are] committed to faithfully performing their jobs.” Part of the reason for the oath is to make ensure a minimal level of loyalty and conscientious conduct on the part of federal employees and officers. People who have “…engag[ed] in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution, or giv[en] ‘aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” are simply barred from holding government office or employment.
Postal workers in particular must meet certain minimum standards of loyalty and support of our laws required by all officers of our government. Postal employees are in a position of public trust, with “… unique access both to the mail—which contains valuable items such as social-security checks, tax returns, and correspondence—and to public and private buildings.”
You can read the entire legal opinion by clicking here.
Our legal rights, including freedom of religion and other civil rights, can sometimes present complicated questions in the real world. If you have a question about how a federal law affects you in your job, contact a civil rights attorney or a labor and employment attorney in your area today. You can also learn more about the law in LawInfo’s Free Legal Resource Center.



3 Responses to Postal Workers Must Take Oath of Office to Uphold the Constitution
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
New Posts
-
School Lunch Police Reject Homemade Lunches
17 hours ago
by Caitlyn Obolsky, Esq.
-
Recent Recalls: Consumer Products
17 hours ago
by Caitlyn Obolsky, Esq.
-
Frequently Asked Legal Questions: Lemon Law
2 days ago
by Caitlyn Obolsky, Esq.
-
DOJ Files Information After Gout Drug Linked to 3 Deaths
2 days ago
by Caitlyn Obolsky, Esq.
-
Are You Buying Counterfeit Goods?
2 days ago
by Chris Blankinship, Esq.
-
School Lunch Police Reject Homemade Lunches
Facebook Fans
Popular Posts
- Is a Captain Legally Obligated to Stay Aboard His Ship After a Crash? (39364 views)
- Pfizer Recalls Birth Control Pills (369 views)
- Pair Denied Entry into the United States Due to Tweets (324 views)
- California Police Officer Shot And Killed By Fellow Officers (267 views)
- Partying Pictures on Facebook Lead to Denial of Workers' Compensation Benefits (251 views)
Topics
Attorney Marketing (4)
Automobile Accidents (47)
Aviation Accidents/Disasters (25)
Bankruptcy Law (45)
Brain Injury / Brain Trauma (47)
Business Law (86)
CA suits (47)
Catastrophic Injury (84)
Celebrity (39)
Class Actions (72)
Constitutional (103)
Corporate & Securities Law (24)
Criminal Law (232)
Current Events (320)
Dangerous Products / Defective Products (162)
Divorce (15)
Dog Bites (11)
DoOver (30)
Drugs (22)
Drunk Driving (49)
DUI (51)
Dumb or Weird Laws (25)
DWI (45)
Education (13)
En Español (7)
Entertainment Law (13)
Estate Planning (31)
Family Law (66)
Federal (158)
Frequently Asked Questions (12)
General (380)
Historical Cases (5)
How-To's (24)
immigration (12)
Immigration Law (40)
Intellectual Property (19)
Labor & Employment Law (54)
Landlord – Tenant (15)
Law Enforcement (6)
LawSmart (3)
Lead Counsel (710)
Lead Counsel Guest Attorneys (114)
Lead Counsel Corner (987)
Lead Counsel News (311)
Legal Trends (96)
Litigation (133)
Medical Malpractice (52)
OUI (13)
Personal Injury (180)
Press Releases (25)
Prisons (4)
Privacy (32)
Products Liability (78)
Recall (135)
Slip and Fall / Trip and Fall (39)
Spinal Cord Injury (31)
Sports (7)
Tax Law (17)
Torts (36)
Unfair Insurance Practices / Insurance Bad Faith (12)
Workers' Compensation (22)
Wrongful Death (91)









Whoever wrote, “defending the Constitution against all enemies” does not require anyone to take up arms” —is 100% wrong! The Founding Fathers including Benjammin Franklin (America’s First Post Master General) knew the importance of defending America from armed enemies (WITH armed citizens) and stopping domestic tyrants (people who try to take over induvidual liberties) before they take individual liberties by force. The intent was to ensure that a person who was handling mail and found to be a traitor could be hung from a tree for not following orders from the Post Master General. Maybe if we start hanging a few of the people who refuse to agree to uphold the U.S. Constitution we would have a stronger nation! Start with the one who file the lawsuit!
Reply
If you truly believe in the Constitution, you would honor the right to decline such an oath as a basic right of freedom.
Reply
angelison Reply:
December 28th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Then do not take the Job!!! that is also part of your Freedom, don’t twist it!!
Reply