#TIL that the oaths of office for the president and vice-president of the United States are quite different. The president is supposed to “preserve, protect and defend”, whereas the vp will “support and defend”. Also, the vp's oath mentions “enemies”, not the president's. 
The vp makes an oath of allegiance which the president does not. The president will “faithfully execute the Office of President” (does one execute an office? that's a bit strange, isn't it?) whereas the vp will “faithfully discharge the duties of the office”.
And, perhaps more importantly, the president vows to do all this “to the best of [their] abilities”, whereas the vp will do this “without any mental reservation”.
I get the reason for these differences: one oath is in the Constitution, the other is in a 19th century law.
I get the reason for these differences: one oath is in the Constitution, the other is in a 19th century law.
But if we believe that words matter and that oaths aren't just a random collection of them, but that they have meaning, these differences should have implications. Do we believe this? (Certainly the previous president did not…)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
