42

Many officeholders in the United States are required to take an oath of office. How would a mute person do this?

qarz
  • 643
  • 1
  • 9
  • 17

2 Answers2

65

By whatever means that person communicates. ASL (sign language), sign a piece of paper with the words, write the words and sign them...

The original law from the U.S. Constitution is for the president, Article II, Section 1:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:-"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."

It does not say anything about speaking those words aloud. So in whichever way "he" is able to take the oath should suffice.

Damila
  • 2,687
  • 13
  • 16
  • 72
    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. – James K Oct 13 '20 at 19:04
  • 5
    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. – FrederikVds Oct 14 '20 at 15:36
  • @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. – Damila Oct 14 '20 at 15:50
  • 10
    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." – Azor Ahai -him- Oct 14 '20 at 16:01
  • @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). – Cort Ammon Oct 14 '20 at 17:36
  • 5
    @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. – Graham Oct 14 '20 at 18:50
  • 1
    @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. – Graham Oct 14 '20 at 18:51
  • 1
    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). – ohwilleke Oct 14 '20 at 21:57
  • 23
    @Graham The U.S. does not have an official language. Neither do most U.S. states. – ohwilleke Oct 14 '20 at 21:58
  • @Damila US civil service employees raise their right hand and recite the civil service oath aloud. Not sure where your info is from. – fectin Oct 14 '20 at 22:33
  • @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. – FrederikVds Oct 15 '20 at 08:34
  • @fectin The mute ones don't. Or the ones without hands... – Asteroids With Wings Oct 15 '20 at 19:33
  • @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... – Darrel Hoffman Oct 15 '20 at 20:18
  • 2
    @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. – James K Oct 15 '20 at 21:06
  • @DarrelHoffman in addition to what James K said, I believe presidents bring their own bible usually. Certainly they can. – Damila Oct 16 '20 at 03:34
10

Ask Amanda Folendorf

She appears to be the only deaf elected "chief executive" (mayor, governor, president, etc.) in the US. I can't find any resources which say whether she swore the oath of office verbally, via interpreters, or another way. However, she does have a team of interpreters to navigate her daily duties, so I would presume they performed during her swearing-in ceremony.

Like many deaf people, she has some hearing, and can presumably vocalize to an understandable degree, given that her parents didn't even know she was deaf for several years. Thus, it is possible that she took the oath orally.

ADA

However, I believe that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, she would be legally entitled to demand that she be allowed to take the oath in ASL, even though ASL is not an official language of the US (though perhaps it ought to be). In particular, state and local governments are subject to the ADA under 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131, and may not exclude individuals with disabilities from "participation in" the activities of said entities (presumably including the mayoral office, though IANAL), by section 12132.

Lawnmower Man
  • 3,755
  • 11
  • 23
  • 11
    The US does not have an official language even the judiciary treats English as through it was the only official language. – user2617804 Oct 14 '20 at 22:57
  • @user2617804 That's an interesting point. Apparently, some states have legislated English one or the official language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Official_languages_of_U.S._states_and_territories. So it's a little ambiguous... – Lawnmower Man Oct 14 '20 at 23:18
  • 4
    For once, I'm not convinced that the ADA applies. Since it is ordinary legislation, it's doesn't override the Constitution. If SCOTUS were to determine that the Constitution mandates that the oath be taken in English, then the ADA doesn't get to override that. – A. R. Oct 15 '20 at 13:45
  • @AndrewRay on what basis would SCOTUS decide that the Constitution requires English? – Lawnmower Man Oct 15 '20 at 19:23
  • @LawnmowerMan Potentially by deciding that the Constitution requires that the oath or affirmation be made exactly as it is written in the Constitution, and that a translation of the oath as written into another language is insufficient to meet the requirement. To be clear, if I were a justice of the Supreme Court, this would probably not be my interpretation, but it is an interpretation that I can envision being proffered. – A. R. Oct 15 '20 at 19:27
  • 3
    @AndrewRay well, the Constitution doesn't specify an oath of office for anyone but POTUS, so this argument doesn't have much breadth to it. – Lawnmower Man Oct 15 '20 at 20:09
  • @LawnmowerMan Yeah, you're right. Somehow I'd interpreted this question as being specifically about POTUS, but reading it again I see it isn't. – A. R. Oct 15 '20 at 22:49