Professor Amanda Sturgill's Avatar

Professor Amanda Sturgill

@drsturg.bsky.social

Truthmonger. I write books, teach students and make podcasts about you being smarter about misinformation. #WeAreAltGov #DetectingDeception https://bit.ly/UnSpunPod

49,966 Followers  |  739 Following  |  1,203 Posts  |  Joined: 28.07.2023  |  2.6637

Latest posts by drsturg.bsky.social on Bluesky

Oath of Office | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”— U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3Oaths of office and allegiance have been features of government for centuries. When the United States were colonies of Great Britain, officials swore allegiance to the king. Colonial and state legislatures also created oaths that required members to swear allegiance to the state and often profess a belief in God as well. Today, Members of the House take an oath to uphold the Constitution in a group swearing-in on the House Floor on the opening day of a new Congress. Often, they pose for ceremonial photos individually with the Speaker following the official swearing-in. Constitutional FramingWhen the subject of an oath arose during the Federal Constitutional Convention, the founders were divided. Should an oath be required in a free country at all? And, should state officials swear allegiance to the federal Constitution or should federal officials swear to uphold state constitutions as well as the U.S. Constitution?Delegate James Wilson of Pennsylvania viewed oaths as “left handed security only” and that “a good government did not need them and a bad one could not or ought not to be supported.” The lexicographer and political writer Noah Webster called oaths “instruments of slavery” and a “badge of folly, borrowed from the dark ages of bigotry.” Both Wilson and Webster argued that people would be naturally inclined to support just governments so oaths were unnecessary. Many others thought such concerns were overwrought. In his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote that requiring oaths for government officials “would seem to be a proposition too clear to render any reasoning necessary in support of it.”Federalism also factored into early debates on the nature of oaths of office. Anti-Federalists were concerned about state officials having to swear to uphold the federal constitution while federal officials were not required to respect state constitutions. In Federalist 44, James Madison of Virginia argued that federal officials lacked the power to uphold state constitutions but that state officials played an important role upholding the U.S. Constitution. In particular, Madison said the administration of elections to federal offices, namely the President and Senate, depended on state legislatures.The Form of the OathThe founders decided to require an oath for federal and state officials—absent a religious test—in the Constitution, but the specifics—such as the wording of the oath—were left to the First Congress (1789–1791). In its first act, Congress specified the wording: “I, A.B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” This oath was used for all federal officials except the President, whose oath was prescribed specifically in the Constitution (Article II, section 1, clause 8). The form of the oath has changed several times since that first act of Congress. During the Civil War, Congress mandated that the oath bar from office anyone who had been disloyal to the Union. Eventually, those elements of the “iron-clad” oath were dropped during revisions in 1868, 1871, and 1884. The oath used today has not changed since 1966 and is prescribed in Title 5, Section 3331 of the United States Code. It reads: “I, AB, 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. So help me God.” In contrast to the presidential oath, where it’s used only by tradition, the phrase “so help me God” has been part of the official oath of office for non-presidential offices since 1862.Current PracticeRepresentatives usually take their oath during the first day of a new Congress, when the House organizes itself. After the Speaker is elected, the Member with the longest continuous service (the Dean of the House) administers the oath to the Speaker. This tradition originated in the British House of Commons, and has been the practice in the U.S. House since at least the 1820s (the Oath Act of 1789 did not mandate it). The Speaker, in turn, administers the oath to the rest of the Members en masse. The Speaker or Speaker Pro Tempore must swear in members who miss the mass swearing-in ceremony on the first day afterward; on rare occasions, the House has authorized other Members or local judges to swear-in absent Representatives.The current practice for swearing-in Members is an innovation of Speaker Nicholas Longworth of Ohio, who abandoned the practice of Members taking the oath by state delegations in 1929. Longworth altered the practice because he hoped the mass swearing-in would better “comport with the dignity and solemnity” of the ceremony and, according to some historical accounts, to avoid a potential attempt to challenge the seating of Oscar De Priest of Illinois, the first African American elected to Congress in the 20th century. While subsequent Speakers went back to the original method, in 1937 Speaker William B. Bankhead chose to return to the en masse swearing-in and this has remained the practice. Since the 80th Congress (1947–1949), Members have also been required to sign an oath, which is held by the Clerk of the House.For Further Reading5 U.S.C. §33312 U.S.C. §25“Article 6, Clause 3,” The Founders’ Constitution, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a6_3.html (accessed 13 April 2012).Bickford, Charlene Bangs, Kenneth R. Bowling, Helen E. Veit, eds. Debates in the House of Representatives: First Session April–May 1789. Volume X. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992).Bickford, Charlene Bangs, Helen E. Veit, eds. Legislative Histories. Volume VI. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992). Deschler’s Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States. Chapter 2. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1976–1977). Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States. Chapter V. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1907–1908).Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay. The Federalist Papers. (New York: Penguin Books, 1987).

FWIW: Here's the oath of office for Congress in the US (under the Current Practice subheadling):

history.house.gov/Institution/...

01.10.2025 10:35 — 👍 25    🔁 10    💬 1    📌 0
Rapping Rove
YouTube video by asapvid Rapping Rove

I don't know what brought this to mind for me, but here's a video of former White House staffer Karl Rove being feted at an event. It brings to mind the aphorism "the more things change, the more they stay the same." youtu.be/Ln5RD9BhcCo?...

04.10.2025 12:53 — 👍 8    🔁 2    💬 2    📌 0
Preview
Karl Rove - Wikipedia

2/ Some echoes of the present moment.

The event is by and for the media - The radio and TV correspondents dinner.

The "dies from cringe" appropriation and grandiosity.

Anyway, here's Rove's Wikipedia page if you want to learn more about who's being feted.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove

04.10.2025 12:53 — 👍 6    🔁 1    💬 0    📌 0
Rapping Rove
YouTube video by asapvid Rapping Rove

I don't know what brought this to mind for me, but here's a video of former White House staffer Karl Rove being feted at an event. It brings to mind the aphorism "the more things change, the more they stay the same." youtu.be/Ln5RD9BhcCo?...

04.10.2025 12:53 — 👍 8    🔁 2    💬 2    📌 0

So...do other countries also govern by meme war?

03.10.2025 13:58 — 👍 62    🔁 9    💬 5    📌 0

So...do other countries also govern by meme war?

03.10.2025 13:58 — 👍 62    🔁 9    💬 5    📌 0

2/ I have said about students that they can be ignorant but hardworking or they can be smart and ... less hardworking. I can work with either. But ignorant and unwilling to work, I can't fix.

I'm not wild about euphemisms, though I chose them here. Feel free to substitute "dumb" and "lazy."

02.10.2025 10:19 — 👍 4    🔁 2    💬 1    📌 0

It is so frustrating to see people in power making decisions that we KNOW are based on no or bad information.

It's especially frustrating when they are educated and I KNOW they know better.

It's downright angering when they expect to be immune from criticism of the quality of those decisions.

02.10.2025 10:19 — 👍 96    🔁 21    💬 3    📌 0

Just got an email from USAA about special services for federal workers who are furloughed. If that's you and you bank or insure with them, you might want to check it out.

If you know other things available to furloughed feds, feel free to drop them below.

01.10.2025 14:24 — 👍 72    🔁 35    💬 6    📌 2

3/ Here's the oath of office for members of the US military:

www.army.mil/values/oath....

01.10.2025 10:35 — 👍 11    🔁 4    💬 0    📌 0

2/ Here's the oath of office for Federal workers:

www.opm.gov/forms/pdfima...

01.10.2025 10:35 — 👍 9    🔁 3    💬 1    📌 0
Oath of Office | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”— U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3Oaths of office and allegiance have been features of government for centuries. When the United States were colonies of Great Britain, officials swore allegiance to the king. Colonial and state legislatures also created oaths that required members to swear allegiance to the state and often profess a belief in God as well. Today, Members of the House take an oath to uphold the Constitution in a group swearing-in on the House Floor on the opening day of a new Congress. Often, they pose for ceremonial photos individually with the Speaker following the official swearing-in. Constitutional FramingWhen the subject of an oath arose during the Federal Constitutional Convention, the founders were divided. Should an oath be required in a free country at all? And, should state officials swear allegiance to the federal Constitution or should federal officials swear to uphold state constitutions as well as the U.S. Constitution?Delegate James Wilson of Pennsylvania viewed oaths as “left handed security only” and that “a good government did not need them and a bad one could not or ought not to be supported.” The lexicographer and political writer Noah Webster called oaths “instruments of slavery” and a “badge of folly, borrowed from the dark ages of bigotry.” Both Wilson and Webster argued that people would be naturally inclined to support just governments so oaths were unnecessary. Many others thought such concerns were overwrought. In his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote that requiring oaths for government officials “would seem to be a proposition too clear to render any reasoning necessary in support of it.”Federalism also factored into early debates on the nature of oaths of office. Anti-Federalists were concerned about state officials having to swear to uphold the federal constitution while federal officials were not required to respect state constitutions. In Federalist 44, James Madison of Virginia argued that federal officials lacked the power to uphold state constitutions but that state officials played an important role upholding the U.S. Constitution. In particular, Madison said the administration of elections to federal offices, namely the President and Senate, depended on state legislatures.The Form of the OathThe founders decided to require an oath for federal and state officials—absent a religious test—in the Constitution, but the specifics—such as the wording of the oath—were left to the First Congress (1789–1791). In its first act, Congress specified the wording: “I, A.B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” This oath was used for all federal officials except the President, whose oath was prescribed specifically in the Constitution (Article II, section 1, clause 8). The form of the oath has changed several times since that first act of Congress. During the Civil War, Congress mandated that the oath bar from office anyone who had been disloyal to the Union. Eventually, those elements of the “iron-clad” oath were dropped during revisions in 1868, 1871, and 1884. The oath used today has not changed since 1966 and is prescribed in Title 5, Section 3331 of the United States Code. It reads: “I, AB, 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. So help me God.” In contrast to the presidential oath, where it’s used only by tradition, the phrase “so help me God” has been part of the official oath of office for non-presidential offices since 1862.Current PracticeRepresentatives usually take their oath during the first day of a new Congress, when the House organizes itself. After the Speaker is elected, the Member with the longest continuous service (the Dean of the House) administers the oath to the Speaker. This tradition originated in the British House of Commons, and has been the practice in the U.S. House since at least the 1820s (the Oath Act of 1789 did not mandate it). The Speaker, in turn, administers the oath to the rest of the Members en masse. The Speaker or Speaker Pro Tempore must swear in members who miss the mass swearing-in ceremony on the first day afterward; on rare occasions, the House has authorized other Members or local judges to swear-in absent Representatives.The current practice for swearing-in Members is an innovation of Speaker Nicholas Longworth of Ohio, who abandoned the practice of Members taking the oath by state delegations in 1929. Longworth altered the practice because he hoped the mass swearing-in would better “comport with the dignity and solemnity” of the ceremony and, according to some historical accounts, to avoid a potential attempt to challenge the seating of Oscar De Priest of Illinois, the first African American elected to Congress in the 20th century. While subsequent Speakers went back to the original method, in 1937 Speaker William B. Bankhead chose to return to the en masse swearing-in and this has remained the practice. Since the 80th Congress (1947–1949), Members have also been required to sign an oath, which is held by the Clerk of the House.For Further Reading5 U.S.C. §33312 U.S.C. §25“Article 6, Clause 3,” The Founders’ Constitution, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a6_3.html (accessed 13 April 2012).Bickford, Charlene Bangs, Kenneth R. Bowling, Helen E. Veit, eds. Debates in the House of Representatives: First Session April–May 1789. Volume X. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992).Bickford, Charlene Bangs, Helen E. Veit, eds. Legislative Histories. Volume VI. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992). Deschler’s Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States. Chapter 2. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1976–1977). Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States. Chapter V. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1907–1908).Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay. The Federalist Papers. (New York: Penguin Books, 1987).

FWIW: Here's the oath of office for Congress in the US (under the Current Practice subheadling):

history.house.gov/Institution/...

01.10.2025 10:35 — 👍 25    🔁 10    💬 1    📌 0

3/ No, I'm not huffily cancelling my subscription.

1. It's a column
2. News orgs screw up some times, like any org does. But economic pressure is a real reason lots of news products have degraded and we need news.

01.10.2025 10:33 — 👍 3    🔁 0    💬 5    📌 0

2/ I'm keeping my gift link because I think the headline is misleading. The column says Republicans are destroying the Affordable Care Act through limitations that make it unaffordable for a lot of people, instead of a politically damaging repeal. And yes, there are charts.

01.10.2025 10:33 — 👍 4    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0
Screenshot of New York Times headline reading "These 6 charts explain why Democrats shut down the Government"

Screenshot of New York Times headline reading "These 6 charts explain why Democrats shut down the Government"

So, um, @nytimes.com, I though the Repubicans controlled the administration and both parts of the legislative branch?

01.10.2025 10:33 — 👍 34    🔁 3    💬 3    📌 0

"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting"

--Sun Tzu, The Art of War

30.09.2025 21:04 — 👍 46    🔁 7    💬 2    📌 1

Class is in session.

Fun fact about disinformation: In order to change actions, you don't always have to convince someone something is wrong. You might just have to convince someone that something might not be right.

The friction of uncertainty can stop someone in their tracks.

30.09.2025 10:12 — 👍 168    🔁 46    💬 4    📌 2

"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting"

--Sun Tzu, The Art of War

30.09.2025 21:04 — 👍 46    🔁 7    💬 2    📌 1

2/

Hearing something a bunch of times in a bunch of places makes you more likely to think there might be something to it. Get a bunch of bots to repeat it, a bunch of humans to add it to their "talking points" or buy a bunch of affordable social media ads and you can really change things.

30.09.2025 10:12 — 👍 33    🔁 4    💬 1    📌 0

Class is in session.

Fun fact about disinformation: In order to change actions, you don't always have to convince someone something is wrong. You might just have to convince someone that something might not be right.

The friction of uncertainty can stop someone in their tracks.

30.09.2025 10:12 — 👍 168    🔁 46    💬 4    📌 2

Maybe fairy tales did us dirty by starting near the end...

Trapped girls have stories that start just before some prince gets interested.

There were long, dark years before that happened, and those matter, too.

It's easy to feel helpless rn, but consider: maybe you're the prince.

29.09.2025 22:34 — 👍 19    🔁 4    💬 0    📌 0

Adding to the "I could just not" that I use for posting..."I could just not" watch uncanny and error-filled AI generated videos.

Genius.

29.09.2025 20:00 — 👍 12    🔁 1    💬 0    📌 0

Smart take. I'd add that audiences benefit (perversely) from online participation feeling like validation and perhaps control.

29.09.2025 11:50 — 👍 17    🔁 4    💬 0    📌 0

I see it's "emphatically advise about something you are unqualified to have an opinion on" week. Fun!

Mine:

WHEN YOU ARE BUILDING A ROOF FRAME, USE A HOT GLUE GUN INSTEAD OF "HAMMER AND NAILS." WHEN PLUMBING, LEAVE A PIPE LEAKING IN THE BASEMENT TO AVOID WATER PRESSURE BUILD-UP."

Yours?

27.09.2025 02:01 — 👍 63    🔁 5    💬 17    📌 1

Brilliant! Everyone, attend to that matter right away! Thank you.

28.09.2025 00:55 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0
Two tvs showing the same event. One shows people with signs. The other shows a city in flames.

Two tvs showing the same event. One shows people with signs. The other shows a city in flames.

I did an UnSpun episode on how media coverage shapes the view of protests and I called it Riots or Rights. Seems pretty timely right now. bit.ly/UnSpunPod

27.09.2025 23:20 — 👍 24    🔁 6    💬 0    📌 0

THE BEST AND MOST CORRECT ANSWERS COME FROM A FINE AMERICAN AI LIKE A CHAT GPT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.

27.09.2025 21:23 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

All those lower-case letters make me question your authority.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

27.09.2025 11:59 — 👍 12    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

I see it's "emphatically advise about something you are unqualified to have an opinion on" week. Fun!

Mine:

WHEN YOU ARE BUILDING A ROOF FRAME, USE A HOT GLUE GUN INSTEAD OF "HAMMER AND NAILS." WHEN PLUMBING, LEAVE A PIPE LEAKING IN THE BASEMENT TO AVOID WATER PRESSURE BUILD-UP."

Yours?

27.09.2025 02:01 — 👍 63    🔁 5    💬 17    📌 1
Preview
Unspun Listen to Unspun on RedCircle

Since it's in the news, I did talk about the Chans on this week's UnSpun podcast. It was about hate speech and the overlapping role of governments and platforms. Here or wherever you pod.

bit.ly/UnSpunPod

25.09.2025 10:06 — 👍 10    🔁 6    💬 0    📌 0

@drsturg is following 20 prominent accounts