• Politicians often promise that they will defend the Constitution, and government officials even make an oath that they will do so.
• That oath involves a personal responsibility on the part of the government officer to adhere to constitutional norms even though it means sublimating personal or party interests.
• It also means filling the constitutionally prescribed role rather than delegating or overreaching while working in the parameters of a system, even when that results in disappointment or sacrifice.

During election season, candidates often promise to defend the Constitution, as candidates in various races in Utah this year have done. This is as it should be. The Constitution specifically requires elected and appointed officials, both state and federal, to swear or affirm “to support this Constitution.”

Congress determined the current form of the oath in the 1860s:

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. So help me God.

What does this mean in practice? How can a voter know if an elected official is actually keeping their promise?

There are surely many considerations, but four interrelated aspects of the oath are worth highlighting.

First, the oath denotes a personal responsibility. The official says, “I” and takes the oath by name. The promise cannot be outsourced to a political party or to the leader of the party. It is widely understood that a governor or president has an extraconstitutional role in leading his or her political party, but when that leader’s actions are at odds with constitutional requirements, each individual official must independently act to fulfill their personal commitment regardless of the party line.

Second, and related to the first, the person making the oath pledges “true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution. This means that officials should act to strengthen the constitutional system and build the institution they are elected or appointed to participate in. Of course, each is free to express and act on their understanding of what their role and the Constitution require. That may involve expressing strong disagreements. Failing to do so could mean falling short in that allegiance.

Sometimes, though, officials prioritize party or personal interests (including auditioning for another office) at the expense of their constitutional role. In extreme cases, members may impede or disrupt the functions of government to draw attention to themselves or to a cause they think is so important that constitutional procedures are a hindrance. That is a serious mistake. The constitutional system of checks and balances as well as the provisions for periodic elections, impeachment, etc., provide a means for addressing serious concerns without a need to break faith with the Constitution. Perhaps electoral prospects will suffer, but that is less serious than breaking faith with what one has committed to do.

Third, the oath includes a promise to “discharge the duties of the office.” This means that officials must do the jobs they are constitutionally assigned to do. (As a corollary, it also means that they ought not do other things.)

For executive branch officials, that means enforcing rather than making laws. For legislators, it means making laws rather than calling for administrative agencies to make policies that the legislature has failed to enact. For judges it means faithfully applying the text of constitutional and other legal provisions regardless of whether the resulting policy outcomes are what they would choose if they were in a legislative role. In the language of the oath, officials don’t “evade” responsibilities by trying to give them to others.

Finally, there is the promise to “support” the Constitution. The Constitution is a compact for making decisions in a certain way and respecting boundaries. This means that officials must act within its parameters and work within the constitutional system. For legislators, in particular, that almost always requires seeking to build consensus among other representatives. There are instances where an official may need to stand alone on a matter or principle. This, too, is a way of building consensus in the long term.

Some politicians, however, overpromise what they can do on their own or denigrate the institutions they are to support. Others refuse to moderate positions where principle is not at stake. This is to fail to keep one’s word.

In an important essay published last September, during statewide commemoration of the U.S. Constitution, attorney and church leader Elder Lance B. Wickman expressed this eloquently:

Quite simply, we are promising, with our solemn, sacred honor, to do all in our power, even at the expense of our own lives, to uphold the system of government established by the Constitution and the promise of liberty and justice it holds out to persons in this nation. Our pledge is not a matter of party, politics, policies or personalities. It is a covenant with each other — and with God who inspired it — to uphold the principles of governance embodied in the Constitution — a collaborative government where we come together to resolve differences and find solutions to the nation’s problems.

To meet such a charge takes courage and tenacity. No elected or appointed official will be perfect in meeting it, but it is an aspiration worth pursuing despite opposition from personal ambition, competing interests, and pressure to compromise.

Allison Lawrence contributed to the research for this post.