What do you think?
Rate this book
The Oath and the Office: A Guide to the Constitution for Future Presidents
"A cleareyed, accessible, and informative vital reading for all Americans." —Kirkus Reviews, starred review
Can the president launch a nuclear attack without congressional approval? Is it ever a crime to criticize the president? Can states legally resist a president’s executive order? In today’s fraught political climate, it often seems as if we must become constitutional law scholars just to understand the news from Washington, let alone make a responsible decision at the polls.
The Oath and the Office is the book we need, right now and into the future, whether we are voting for or running to become president of the United States. Constitutional law scholar and political science professor Corey Brettschneider guides us through the Constitution and explains the powers—and limits—that it places on the presidency. From the document itself and from American history’s most famous court cases, we learn why certain powers were granted to the presidency, how the Bill of Rights limits those powers, and what “we the people” can do to influence the nation’s highest public office—including, if need be, removing the person in it. In these brief yet deeply researched chapters, we meet founding fathers such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, as well as key figures from historic cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Korematsu v. United States.
Brettschneider breathes new life into the articles and amendments that we once read about in high school civics class, but that have real impact on our lives today. The Oath and the Office offers a compact, comprehensive tour of the Constitution, and empowers all readers, voters, and future presidents with the knowledge and confidence to read and understand one of our nation’s most important founding documents.
Can the president launch a nuclear attack without congressional approval? Is it ever a crime to criticize the president? Can states legally resist a president’s executive order? In today’s fraught political climate, it often seems as if we must become constitutional law scholars just to understand the news from Washington, let alone make a responsible decision at the polls.
The Oath and the Office is the book we need, right now and into the future, whether we are voting for or running to become president of the United States. Constitutional law scholar and political science professor Corey Brettschneider guides us through the Constitution and explains the powers—and limits—that it places on the presidency. From the document itself and from American history’s most famous court cases, we learn why certain powers were granted to the presidency, how the Bill of Rights limits those powers, and what “we the people” can do to influence the nation’s highest public office—including, if need be, removing the person in it. In these brief yet deeply researched chapters, we meet founding fathers such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, as well as key figures from historic cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Korematsu v. United States.
Brettschneider breathes new life into the articles and amendments that we once read about in high school civics class, but that have real impact on our lives today. The Oath and the Office offers a compact, comprehensive tour of the Constitution, and empowers all readers, voters, and future presidents with the knowledge and confidence to read and understand one of our nation’s most important founding documents.
314 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 18, 2018
64 people are currently reading
1123 people want to read
About the author
Corey Brettschneider
18 books56 followersCorey Brettschneider is a professor of political science at Brown University, where he teaches constitutional law and politics. He has also been a visiting professor at Fordham Law School, The University of Chicago Law School and Harvard Law School. His writing has appeared in Time, Politico, and the New York Times. His new book is The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
October 11, 2018
Review title: Citizen-philosopher
I have long said that maturity can be defined by recognizing that while anyone in America can grow up to be President, I have reached a point that I know I will not, and being content with that. In our government "of the People", while only a few will grow up to be elected to the position, every one of us has a role to play as citizen-philosophers. Brettschneider has written this little guide for both the few and the rest of us.
Brettschneider identifies three important qualifications for presidents, and for voters, from the Federalist Papers (written primarily by Madison and Hamilton in defense and explication of the new Constitution):
Wisdom--to discern the common good.
Virtue--to pursue the common good.
Deliberation--to be "cool-headed, careful, reasoned, and collaborative in your decision making." (p. 11-12)
And he identifies three key sources and definition of presidential authority: Article II of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitutional limits on presidential power, including impeachment. Article II is the primary source, and its first principle is that Congress makes laws, the president executes them, based on the principle that Congress "can better preserve the rule of law that is essential to constitutional democracy." (p. 47) Presidents, especially in the last 100 years, have attempted to add to their powers in two directions: signing executive orders which take over the legislative role of enacting law, and by tacitly or explicitly (by signing statements which express the president's intent regarding legislation he has just signed) failing to enforce laws. The power of presidents to make legislation via executive orders was limited by the Youngstown case in the 1950s when Harry Truman tried to take over steel companies by executive order to prevent an industry wide strike; the Supreme Court ruled the move unconstitutional and established a precedent that is the primary citation in such cases today. The author suggests you, future president, use the veto power aggressively to force Congress to pass better laws, and to deliberate seriously in the course of doing so.
In the steam of opposition raised by President Trump's immigration policy toward children of illegal immigrants, most American voters and media outlets have forgotten that President Obama's executive order creating DACA was widely criticized as overstepping presidential authority by making law. This overreach became such a cultural meme at the time that it was the basis of a Saturday Night Live sketch--a reminder that neither Republicans nor Democrats are blameless in this approach, and that the so-called "fake news" mainstream media performed its duty by reporting both as violations of presidential authority. The lesson learned is that regardless of which party's president is in office, the constitutional limits on his or her authority must be enforced, and rampant misuse of executive orders as legislation curtailed by legislative and judicial action.
This is where we as citizen-philosophers must be engaged and knowledgeable,and I must confess myself guilty of negligence of that duty. I had not paid enough attention to realize how much legislative power presidents had taken from Congress. After Donald Trump's election, when he had threatened to implement his reactionary immigration policies by executive action, I scoffed until I learned that based on President Obama's precedents he could indeed implement at least some of his policies without congressional action. A population of engaged citizens is needed to ensure that they vote for presidents who will act constitutionally, and for legislators who will respond when he or she doesn't. I have refused to vote for president in the past two elections because of the deplorably low quality of the candidates of all parties, but voters who fell short of the needed qualities of wisdom, virtue, and deliberation instead elected a president who appears to take pride in his lack of them. I believe that America needs to return to voter qualification tests, but this time not based on the irrelevant characteristics of race, gender, or property, but on those character traits of wisdom, virtual, and deliberation that really do matter in our constitutional republic. When family and friends question my political position based on my past history of conservatism, I respond that I am at once more conservative and more radical than they know; I refuse to identify myself with either major party as each takes positions I find abhorrent.
Likewise, when Richard Nixon and now Donald Trump have claimed, as Nixon said in 1973 "When the president does it, that means it is not illegal," (p. 53) I was surprised to learn from Brettschneider that they are partially right: they have the power to fire accusers (lawyers, special prosecutors, even the Attorney General) who work for the executive branch. Brettschneider recommends that Congress renew the 1978 independent counsel law (enacted to deal with Nixon's claim to be above the law), which expired in 1999, and that you, future president, take the Constitution seriously by "making sure all officials--even the president--are responsible for criminal wrongdoing. Article II's requirement that you 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed' means that you should respect the chief law enforcement officer's decision to allow crimes to be investigated, regardless of who perpetrates them." (p. 69) When Brettschneider occasionally refers directly to the future president (" you") it is both briefly startling to read and a subtle and effective reminder of his purpose in writing the book.
The character traits of wisdom, virtue, and deliberation must come together in your most important official nomination: Supreme Court justices.
But then you must shepherd your nominee through the confirmation process, which since the days of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas have been bitter partisan political brawls, down to literally this very hour; as I write, Trump nominee Brett Kavanaugh has been confirmed by a two vote margin after weeks of accusations of personal misconduct, with little attention paid to the strength of his wisdom, virtue, and deliberation. But Brettschneider warns that battles like this will be the case and aren't a bad thing but rather a symbol of democracy and the Constitution in action as the peoples' elected legislative representatives express the political and constitutional positions of the populace to vet the executive branch's nominee for a lifetime appointment to a judicial office that must rule on the constitutionality of the legislature's actions and the executive's authority. It isn't pretty, but it is democracy as practiced better than any other country on earth.
In my position as an off-the-grid voter trying to ignore the roar of noise which represents politics today, I thought from his judicial biography that Kavanaugh seemed a reasonably qualified candidate, and as he has been through multiple nomination and confirmation processes for his positions leading up to this one, I was forced to ask myself two questions about the storm of accusations: First, where were these accusers during those previous confirmation processes? Surely a man so violently accused and opposed now should have been stopped before standing on the doorstep of the Supreme Court. And second, and given the visceral hatred for Donald Trump and my general cynisicm about political activists of all stripes, doesn't the timing of these accusations smell like manufactured attacks on Trump only tangentially related to Kavanaugh? The answers to these questions, and the fact that I and others have had to ask them, arise out of Brettschneider's admonition for a president to be most wise, virtuous, and deliberative in selecting Supreme Court nominees, and out of Donald Trump's complete lack of these traits. Had a different president after due deliberation, with applied wisdom and virtue, nominated a candidate like Kavanaugh (or even Kavanaugh himself), the process if not the outcome would have been far different.
But here we are. Brettschneider closes this slim book with a discussion of the three ways to stop you, future president, if you violate the Oath of Office:
1. Judicial control, through Supreme Court rulings and criminal indictments. These are strong but tenuous measures because the courts have no enforcement arm, and legal scholars are divided on whether a sitting President can face criminal trial proceedings.
2. Federalism, or the action of state and local officials to refuse to enforce federal laws they believe are unconstitutional. Brettschneider provides a negative example of the "states rights" movement after the Civil War that refused to implement 13th,14th and 15th Amendment protections of African-American rights to live, work, vote freely. He identified this use of federalism as morally wrong and legally unconstitutional because it was a refusal to implement the "moral values" of the constitution as agreed by the entire country via the amendment process, and the specific laws that implemented them. He also provides a recent positive example of cities which have sued the federal government and refused to implement Trump administration rules to limit immigrant rights. These actions are in the authors view legal and constitutional as they strive to uphold the Constitution's moral values against an administrative rule that has not been vetted by "We the people" through legislative or judicial review.
3. Impeachment, removal for "high crimes" which are essentially political assessments of "major constitutional violations": "Undermining the integrity of our electoral process, abusing the trust of your governmental office to personally profit, or deliberately issuing executive orders that flout the Constitution's requirements." (p. 217) Impeachment is most appropriate for repeated actions that show a contempt for the Oath of Office or the Constitution.
And here we are. We have a president today who has committed all three of these" high crimes" with apparent contempt for the law of our country. After taking the (I thought) principled position of refusing to vote for unqualified candidates, I now live under an unqualified and unprincipled president, and I am forced to conclude that he needs to be impeached. So, to act with wisdom, virtue, and deliberation as a citizen-philosopher, I need to find and vote for candidates who will act wisely, virtuously, and deliberatively to consider the best actions. Over the last several months I have written to all of my representatives at each level seeking answers to my questions that reflect these traits and have yet to receive an answer that does. Perhaps Brettschneider expects too much, or I expect too much. Until we are better citizen-philosophers, we will have no better government. It is a sobering thought, and one that this worthy little book forces the reader to face head on. Whether this book is read by the current president or any future presidential hopefuls, it must be read by you, my fellow citizen-philosopher.
I have long said that maturity can be defined by recognizing that while anyone in America can grow up to be President, I have reached a point that I know I will not, and being content with that. In our government "of the People", while only a few will grow up to be elected to the position, every one of us has a role to play as citizen-philosophers. Brettschneider has written this little guide for both the few and the rest of us.
Brettschneider identifies three important qualifications for presidents, and for voters, from the Federalist Papers (written primarily by Madison and Hamilton in defense and explication of the new Constitution):
Wisdom--to discern the common good.
Virtue--to pursue the common good.
Deliberation--to be "cool-headed, careful, reasoned, and collaborative in your decision making." (p. 11-12)
And he identifies three key sources and definition of presidential authority: Article II of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitutional limits on presidential power, including impeachment. Article II is the primary source, and its first principle is that Congress makes laws, the president executes them, based on the principle that Congress "can better preserve the rule of law that is essential to constitutional democracy." (p. 47) Presidents, especially in the last 100 years, have attempted to add to their powers in two directions: signing executive orders which take over the legislative role of enacting law, and by tacitly or explicitly (by signing statements which express the president's intent regarding legislation he has just signed) failing to enforce laws. The power of presidents to make legislation via executive orders was limited by the Youngstown case in the 1950s when Harry Truman tried to take over steel companies by executive order to prevent an industry wide strike; the Supreme Court ruled the move unconstitutional and established a precedent that is the primary citation in such cases today. The author suggests you, future president, use the veto power aggressively to force Congress to pass better laws, and to deliberate seriously in the course of doing so.
In the steam of opposition raised by President Trump's immigration policy toward children of illegal immigrants, most American voters and media outlets have forgotten that President Obama's executive order creating DACA was widely criticized as overstepping presidential authority by making law. This overreach became such a cultural meme at the time that it was the basis of a Saturday Night Live sketch--a reminder that neither Republicans nor Democrats are blameless in this approach, and that the so-called "fake news" mainstream media performed its duty by reporting both as violations of presidential authority. The lesson learned is that regardless of which party's president is in office, the constitutional limits on his or her authority must be enforced, and rampant misuse of executive orders as legislation curtailed by legislative and judicial action.
This is where we as citizen-philosophers must be engaged and knowledgeable,and I must confess myself guilty of negligence of that duty. I had not paid enough attention to realize how much legislative power presidents had taken from Congress. After Donald Trump's election, when he had threatened to implement his reactionary immigration policies by executive action, I scoffed until I learned that based on President Obama's precedents he could indeed implement at least some of his policies without congressional action. A population of engaged citizens is needed to ensure that they vote for presidents who will act constitutionally, and for legislators who will respond when he or she doesn't. I have refused to vote for president in the past two elections because of the deplorably low quality of the candidates of all parties, but voters who fell short of the needed qualities of wisdom, virtue, and deliberation instead elected a president who appears to take pride in his lack of them. I believe that America needs to return to voter qualification tests, but this time not based on the irrelevant characteristics of race, gender, or property, but on those character traits of wisdom, virtual, and deliberation that really do matter in our constitutional republic. When family and friends question my political position based on my past history of conservatism, I respond that I am at once more conservative and more radical than they know; I refuse to identify myself with either major party as each takes positions I find abhorrent.
Likewise, when Richard Nixon and now Donald Trump have claimed, as Nixon said in 1973 "When the president does it, that means it is not illegal," (p. 53) I was surprised to learn from Brettschneider that they are partially right: they have the power to fire accusers (lawyers, special prosecutors, even the Attorney General) who work for the executive branch. Brettschneider recommends that Congress renew the 1978 independent counsel law (enacted to deal with Nixon's claim to be above the law), which expired in 1999, and that you, future president, take the Constitution seriously by "making sure all officials--even the president--are responsible for criminal wrongdoing. Article II's requirement that you 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed' means that you should respect the chief law enforcement officer's decision to allow crimes to be investigated, regardless of who perpetrates them." (p. 69) When Brettschneider occasionally refers directly to the future president (" you") it is both briefly startling to read and a subtle and effective reminder of his purpose in writing the book.
The character traits of wisdom, virtue, and deliberation must come together in your most important official nomination: Supreme Court justices.
Ultimately, if you can find a nominee with expertise in constitutional law, a clear communication style, an ability to build concensus, a willingness to maintain independence from political pressure, and a fundamental respect for the Constitution and its role as a guardian of the rights of ordinary Americans--and you make your choice with a commitment to gender, ethnic, and racial diversity--you will have chosen well. (p. 89)
But then you must shepherd your nominee through the confirmation process, which since the days of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas have been bitter partisan political brawls, down to literally this very hour; as I write, Trump nominee Brett Kavanaugh has been confirmed by a two vote margin after weeks of accusations of personal misconduct, with little attention paid to the strength of his wisdom, virtue, and deliberation. But Brettschneider warns that battles like this will be the case and aren't a bad thing but rather a symbol of democracy and the Constitution in action as the peoples' elected legislative representatives express the political and constitutional positions of the populace to vet the executive branch's nominee for a lifetime appointment to a judicial office that must rule on the constitutionality of the legislature's actions and the executive's authority. It isn't pretty, but it is democracy as practiced better than any other country on earth.
In my position as an off-the-grid voter trying to ignore the roar of noise which represents politics today, I thought from his judicial biography that Kavanaugh seemed a reasonably qualified candidate, and as he has been through multiple nomination and confirmation processes for his positions leading up to this one, I was forced to ask myself two questions about the storm of accusations: First, where were these accusers during those previous confirmation processes? Surely a man so violently accused and opposed now should have been stopped before standing on the doorstep of the Supreme Court. And second, and given the visceral hatred for Donald Trump and my general cynisicm about political activists of all stripes, doesn't the timing of these accusations smell like manufactured attacks on Trump only tangentially related to Kavanaugh? The answers to these questions, and the fact that I and others have had to ask them, arise out of Brettschneider's admonition for a president to be most wise, virtuous, and deliberative in selecting Supreme Court nominees, and out of Donald Trump's complete lack of these traits. Had a different president after due deliberation, with applied wisdom and virtue, nominated a candidate like Kavanaugh (or even Kavanaugh himself), the process if not the outcome would have been far different.
But here we are. Brettschneider closes this slim book with a discussion of the three ways to stop you, future president, if you violate the Oath of Office:
1. Judicial control, through Supreme Court rulings and criminal indictments. These are strong but tenuous measures because the courts have no enforcement arm, and legal scholars are divided on whether a sitting President can face criminal trial proceedings.
2. Federalism, or the action of state and local officials to refuse to enforce federal laws they believe are unconstitutional. Brettschneider provides a negative example of the "states rights" movement after the Civil War that refused to implement 13th,14th and 15th Amendment protections of African-American rights to live, work, vote freely. He identified this use of federalism as morally wrong and legally unconstitutional because it was a refusal to implement the "moral values" of the constitution as agreed by the entire country via the amendment process, and the specific laws that implemented them. He also provides a recent positive example of cities which have sued the federal government and refused to implement Trump administration rules to limit immigrant rights. These actions are in the authors view legal and constitutional as they strive to uphold the Constitution's moral values against an administrative rule that has not been vetted by "We the people" through legislative or judicial review.
3. Impeachment, removal for "high crimes" which are essentially political assessments of "major constitutional violations": "Undermining the integrity of our electoral process, abusing the trust of your governmental office to personally profit, or deliberately issuing executive orders that flout the Constitution's requirements." (p. 217) Impeachment is most appropriate for repeated actions that show a contempt for the Oath of Office or the Constitution.
And here we are. We have a president today who has committed all three of these" high crimes" with apparent contempt for the law of our country. After taking the (I thought) principled position of refusing to vote for unqualified candidates, I now live under an unqualified and unprincipled president, and I am forced to conclude that he needs to be impeached. So, to act with wisdom, virtue, and deliberation as a citizen-philosopher, I need to find and vote for candidates who will act wisely, virtuously, and deliberatively to consider the best actions. Over the last several months I have written to all of my representatives at each level seeking answers to my questions that reflect these traits and have yet to receive an answer that does. Perhaps Brettschneider expects too much, or I expect too much. Until we are better citizen-philosophers, we will have no better government. It is a sobering thought, and one that this worthy little book forces the reader to face head on. Whether this book is read by the current president or any future presidential hopefuls, it must be read by you, my fellow citizen-philosopher.
February 11, 2020
I thought this would be the perfect book to read during an impeachment trial...and I was correct. The author lays out the multiple meanings of the Constitution, including its origins and development throughout American history. While some of the citations and court cases might be dense, it's worth the intellectual effort.
June 10, 2018
Keep an eye out for this in September! It uses common language to break down the limits and abilities of the president under the constitution. A super easy read that's very educational, this would be great for high school kids too. I really enjoyed reading it and recommend it as a refresher to literally anyone living in this country because it's obvious we could collectively use it.
September 27, 2018
More than half a century separates me from high school Civics and college American History and Government courses. This and current political conditions attracted me to this readable and understandable review of what US Founders envisioned for this new nation. It was well worth my time, not to mention a grateful nod to how much I've not forgotten and a helpful reminder of why I continue (in my 76th year) to love my country.
July 19, 2018
This is the book that we need now. The Constitution and constitutional law can be difficult to understand. The author utilizes a unique approach; how the constitution would affect you if you were president. From this viewpoint he goes through several amendments and also gives examples from history. This is a great read for anyone wanting to understand how and why the Constitution should matter.
July 1, 2018
I won this in a Goodreads giveaway.
Should be required reading for EVERYONE! I wish we could "Clockwork Orange" the current WH resident and force him to read this with tests after every chapter. A failing grade would send him back to his tower,
Should be required reading for EVERYONE! I wish we could "Clockwork Orange" the current WH resident and force him to read this with tests after every chapter. A failing grade would send him back to his tower,
October 21, 2019
I urge all Americans to pick up this book and really hone in to its message. The author takes the Constitution and breaks it down: the history, the amendments, what the purpose is and how it’s been applied throughout history and how it applies to the presidency today.
Not so academic that it’s just dates, names and court cases. An extremely accessible and readable book for anyone no matter your fluency level on the Constitution. Definitely one to keep on my shelves as a point of reference in the future. It is our job as sovereign citizens to hold our government, from our local officials all the way to the presidency, accountable.
“Citizens with a thorough understanding of the Constitution are less likely to mistake a demagogue for a legitimate seeker of the presidency- one who intends to “protect and defend” the Constitution.”
Not so academic that it’s just dates, names and court cases. An extremely accessible and readable book for anyone no matter your fluency level on the Constitution. Definitely one to keep on my shelves as a point of reference in the future. It is our job as sovereign citizens to hold our government, from our local officials all the way to the presidency, accountable.
“Citizens with a thorough understanding of the Constitution are less likely to mistake a demagogue for a legitimate seeker of the presidency- one who intends to “protect and defend” the Constitution.”
March 4, 2019
giving this 5 star because i learned a lot
August 17, 2021
Just a easy read reminder of how the presidential arm of government can and should work. He points out our pluses and minuses throughput the years and I learned many tidbits! A good read….especially in these times of u rest in the USA.
November 20, 2018
The author points out that the material in this book is aimed at *future* presidents of the U.S. which is just as well since I don't think the present incumbent would want to read it. Dr. Brettschneider assumes the reader is familiar with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights so there are times when you have to go on-line to get the precise wording but his explanations and examples are both clear and to the point. In dealing with the Freedom of Religion he cites JFK's statement of defense of his faith as a Roman Catholic and the assertion that should there ever be a conflict of interest between that and his duty as president then he would resign. Him saying it does not equate to doing it, though, and there is nothing to ensure that later presidents would take the same view. This is demonstrated with Richard Nixon's lack of concern about warfare, although he may not have considered himself a Quaker any more. Brettschneider also cites Martin Luther King jr. as the example to follow when allowing faith to colour one's speech. King used Christian language to illustrate secular standards and stressed the need for all people of whatever faith or of no faith to join to ensure the securing of constitutional goals. The author reminds us that the US is not a Christian country, that that is what non-establishment means and is something that a large number of people would do well to remember.
The discussion of the Eighth Amendment, the ban on cruel and unusual punishment and its relationship to torture is fascinating. He points out the fallacy in Judge Scalia's statement that torture before conviction is not punishment so enhanced questioning is alright.
The only quibble I have with the book is that, as a Canadian, I would have liked to see the professor's view of the place of the U.S. in the world community and its acceptance (or not) of international law. International law bans torture and there have been international decisions about national boundaries at sea and other trade and such like subjects that the U.S. seems to think are debatable in power even when they have signed them. The U.S. refuses to accept any other court's decisions but its own and will not allow Americans to stand trial in other countries, or trust other countries' courts if there is a question of damage or potential damage to the U.S.
In general, however, the book gives a good simple background to the items dealt with in the Constitution and makes American thinking comprehensible.
The discussion of the Eighth Amendment, the ban on cruel and unusual punishment and its relationship to torture is fascinating. He points out the fallacy in Judge Scalia's statement that torture before conviction is not punishment so enhanced questioning is alright.
The only quibble I have with the book is that, as a Canadian, I would have liked to see the professor's view of the place of the U.S. in the world community and its acceptance (or not) of international law. International law bans torture and there have been international decisions about national boundaries at sea and other trade and such like subjects that the U.S. seems to think are debatable in power even when they have signed them. The U.S. refuses to accept any other court's decisions but its own and will not allow Americans to stand trial in other countries, or trust other countries' courts if there is a question of damage or potential damage to the U.S.
In general, however, the book gives a good simple background to the items dealt with in the Constitution and makes American thinking comprehensible.
December 3, 2018
Add this to your "to read soon" list for it is very pertinent to our politics right now whichever side you are on. CB writes without, to my mind, any political persuasion. He writes as if addressing a future president, male or female, and explains what the provisions of Article II direct what a President can do and can't do. Some right now are calling for impeachment, but a President can be impeached for only "high crimes and misdemeanors" (itself a phrase the writers of the Constitution took from British politics). What are high crimes? Misdemeanors? How have the two attempts at impeachment defined them? CB explains the reasons why amendments have been proposed, accepted or rejected, and if the former, what do they mean in terms of the office. What can a president do? Cannot do? Shouldn't do (and why). CB's explanations are very clear and for me comprehensive as well as comprehensible.
This book contains information that should belong in any Civics class still taught in high school, assuming such classes are still taught.
This book contains information that should belong in any Civics class still taught in high school, assuming such classes are still taught.
December 17, 2018
I feel this will be looked back on as a seminal treatise about how the President of the United States should respect, model and actualize the founding documents of the United States. I hope age specific (grade, middle, high, college, retires) teaching modules are released. This book should be turned into a multi-week series that is published worldwide at the same time by all of the major publishers; paper, magazines, web. The American public and people of the world would benefit greatly from learning this material. What a timely US and worldwide discussion this could start.
November 26, 2018
Essential reading for anyone interested in preserving the great American experiment, replete with clear, in-depth legal explanations and historical examples so you can effectively put your uncle in his place at your next big family get-together.
February 9, 2019
This book should have been written 10 years ago., When the most abusive President to the US Constitution was in Office. It reminds you when a person that never ran a business or held a true political position until the Presidency, Thinks that he is above the Office and uses the Executive office and the Liberal courts to delegate.
July 9, 2019
Great historical background of the power and potential breakdown of our democracy if one branch of govt. does not carry through with their responsibilities. A must read to determine whether Mueller report has the evidence that the current POTUS should be impeached or not. If you are voting for 2020, be sure to read this and determine for yourself what makes a great president and leader.
December 25, 2019
The subject matter is going to make this a dry read no matter what, but Brettschneider does an admirable job keeping things readable. The many historical anecdotes and asides really sold this for me, making it more than just another crash course in civics. Recommended!
October 31, 2018
With things the way they are, I don't think there's a more relevant book to read. Special topics of note:
- Emoluments Clause
- 14th Amendment
- Process of Impeachment
- Emoluments Clause
- 14th Amendment
- Process of Impeachment
November 28, 2018
The Oath and the Office is by far one of the best books about the American presidency and the Constitution. Professor Corey Brettschneider dives deep into how future presidents should abide by the Constitution while relating potential presidential events to real life scenarios from previous administrations. Brettschneider is politically unbiased and examines presidential actions from both Democrat and Republican presidents. Every person who wants to understand the presidency and our current political climate should definitely read The Oath and the Office.
October 6, 2018
The concept of the book is weak. It is supposedly an instruction manual for someone who wants to be President. Each chapter gives examples under various laws (14th amendment, 5th amendment...) and situations (immigration) and tells this new would-President what he or she is supposed to do.
It’s a stupid trope barely masking the fact that true intent of the book to repeatedly explain why Donald Trump is a bad President.
But, what this author ignores is that our very best Presidents were just as guilty of failing to follow the rules as the bad ones. The difference - in my opinion - comes down to whether the President was acting for a good, noble, liberal, and expansive reason vs. a narrow, reactionary, fearful reason.
A few examples will illustrate my point.
This author says that a good President will stick within the confines of the Constitution, and only do
Those things specifically set out for him/her to do. So, where the Constitution says only Congress can make war, a good President will never go to war and always insist Congress do that, and even refuse to act until Congress gives authority, and tell Congress he/she was powerless to act unless Congress gave the go-ahead. (Let’s ponder that for a second. If we ever had a President who did that, we’d dismiss him/her as weak and not up to the office.)
FDR - a fabulous President - stepped outside the confines of the Constitution in creating all of those “Alphabet Projects” like the WPA, and the one that set maximum prices for things and minimum pay for employees. That wasn’t legal, by the way, and more than a few Roosevelt programs were later declared unconstitutional. But FDR pushed the envelope, he broke the rules. He needed to inspire the country, get people back to work, and give them jobs. He didn’t stop to care or listen to the people who said he was exceeding his constitutional authority. FDR had good reasons, excellent intentions, designed to help the working class of America. So he gets an A+ there. (Likewise, he gets an D for the court-packing plan because his aim was so clearly unAmerican to stop judges from doing their constructional duty. But, it’s likely that his attempt at court-packing played a role in getting those judges to back off a little on overturning his executive projects. Which was good in the end.) FDR also ignored the tradition of only staying two terms. FDR did so much to undermine and evade the Neutrality Act, he clearly was outside of the constitutional requirements of faithfully executing the laws passed by Congress.
Lincoln too, lived by the motto that he would do what was best for the country, and felt little constrained by the Constitution. His blanket suspension of the right of habeas corpus throughout all of the United States was probably excessive, in that it was applied in situations having nothing to do with the rebellion. His Emancipation Proclamation (freeing all slaves only in states in rebellion) was certainly an incredibly expansive executive order, seemingly in conflict with the constitutional premise that slavery was legal (until the 13th amendment). At the end of the day, Abraham Lincoln was our finest President. Lucky for us. He didn’t ready this book.
Obama colored outside the lines when he signed the Executive Order on DACA, after Congress failed to pass immigration reform for the DREAMERS. But, it was a very good thing to do (despite its being more recently undone by another Executive Order by the current President).
The fundamental failure of this book stems from the constraints it is under given the stupid premise of the book. What this author is really saying is that he thinks Trump is a bad President, and is using examples in chapter after chapter to show why. Trump isn’t a bad President because he doesn’t follow the law. He is a bad President because he doesn’t follow the law for the wrong reasons. Trump’s motivations are reactionary, illiberal, small-thinking, and fear-driven. He is like John Adams in passing the Alien and Sedition Acts. Or, Andrew Johnson in, well, everything.
I think there are real life lessons in this for everyone. Try to go as much good as you can, for as long as you can, for as many people as you can, and you will have down enough. You will likely have made a good President too.
It’s a stupid trope barely masking the fact that true intent of the book to repeatedly explain why Donald Trump is a bad President.
But, what this author ignores is that our very best Presidents were just as guilty of failing to follow the rules as the bad ones. The difference - in my opinion - comes down to whether the President was acting for a good, noble, liberal, and expansive reason vs. a narrow, reactionary, fearful reason.
A few examples will illustrate my point.
This author says that a good President will stick within the confines of the Constitution, and only do
Those things specifically set out for him/her to do. So, where the Constitution says only Congress can make war, a good President will never go to war and always insist Congress do that, and even refuse to act until Congress gives authority, and tell Congress he/she was powerless to act unless Congress gave the go-ahead. (Let’s ponder that for a second. If we ever had a President who did that, we’d dismiss him/her as weak and not up to the office.)
FDR - a fabulous President - stepped outside the confines of the Constitution in creating all of those “Alphabet Projects” like the WPA, and the one that set maximum prices for things and minimum pay for employees. That wasn’t legal, by the way, and more than a few Roosevelt programs were later declared unconstitutional. But FDR pushed the envelope, he broke the rules. He needed to inspire the country, get people back to work, and give them jobs. He didn’t stop to care or listen to the people who said he was exceeding his constitutional authority. FDR had good reasons, excellent intentions, designed to help the working class of America. So he gets an A+ there. (Likewise, he gets an D for the court-packing plan because his aim was so clearly unAmerican to stop judges from doing their constructional duty. But, it’s likely that his attempt at court-packing played a role in getting those judges to back off a little on overturning his executive projects. Which was good in the end.) FDR also ignored the tradition of only staying two terms. FDR did so much to undermine and evade the Neutrality Act, he clearly was outside of the constitutional requirements of faithfully executing the laws passed by Congress.
Lincoln too, lived by the motto that he would do what was best for the country, and felt little constrained by the Constitution. His blanket suspension of the right of habeas corpus throughout all of the United States was probably excessive, in that it was applied in situations having nothing to do with the rebellion. His Emancipation Proclamation (freeing all slaves only in states in rebellion) was certainly an incredibly expansive executive order, seemingly in conflict with the constitutional premise that slavery was legal (until the 13th amendment). At the end of the day, Abraham Lincoln was our finest President. Lucky for us. He didn’t ready this book.
Obama colored outside the lines when he signed the Executive Order on DACA, after Congress failed to pass immigration reform for the DREAMERS. But, it was a very good thing to do (despite its being more recently undone by another Executive Order by the current President).
The fundamental failure of this book stems from the constraints it is under given the stupid premise of the book. What this author is really saying is that he thinks Trump is a bad President, and is using examples in chapter after chapter to show why. Trump isn’t a bad President because he doesn’t follow the law. He is a bad President because he doesn’t follow the law for the wrong reasons. Trump’s motivations are reactionary, illiberal, small-thinking, and fear-driven. He is like John Adams in passing the Alien and Sedition Acts. Or, Andrew Johnson in, well, everything.
I think there are real life lessons in this for everyone. Try to go as much good as you can, for as long as you can, for as many people as you can, and you will have down enough. You will likely have made a good President too.
June 26, 2021
This book was an interesting analysis of the constitution. It takes the reader through different aspects of the US Constitution from the president's perspective, and it explores what are essentially case studies in constitutional powers, sometimes drawing off historical events, at other times, with hypothetical situations a contemporaneous president might face. These explorations of the role of the constitution in the presidency are the part of the book that is quite interesting.
The historical context he was able to offer on the constitution was particularly interesting. I had no idea about the context of the Virginia-Kentucky resolutions as related to the confederacy. This book is chock full of a wealth of information on the American legal system.
It was poorly organized. The beginning particularly felt like it lacked structure.
Worse was the fact that, at a basic level, it was intellectually dishonest. The framing device for the book is that it is written to a future president, but it is at times so obviously written about President Trump that it comes off as almost being underhanded. His discussion of the impeachment procedure was clearly directed at Trump, as were several other sections. What Brettschneider did is fine, but I just think that his half-assed attempts to pretend like he is writing to a future president were poorly done. This dishonesty is a strange way to critique a president for his own dishonesty. A stronger book would have just been open in its attack.
Finally, the book often times functioned less as a guide to the constitution and more of his opinion about how the document should be interpreted. At one point, he argues that the war powers need to be reined in by congress. At other times, he makes arguments about the constitution. A guide would have offered a neutral take on multiple interpretations because, as a future president, you will be coming at it with different historical and political baggage, and you should understand what the major interpretations of the constitution are. This felt less like a guide to the constitution and more like a polemic on the constitution.
Despite these faults, it was still worth the read.
The historical context he was able to offer on the constitution was particularly interesting. I had no idea about the context of the Virginia-Kentucky resolutions as related to the confederacy. This book is chock full of a wealth of information on the American legal system.
It was poorly organized. The beginning particularly felt like it lacked structure.
Worse was the fact that, at a basic level, it was intellectually dishonest. The framing device for the book is that it is written to a future president, but it is at times so obviously written about President Trump that it comes off as almost being underhanded. His discussion of the impeachment procedure was clearly directed at Trump, as were several other sections. What Brettschneider did is fine, but I just think that his half-assed attempts to pretend like he is writing to a future president were poorly done. This dishonesty is a strange way to critique a president for his own dishonesty. A stronger book would have just been open in its attack.
Finally, the book often times functioned less as a guide to the constitution and more of his opinion about how the document should be interpreted. At one point, he argues that the war powers need to be reined in by congress. At other times, he makes arguments about the constitution. A guide would have offered a neutral take on multiple interpretations because, as a future president, you will be coming at it with different historical and political baggage, and you should understand what the major interpretations of the constitution are. This felt less like a guide to the constitution and more like a polemic on the constitution.
Despite these faults, it was still worth the read.
Read
February 12, 2020A very timely and thought provoking examination of the powers of the presidency. Perhaps now more than ever all Americans should understand the proper authority of our chief executive and the constitutional mechanisms of control. Brettschneider, speaking directly to this and future presidents, writes as though he's an advisor to a president, explaining what is and what is not proper behavior of a person holding their position. This is not a long winded and boring treatise on presidential authority in our separated system. It's free of the turgid prose of so many academic books. It's delivered like a presidential briefing in clear and concise form. Like a briefing it serves to inform a president that while one may have great power, there are also responsibilities in properly exercising their authority. It's for presidents to quickly learn and master the contours of their authority and constraints.
The most powerful portion of Brettschneider's book (for this reader) is that on civil rights and liberties. It is here where all president's must exercise caution for the costs of acting rashly, or not acting at all, are steep. The liberties and rights we enjoy were hard fought achievements and presidents play a crucial role in their preservation. Presidential behaviors are examined in so far as they have threatened or degraded these protections but also for how they have defended and sought to expand these safeguards.
To be clear, this isn't an anti-Trump screed but his questionable knowledge of Article II powers and the larger constitution, which should inform his behaviors is ever present. As a professor of undergraduate students, this text would be an excellent addition to a course on the presidency because each chapter can be read separately and assigned with other readings without losing the thrust of Brentschneider's arguments. For the non-academic reader, it's 230 pages of thought provoking politics and history.
It is well worth the read and highly recommended.
January 21, 2021
Two impeachments, a dangerously dishonest post-election period, and a Capitol insurrection without the president’s removal from office have made this title, published in 2018, as dated as it is relevant, as trite as it is wise. At issue for the author, of course, was the unavoidably loud presidency of Donald Trump whose disregard for every precedent, every law, every branch of government, and every article of the Constitution itself was unparalleled in American history (feels surreal, now, to use the word “was” under a new Biden administration). Attempting to shroud this work behind a larger story, across the anecdotes of other presidents, the veil of its objective is pretty transparent. The tragedy isn’t in the book, but rather, that the book has failed to matter to a population of voters who, when asked, couldn’t care any less about the Constitution, or the oath, or the office of president, so long as Mr. Trump has power. For this population of voters, no crime, no misdemeanor, no action of their man could ever thwart their allegiance and loyalty. Not a litany of legal obstructions, not the endless profiteering, not the casual incitement of violence, not the threats against political allies, not the favoring of enemies, not the utter disregard for American health in the midst of a pandemic, not the myriad of lies, not the destruction of clean air and water regulations, nothing. The harm brought upon the United States and its desperately stretched institutions by this one president should never have demanded that we, the American people who by popular vote never wanted him in the first place, had to wait four years to vote him out and then watch as he attempted to derail every ounce of evidence to the contrary, empowered by lackeys who were elected not to bow, but to tell the truth. Mr. Trump should have been held to account long before the second election. So there’s an element of this book that feels, well, pathetic and sad, the knowledge that our only check on a four year disaster was to just wait it out.
April 30, 2025
An amazing book for beginners to understand the constitution better. Learning the framers intentions behind the constitution and the roles and limitations of each branch with the addition of the “holes” to work around certain limitations throughout history. It is a very intellectual book, as I found myself looking up the meaning of many words throughout the book, though very well worth it as it has expanded my vocabulary. Would highly recommend if you’re willing to be patient on your beginning journey to learn government and politics.
January 22, 2021
Actually better than I thought it would be. A very readable primer on the constitutional powers and limitations of the presidency. Certainly tailored for a lay audience but no doubt an enjoyable refresher for lawyers as well. While it was in no way earth shattering for me, it was a quick way to reengage cases like Youngstown, Humphrey's, and Myers that I havent read since law school. Worth a pass if you come across it.
February 21, 2022
Very well done, but not quite what it purports to be. While the title may lead one to believe that the book will focus on the oath of office, it really doesn’t. What this is, really, is a book about presidential power, as outlined by the constitution, which the oath says the president will take care in exercising. It you want a book about the breadth and limits of presidential power, read this. If you want a book about the oath, this isn’t it.
September 3, 2019
The author does an excellent job of breaking down the constitution into easy to understand language and showing how it applies to the president. As someone who can vote in the next presidential election and who is interested in politics herself, I really enjoyed reading this book and would highly recommend it to others looking to learn more about the our country’s foundation.
October 5, 2019
A timely review of the Constitution as it pertains to the office of the presidency. He does use some big words, but this should be understandable to most adults and many older students. It is clear and fairly brief and explains very well how the Constitution's organization of the government limits the ability of a president to do as he likes. The implications of course are obvious.
July 25, 2020
A quick read. A powerful vision of what a constitutional presidency "should" be like. Covers all the main breaches from the Alien and Sedition Acts to Korematsu to pretty much anything Trump has done.
Read
October 8, 2018Timely and scary. Recommended reading for all citizens.
July 2, 2019
It's a guide to the Constitution and executive power and constraints.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews