Do &quot;the laws&quot; mentioned in the U.S. Oath of Allegiance have to be constitutional?
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_States)" rel="noreferrer">U.S. Oath of Allegiance</a></p>
<p>From a purely technical interpretation of the law does the oath cover laws that are unconstitutional?</p>
<p>To whom does <s>the obediance</s> allegiance lie with those who took the oath? The law? The constitution? Their direct superior? Their superior's superior?</p>
<p>Help me out please. The U.S. Oath of Allegiance is a lot more vague than I used to think.</p>

<p>Technically, there is no such thing as an unconstitutional law.  There are laws which have been passed, but whose unconstitutionality has not been discovered yet.  But once a law is legally deemed to be unconstitutional, it stops being a law.</p>
<p>The constitution is a recipe for running the government.  If Congress enacts legislature which it has no authority to enact, the courts have the authority to discover this and reveal it in an opinion.</p>

<p>There is an <a href="https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html" rel="noreferrer">Oath of Enlistment</a> for the military where the enlistee vows to</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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; and that I will obey the orders of the
President of the United States and the orders of the officers
appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of
Military Justice</p>
</blockquote>
<p>&quot;The laws&quot; are not mentioned.</p>
<p>The thing known as the Oath of Allegiance is spelled out in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/337.1" rel="noreferrer">8 CFR 337.1</a>, and currently states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and
abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,
state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a
subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution
and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign
and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by
the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces
of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform
work of national importance under civilian direction when required by
the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is administered as part of the naturalization process. Para (c) states the presumed obligations of that oath:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A petitioner or applicant for naturalization shall, before being
naturalized, establish that it is his or her intention, in good faith,
to assume and discharge the obligations of the oath of allegiance, and
that his or her attitude toward the Constitution and laws of the
United States renders him or her capable of fulfilling the obligations
of such oath.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A finding of unconstitutionality by the Supreme Court results in a certain level of legal chaos. If a court &quot;discovers&quot; that a law is unconstitutional, that means that for such-and-such reason, the law conflicts with the Constitution, we know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and therefore the purported law (or portional thereof) is not and was not a law.</p>
<p>However, recall that death penalty laws were (in their form at the time) declared unconstitutional in 1972, by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furman_v._Georgia" rel="noreferrer">Furman v. Georgia</a>. Thousands of people had been previously executed under various state laws: the execution was legal at the time and the executioner(s) were not subject to prosecution for murder because murder statutes refer to <em>unlawful</em> killing whereas a court-mandated execution is a lawful killing. <em>Furman</em> did not then expose thousands of penal-system agents to criminal liability for acts which were &quot;unknowingly illegal&quot;.</p>
<p>A person will not be penalized for failing to adhere to the Oath of Allegiance as part of the naturalization process: but they may be penalized for performing a generally-forbidden act. The Oath of Allegiance isn't &quot;enforceable&quot; although it is mandatory to take the oath, so there is no way to tell how the courts would interpret this issue.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>From a purely technical interpretation of the law does the oath cover laws that are unconstitutional?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Of course not.  Unconstitutional laws are effectively null and void.  The oath covers the constitution and laws collectively, not individually.  Supporting and defending them collectively includes supporting and defending court rulings, including those rulings that invalidate unconstitutional laws.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>To whom does the allegiance lie with those who took the oath?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>To the United States, or perhaps to its constitution and laws.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Their direct superior? Their superior's superior?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Not everyone has a superior, and in most cases of those who do, the relationship has nothing to do with the constitution or laws.</p>

<p><strong>To whom does the obediance lie with those who took the oath?</strong></p>
<p>If by obedience, you mean <em>allegiance</em> then it is the Constitution and the law...</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I hereby declare, on oath... that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America ... that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same ...</p>
</blockquote>

united-states constitutional-law immigration military