Diplomat sworn-in on a Kindle

[QuantumIguana]

Strictly speaking, the diplomat wasn't sworn in on a Kindle, just as others are not sworn in on a stack of paper. As Tubemonkey said, the format is what matters. Well, the format doesn't really matter, as the oath doesn't require you to put your hands on anything.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

It's the content that matters; not the shell.

The specific amendment.
But "ambasador sworn in, highlighting 19th amendment" isn't quite as enticing a headline. Or amusing.
Gotta get our chuckles wherd we find them.

[Mike L]

Very interesting answers, QuantumIguana and E Schwartz. Thanks for the information.

By the way, I see I made an unforgivable mistake in my earlier post. A person who swears an oath would be a swearer, not a swearee. I hate it when others use such bad English, and can't forgive it in myself. I will abstain from alcohol for the rest of the week in penance.

Mike

[Billi]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

It's the content that matters; not the shell.

True. But then she could have delivered only the content and left off the shell

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Billi

True. But then she could have delivered only the content and left off the shell

True - but she chose a Kindle; probably because she's from Seattle.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

True - but she chose a Kindle; probably because she's from Seattle.

And a tech industry veteran.
As pointed out, swearing-in ceremonies are personal affairs. By choosing an ereader and that specific amendment she was highlighting the things that have special meaning for her.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

And a tech industry veteran.

My point was more along the line of a Seattle product vs a Bay Area product.

As pointed out, swearing-in ceremonies are personal affairs. By choosing an ereader and that specific amendment she was highlighting the things that have special meaning for her.

Thinking about it more, I'd probably go with a banana to be sworn in on. That has more meaning to me than an ereader and an amendment.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Thinking about it more, I'd probably go with a banana to be sworn in on. That has more meaning to me than an ereader and an amendment.

Me, they'd have to swear in at the AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM, so I could swear on a spacecraft.

[mycurlylocks]

To each their own...
I always thought when someone was taking an oath, it was sacred... so you would swear on something very sacred to you. I don't consider my e-ink readers sacred to me.
She'll be throwing the Kindle away for the next new model.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by mycurlylocks

To each their own...
I always thought when someone was taking an oath, it was sacred... so you would swear on something very sacred to you. I don't consider my e-ink readers sacred to me.
She'll be throwing the Kindle away for the next new model.

She was swearing on the 19th Amendment. The content is something sacred to her, the vessel in which is was contained is likely something symbolic for her. (In fact, the symbolism could be seen as a fairly universal concept, on a more basic level.)

When people swear on a religious book, they aren't swearing on the paper that holds the words, it is the words within that are sacred to them.

[Froide]

Ambassador Suzi Levine is not the first American public servant to swear in using an electronic device. Her predecessors include the likes of:
- Several Atlantic City, NJ firefighters, who in 2013 took their oath using a Bible app on an iPad, as AppleInsider reports.
- New York state’s Nassau County Executive Mangano, who was sworn in using an iPad earlier in January 2014, when a printed copy of the Bible couldn’t be found, as Newsday reported.

While some have criticized or ridiculed these choices (e.g., see the comments here), I actually support them. For one thing, having devoted several months to work with the U.S. Census enumeration effort in 2010, during which time I took the same oath Levine did by merely raising my right hand and in similar fashion swore in hundreds of colleagues who reported up the chain to me, I second what posters above me - such as tubemonkey and QuantumIguana - have noted: "Strictly speaking, the diplomat wasn't sworn in on a Kindle, just as others are not sworn in on a stack of paper. As Tubemonkey said, the format is what matters. Well, the format doesn't really matter, as the oath doesn't require you to put your hands on anything."

Secondly, I wholeheartedly appreciate the symbolic but unequivocal messages sent by swearing in on digital devices. Ambassador Levine's choice tells me:
- She's a forward-thinking, open-minded, tech-savvy technophile
- She's aware of trends (e.g., the Kindle is the bestselling American-made ereader, Amazon.com sells more ebooks than any other source, at Amazon ebook sales outnumber pbook sales, and consumer e-book sales (excluding textbooks and professional manuals) are projected to outnumber p-book sales from all sources by 2018, according to research by PwC). Data shows: we're in the digital age, now; may the public and private sectors catch up, bridge the digital divide, and make good use of digital tools and media.
- By positioning the Constitution at the 19th Amendment, she was telling us visually, "We've come a long way, baby!" As CWatkinsNash notes:

She was swearing on the 19th Amendment. The content is something sacred to her, the vessel in which is was contained is likely something symbolic for her. (In fact, the symbolism could be seen as a fairly universal concept, on a more basic level.)

When people swear on a religious book, they aren't swearing on the paper that holds the words, it is the words within that are sacred to them.

Brava, Ambassador Levine!

[Mike L]

Just to add a small contribution: The only time I have ever taken an oath was when I was involved in a criminal trial. All the witnesses had to take the oath, as did all the jury members. But none of us had to swear "on" anything. We simply raised our right hand, and repeated the words that were read out to us. Nor was there any religious aspect.

Thinking more about this, I wonder if taking an oath has any legal significance: in particular, the stuff about swearing to tell "the truth, the whole truth, ... " etc. If I didn't tell the truth while giving evidence, surely I would be just as guilty of perjury, whether or not I had sworn to do so?

Just a thought.

Mike

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Thinking more about this, I wonder if taking an oath has any legal significance: in particular, the stuff about swearing to tell "the truth, the whole truth, ... " etc. If I didn't tell the truth while giving evidence, surely I would be just as guilty of perjury, whether or not I had sworn to do so?

Just a thought.

Mike

Depends on the jurisdiction, but in the US I believe there is language in the applicable laws that specifically reference being under oath and "falsely swearing". The specifics may vary between Federal and other courts. I'll pop back with links in a bit when I find the ones I'm looking for.

Here's a link, regarding Federal courts, from the DOJ Criminal Resource Manual:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/fo...9/crm01745.htm

The first element of a perjury offense is that the defendant must be under oath during his testimony, declaration or certification, unless the perjurious statement is an unsworn declaration permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 1746. No specific form of oath is required. The oath must only be sufficiently clear that the declarant is aware that he or she is under oath and required to speak the truth. Proof of the competency and authority of the oath-giver may be required for prosecutions under section 1621. See, United States v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374, 377 (1953) (indictments reinstated although government failed to allege name of oath administrator).

[Mike L]

Thanks for that, CWatkins. Very interesting.

Mike

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Mike L

As someone who is supremely ignorant of how US ambassadors are normally sworn in, can someone tell me what the usual practice is. When people take an oath, I assume it is normally on a bible. But the above references to "amendments" make me wonder if the US constitution might be used. Is that right?

And if it's a bible, what do people other than from Judeo-Christian religions do? Does it have to be a book (paper or electronic)? And does the swearee get to choose?

Sorry if these sound like stupid questions, but the article got me thinking.

Mike

If I was ever to swear an oath using a Bible, it would have to be a Jewish Bible and no other version as the oath would not be valid otherwise.