Trying to think outside the box here.
If members of Biden's cabinet entered into office knowing they planned to act unconstitutionally, this would make a plausible assumption they were protecting themselves from future charges of treason by failing to submit a valid oath of office.
If you never submitted a official oath of office, you essentially have not taken a pledge to fulfill their duties to the office in a constitutional manner. It would be impossible to charge them with treason. However, it could be argued that these public officials owed us their loyalty and failed, could this be misprision of treason?
Q may have indicated there are other charges to convict them with.
Could all of these individuals who failed to submit a valid oath of office be forced to take a oath that is retroactive and if they fail to do so, then it is safe to say they know they were acting treasonously when they refuse to take a retroactive oath.
It appears that Lincoln administered a loyalty oath to prisoners of war after the civil war. It also seems that a retroactive clause was added is some situations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty_oath
We have 535 members in House and Senate. What if today, every member in the House and Senate today have failed to submit a valid oath of office. We may see many come forward and take a retroactive oath of office knowing that they have nothing to hide, however we may see many other who refuse because they know that treason charges may apply. They are immediately removed from office and prosecuted.
I guess I am wondering if there is a white hat plan that may be used in near future to weed out the bad from the good. The bad would refuse a retroactive loyalty oath and immediately create a red flag above their head.
What's your thoughts?
Stay safe my frens!!!
WWG1WGA!!!
than in Walton v. Hicks, (8) where the Court ruled:
This statute is emphatic and unequivocal. It does not seem possible that it can be misunderstood. In case a person appointed to office neglects to file his official oath within 15 [now 30] days after notice of appointment or within 15 [now 30] days after the commencement of the term of office, the office becomes vacant ipso facto. That is all there is to it. No judicial procedure is necessary; no notice is necessary; nothing is necessary. The office is vacant, as much so as though the appointee were dead; there is no incumbent, and the vacancy may be filled by the proper appointive power .
........................
The obligation imposed by the Public Officers Law statute is personal to plaintiff, it is an act he is required to do and the office became vacant by the mere failure to file the oath, whether or not the defendants knew or were chargeable with notice that plaintiff had failed to file his oath, and they are not required to make any declaration or give any notice. On his default in' filing his official oath "the appointment was vitiated and the office * * * became vacant"
[citing Ginsberg v. City of Long Beach, 286 N.Y. 400, 36 N.E.2d 637; and also People ex reI. Walton v. Hicks, infra].
Makes sense Brandon's official photo isn't in post offices across the country.