Query re judicial/constitutional oaths

[Paul Horwitz]

The list has seen some discussion recently of oathtaking by Article III 
judges.  That discussion was about timing, but I have another question and 
wonder whether anyone can supply an answer.  Federal judges take a judicial 
oath whose terms are prescribed by 28 USC s. 453.  But in work I am 
currently doing, I have noted discussions suggesting that federal judges 
take both that oath and a "constitutional oath."  In some cases, I've seen 
suggestions that the language of this oath is fixed by 5 U.S.C. s. 3331.  
But that provision apears to officers "in the civil service or uniformed 
services" only.  And, indeed, much of the language of these discussions is 
murky, at best, as to whether judges need to take anything other than the 
judicial oath.

So what gives?  Are Article III judges obliged to take anything other than 
the judicial oath?  If so, what's the authority for this conclusion?  
Article VI doesn't seem like a very good answer, since the judicial oath 
itself binds judges to support the Constitution, so it's not clear why a 
second oath would be required.  If there is a second, "constitutional" oath, 
is it fixed by 5 USC s. 3331, or by some other provision, or simply by 
custom?

Any on-list or private replies would be appreciated.  I know there are some 
judges lurking on the list, and would be happy to get your views, or your 
own experience, or both.  The question arises from work I'm doing on a paper 
about the history and meaning of the federal judicial oath.  Thanks in 
advance.

Paul Horwitz
Associate Professor of Law
Southwestern University School of Law
Los Angeles, CA