Plaintiff is wrong for a host of reasons, two of which are: (i) the "oath or affirmation" Clause does not apply to non-Member congressional officers like chaplains; see U.S. Const. Art. VI, cl. 3 (Clause applies only to U.S. Senators and Representatives, state legislators, and federal and state executive and judicial officers); and (ii) even if it did apply to congressional chaplains, nothing in the Clause would - or could - restrain a chaplain from expressing his or her religious beliefs. See Girouard. 328 U.S. at 65; see also Marsh. 463 U.S. at 792-93 (chaplain in the "'Judeo-Christian' tradition" may "invoke Divine guidance" on a legislative body); vL at 794-95 (absent any indication that "the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief," the "content of the [legislative] prayer is not of concern to judges"). Accordingly, plaintiffs Supremacy Clause claim should be dismissed.
-23-