Can a democratic socialist candidate truthfully take the oath of office?
Comments: by Merrill Matthews, opinion contributor – 07/28/26 11:00 AM ET
Francesca Hong, a Democratic socialist candidate for Wisconsin governor, speaks to voters at a retirement home, Tuesday, July 7, 2026, in Madison, Wis. (AP Photo/Scott Bauer)
The Democratic Socialists of America have been cheering their recent electoral successes — and more may be coming. Their hope is that if they can win enough elections, they will have a chance to implement their radical agenda. The problem is that their recently adopted political platform is contrary to key provisions of the U.S. Constitution. This means that no committed democratic socialist can truthfully take the oath of office.
Those who win their elections will surely take the oath anyway — with their fingers crossed behind their backs. Can anyone stop them?
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution requires members of the House and Senate, executive and judicial officers to take an oath of office. But the Constitution doesn’t go into detail. It simply says members “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”
The first oath of office, adopted by the First Congress in 1789, was very succinct: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”
Changes came with the Civil War, and an expanded oath was adopted — but later removed — requiring those taking it swear they had never taken up arms against the U.S. The current oath has not changed since 1966. It says, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
The key component of all versions for nearly 240 years is to “support and defend the Constitution.” Members are also required to sign an oath for the record.
The text of the oath creates — or should create — a problem for every newly elected member of the Democratic Socialists of America. They are swearing to “support and defend the Constitution,” and “bear true faith and allegiance” to it, but they plan to do neither. If the Democratic Socialists of America platform is taken seriously, they intend to gut the Constitution and adopt an entirely new and different governing system that neither looks nor functions like the one written in 1787 and adopted in 1788.
Of course, political candidates and elected politicians have often proposed amendments to the Constitution, which is perfectly appropriate in the long-running effort to “form a more perfect Union.” There are currently 27 amendments, including the Bill of Rights. But most attempts to amend the Constitution have failed.
But the Democratic Socialists of America do not intend to amend the Constitution; they intend to replace it.
Article I establishes the legislative branch, how members are chosen, its powers and outlines how laws are made. Article II defines the role and powers of the president and the executive branch. And Article III establishes the judicial branch, including the Supreme Court and lower federal courts and judges.
These three separate branches of government — legislative, executive and judiciary — are distinct and independent for a reason. They provide a check and balance on each other. That is by design.
The Democratic Socialists, however, propose to completely transform this system: “Abolish the Electoral College. Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.”
The democratic socialists would end the checks-and-balances system by getting rid of the constitutionally mandated president and Supreme Court and have them appointed by and subject to Congress. That’s not amending the Constitution; that’s shredding Articles II and III.
Article I would also see major changes: “Expand the House of Representatives, implement proportional representation and ranked choice voting in all elections, and abolish the Senate.” Since the Senate is essentially half of Article I, the democratic socialists would shred that section also. In fact, the Constitution’s Article V provides that states cannot be deprived of equal representation in the Senate without their consent — even through a change of the Constitution.
I submit that any political candidate who supports essentially canceling the first three Articles in the Constitution cannot truthfully say he or she will support and defend the Constitution. To take the oath would be to commit perjury.
Yet it appears the congressional leadership cannot stop a state-certified member-elect from taking the oath, even if it is clear that a duly elected democratic socialist has no intention of supporting and defending the Constitution. Both the House and Senate do have the power to exclude newly elected members by a majority vote, but it seems extremely unlikely they would do so.
That won’t stop members of Congress, the media and the voters from holding democratic socialists’ feet to the fire by demanding to know how undermining the Constitution is defending it.
