Democratic Socialists and the Constitution: A Clash of Ideals

Francesca Hong, a Democratic socialist candidate for Wisconsin governor, recently addressed voters at a retirement home in Madison. Her candidacy highlights a growing momentum within the Democratic Socialists of America, who are celebrating recent electoral successes. They aim to expand these victories to implement significant changes.

Their political platform, however, conflicts with key provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Democratic socialists face a dilemma: they must take an oath to support the Constitution, even as their platform suggests they intend to alter it fundamentally. Can these elected officials truly uphold this oath?

Oath of Office: A Constitutional Requirement

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution mandates that all government officials, including members of Congress, must take an oath of office. The first oath, adopted in 1789, was simple: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” The current oath, unchanged since 1966, emphasizes defending the Constitution “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and carrying out duties “faithfully.” This pledge remains consistent, reinforcing the commitment to the Constitution.

Implications for Democratic Socialists

The Democratic Socialists of America platform suggests a radical shift. Their aim includes replacing the Presidential and Supreme Court systems with congressional appointments. They propose eliminating the checks-and-balances system by altering the roles of the president and judiciary. The intention is not to amend the Constitution but to replace it with a new structure.

Constitutional Amendments vs. Overhauls

While Constitutional amendments are common in American history, with 27 existing amendments, the changes proposed by the Democratic Socialists go beyond mere amendments. They suggest dismantling Articles II and III and extensively altering Article I. For instance, they propose abolishing the Senate, despite Article V’s stipulation that states cannot lose equal representation without consent.

The Question of Support and Defense

If candidates advocate changing foundational aspects of the Constitution, they challenge the integrity of their oath. Committing to this oath while supporting drastic changes could be seen as perjury. Despite this, congressional leadership may not be able to prevent elected officials from assuming office if these officials are state-certified.

Both legislative houses have the authority to exclude members by majority vote. Yet, taking such steps against incoming members based on ideological grounds appears unlikely. Nevertheless, Congress members, the media, and the public may question democratic socialists’ plans and how these align with their oath to defend the Constitution.

Merrill Matthews serves as the Texas state chair of Our Republican Legacy.