Posted on 08/18/2025 3:45:30 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
Very simple answer is no! They swear to uphold the constitution which establishes our constitutional republic. Not a people’s republic. Not a democratic republic. Not a gaggle of mobsters shouting “This is what democracy looks like!”
That there is my thinking, too. If your answer and mine is legit by law, then we would not have that messuva mayoral candidate in NYC on the ballot in the first place, and if clerks kept their oath they would check that crap, but they don’t have tools or willingness to do that.
“Does the US Constitution inherently demand that our form of government be a Constitutional Republic?”
My sense is that the answer would be “no,” because any form of government may be altered or abolished if the people so choose.
The rub is...whether it is really the people or some other entity giving voice. We all know what happened in 2020.
Ah, but the constitution already provides a mechanism for legally changing the form of government. If that is not followed, we have consequences like 1861 or 2021.
This oath of office is now typically regarded as a limerick.
Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution says, “the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.”
“Does the US Constitution inherently demand that our form of government be a Constitutional Republic?”
As long as we are operating under the constitution it does.
Constitutional republic means elected by the people.
The Soviet Union had elections. Iraq under Saddam had elections.
The conclusion above that we need to “vet” our candidates is a pretty low bar. Isn’t that what campaigning is?
The constitution does not define what kind of economic policies or social safety nets the country should have. That’s why Bernie Sanders and Mandami the Commie can get elected and serve.
Oath is to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” so this is a lot of words to say no.
As long as we are a democratic society, with the ability to vote in many different people with different ideas and that the Constitution is a living vehicle of our laws, is there a specific ideology on how to run our government and not destroy our strength in our ability to grow. We even made a first amendment to give that opportunity to growth with freedom of speech (as long as it is within our laws). And on their own time, anyone can express them if it is lawful.
Vetting someone for an idea stymies our growth. Our existing laws create the line to not step over. I worked in government service for over 37 years and I was never denied the right to project my ideas. But then I wouldn’t be stupid enough to ask someone to have their rights violated either.
Vetting for existing laws withdraws our ability to grow and expand to better. The problem is not the laws. It’s the interpretation of the ones in place. There is no perfect rule. All desirable things naturally improve or develop with time and growth. And that growth also can alleviate the undesirable.
wy69
His audience gave it an emphatic standing ovation, however. if only in spirit.
I have no problem with anyone saying anything they want in our midst. I *do* have a problem with allowing certain ones to hold public office.
Totally agree.
Here’s another one I threw at GROK this afternoon:
Which advocacies would constitute an attempt to overthrow the United States Government?
Check it out. You have Mad Maxine calling for violence. How is she even in office?
The Constitution has built-in mechanism for changing form of government, but not zure to what degree.
I believe most people who take the Oath don’t really think about it. They should.
The other thing is, Oaths have not been an absolute defining entity for the legitimacy of government.
Anyway, it’s past time to give due diligence.
https://youtu.be/e9783wUHcu4?feature=shared
“I *do* have a problem with allowing certain ones to hold public office.”
However as long as they stay within the confines of the law they can represent anything legal they want. Whether it is good, bad, or a waste of time and money, it is up to the voters to cull those out because they don’t represent the majority of US citizens.
That’s what happened late last year at the election. Trump represented the majority of those that were being punished by liberal ideas and actions. But when they represent the majority of the citizens in their city, county, or state and they get into positions that can make decisions for those not in agreement with them, then the problem is passed to the entire country. That’s when your congressman goes to work and takes them down. Seen many doing that lately even though the liberals are in the dirt on their backs? That’s the problem now.
And liberals protect liberals and the media and judges support them. Letting it get to that is the biggest mistake the conservatives ever did. They should have kept the leash tight and slapped them every time they opened their mouths. And they didn’t/don’t.
wy69
That provision could, of course, be modified or even eliminated by amendment ...
“Oaths have not been an absolute defining entity for the legitimacy of government.”
That wasn’t the question. Question was if it violates the oath.
“Can a public official advocate for a form of government other than a Constitutional Republic without violating his/her Oath of Office?”
Advocating for a non-Constitutional form of government clearly violates the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
Should a clerk, who takes the Oath of Office and is responsible for curating applications to run for office, allow someone onto a slate who views are expressly contrary to maintaining our form of government?
GROK: A clerk should allow a candidate onto the ballot, even if their views appear contrary to maintaining the U.S. form of government, as long as they meet statutory requirements (e.g., Indiana Code § 3-8-1).
The Constitution’s First and Fourteenth Amendments protect candidates’ rights to express radical views and access ballots, and clerks, bound by their oath, must act impartially.
Only views inciting imminent violence or illegal overthrow (per Brandenburg or 18 U.S.C. § 2385) could justify exclusion, but such cases require judicial action, not a clerk’s discretion.
The democratic process—voters and courts—serves as the check against subversive candidates, ensuring the “blessings of liberty” by preserving open elections.
Excluding candidates based on ideology risks violating the Constitution and the clerk’s oath, undermining the very government they are sworn to uphold
In the interest and spirit of the Preamble it seems prudent to make a distinction between advocating this or that form of government, and holding public office to affect changes that undermine the body.
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.