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!”
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.”
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.
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.
“argue that a parliamentary system would be more efficient “
If a constitutional amendment is proposed it is constitutional. But Grok fails to mention this.
If officials propose unconstitional activities outside the amendment process it is quite different.
I don’t think we should allow anyone who is a socialist or communist run for office.
That type has and will kill millions.