“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