IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE OATH OF OFFICE YOU CAN'T SERVE IN CONGRESS Let's start a movement here and now, and make clear to our Republican friends in Congress, that any Democrat candidate (DSA candidates in particular) who've stated they cannot abide the Constitution or seek to fundamentally alter it (without even amending it), or state they are bound not by the Constitution but Sharia law, must not be seated in the next Congress.  This position is compelled by the Constitution itself. Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution states: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." This is not some ceremonial act.  It is a requirement of serving in Congress.  The oath states: "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." As Joseph Story wrote: That all those, who are entrusted with the execution of the powers of the national government, should be bound by some solemn obligation to the due execution of the trusts reposed in them, and to support the constitution, would seem to be a proposition too clear to render any reasoning necessary in support of it. It results from the plain right of society to require some guaranty from every officer, that he will be conscientious in the discharge of his duty. Oaths have a solemn obligation upon the minds of all reflecting men, and especially upon those, who feel a deep sense of accountability to a Supreme being. If, in the ordinary administration of justice in cases of private rights, or personal claims, oaths are required of those, who try, as well as of those, who give testimony, to guard against malice, falsehood, and evasion, surely like guards ought to be interposed in the administration of high public trusts, and especially in such, as may concern the welfare and safety of the whole community. Article 6, Clause 3: Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1838--43 press-pubs.uchicago.edu/foun… Notice, too, that the oath itself warns against deceit by those who might take the oath but not seriously believe to what they are swearing -- "without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion."  It is difficult to see how those who've publicly condemned the Constitution and reject it can take the oath and actually mean it.  This is not to say that proposals for amending the Constitution should be treated as a bar to serve.  There are two processes for amending the Constitution, both of which require super-majorities of the state legislatures to approve the constitutional changes.  The problem for Marxists and Islamists is that their ideologies are, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution and the entire American experiment, as I've explained for years. The fact is that winning an election for Congress is the first of two-steps, not the first and final step for serving.  If you cannot legitimately take the oath, then you cannot serve in Congress, even though voters in a federal district or state supported your candidacy.  The purpose of the Constitution is to preserve the Republic. Much more can be said about this an undoubtedly will be.