The Challenges of Democratic Socialists in Office

Francesca Hong, a Democratic socialist, addressed voters in Madison, Wisconsin, on July 7, 2026. The Democratic Socialists of America celebrate recent electoral wins and aim for more success. They hope to implement their agenda by securing enough victories. Their political platform, however, conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, raising concerns about taking the oath of office truthfully.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution requires officials to take an oath supporting the Constitution. The original oath, from 1789, was straightforward, but expanded during the Civil War. The current oath, unchanged since 1966, is comprehensive:

“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.”

The core of the oath requires officials to “support and defend the Constitution.” The Democratic Socialists of America’s platform, if taken seriously, aims to replace the current governing system, differing from the original Constitution of 1787-1788.

While politicians often propose amendments to the Constitution, the Democratic Socialists plan to replace it entirely. Article I outlines the legislative branch, Article II covers the executive, and Article III establishes the judiciary. These separations provide checks and balances, deliberately designed to be independent.

The Democratic Socialists propose changes such as abolishing the Electoral College and restructuring the executive and judiciary under Congress’s control, removing current checks and balances. They also suggest major changes to Article I, like expanding the House of Representatives, implementing proportional representation, and eliminating the Senate. Article V of the Constitution prohibits states from losing Senate representation without consent.

The argument follows that candidates supporting these changes cannot truthfully claim to support and defend the Constitution. Taking the oath, under these premises, would constitute perjury. Despite this, congressional leadership cannot prevent state-certified members-elect from taking the oath. Though the House and Senate can exclude new members by majority vote, such action seems improbable. Nevertheless, Congress, media, and voters may demand clarification from democratic socialists on how altering the Constitution aligns with defending it.