In the United States, every public official — hired, appointed, or elected — takes some version of the same oath. It requires swearing or affirming to uphold the Constitution and to faithfully discharge the duties of that office according to law. As a retired police officer, I have sworn that oath more than once. For those of us who served, it was never a box to check or a ceremonial repeat-after-me. It was a commitment to defend an institution greater than ourselves and to protect the people we swore to serve. The oath has no expiration date. The individual is not the office — he or she is merely its steward on behalf of the American people. I may be retired from sworn service, but the oath I took remains in force.
In today’s political climate, we must ask whether the oath still matters — and what counts as a violation. It absolutely matters. For law enforcement officers, the oath is the foundation of our authority and legitimacy. For elected officials, it is an enforceable contract between the representative and the constitutional republic they serve.
Yet the rise of openly socialist — even communist — ideology among some elected officials has pushed us toward a constitutional crisis. Left unchallenged, it will metastasize into something society may not be able to cure. America is the last stand for freedom; if we falter, no one is coming to save us. From Senator Bernie Sanders to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Mayor Zohran Mamdani and other candidates for office, these officials champion platforms that, in my view, place them in direct violation of their oath — and warrant impeachment. Criminal charges for official misconduct should not be dismissed out of hand.
This is not a political disagreement. It is a constitutional one. The oath was crafted specifically to protect the citizenry — and the institutions that safeguard public safety — from exactly what is unfolding now. A rogue faction of radical idealists seeks to replace the American system of decentralized power with a Marxist framework: abolishing the presidency, Senate, Supreme Court, law enforcement, and private ownership, as laid out on the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) platform. They call it the “warmth of collectivism.” None of it is legal under our Constitution. It centralizes power without checks and balances — a formula that has failed everywhere it has been tried, from Cuba and Venezuela to East Germany and the USSR.
If an elected official supports a platform like the DSA’s, they are, in fact and by statute, in violation of their oath. The harder question is enforcement. Options range from censure to recall, impeachment, and criminal prosecution, with a longer-shot avenue in civil litigation if a plaintiff can show harm by a preponderance of the evidence. I remain a strong believer that officials, however poor a choice, serve at the will of the people. But a candidate who is not merely a bad choice, but a genuine threat to the constitutional order — and to the institutions that keep communities safe — is unfit for office and potentially criminally liable for official misconduct.
As author and legal scholar Thomas Basile wrote in a 2023 Washington Times piece, impeachment is not merely a political weapon but a constitutional safeguard for holding officials accountable when they abandon their obligations. The oath has meaning only if violating it carries consequences.
That argument has sharpened. Writing recently, Basile reframed the issue as eligibility rather than misconduct: DSA-aligned members-elect may fail a threshold test before impeachment is even relevant. If a candidate cannot, in good conscience, swear to support the Constitution without mental reservation, institutions like Congress may have grounds to withhold the seat outright (Basile, 2026). Critics cite Powell v. McCormack (1969), which barred Congress from adding qualifications for office beyond age, citizenship, and residency. But Powell involved alleged financial impropriety — not a candidate openly campaigning to dismantle the very structure the oath obligates him or her to defend. Whether that distinction survives judicial scrutiny remains untested.
We are at a crossroads. The American experiment — and the constitutional framework that empowers law enforcement to protect the public — is being challenged by the very ideologies it was built to guard against. Keep giving oxygen to unconstitutional ideas designed to “fundamentally transform America,” and we are on a foreseeable path toward collapse. It is more important than ever to vote — not for a Democrat or a Republican, but for a constitutional officer who will solemnly swear or affirm that they will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; bear true faith and allegiance to the same; take this obligation freely, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which they are about to enter. So help them God.
David Berez is a retired 20-year police veteran with the East Windsor (NJ) Police Department, and the author of the book, “A Resilient Life: A Cop’s Journey in Pursuit of Purpose.” He is a member of the Law Enforcement Advisory Council of Citizens Behind the Badge.
Comments