Missouri's 7th District, U.S. House of Representatives




Congressional Issues 2010
Can an Anarchist "Support" the Constitution?

After passing the California Bar Exam, a Federal Court in Los Angeles declared that I cannot be allowed to take the oath to "support the Constitution" required of attorneys and other public office-holders. If I win the November election, a lawsuit will probably be filed by one or all of the losers seeking an injunction to prohibit me from taking the oath of office.

In 1892, the United States Supreme Court declared that America was a Christian nation, a nation "under God," acknowledging allegiance to a Higher Law. That decision was effectively overturned in 1931, when the Court declared that in taking an oath to support the Constitution, one's allegiance to the government must be "unqualified" by a higher allegiance to God. A Christian's allegiance to the government is always qualified by a higher allegiance to God.  In 1945, the 1931 case was specifically applied to the case of a Christian who sought admission to the Illinois Bar.

The Federal District Court in my case declared that this 1945 case barred me from taking the oath to "support the Constitution" and practicing law. The California State Bar, the California Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to allow me to qualify my allegiance to the government.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion:
The attorneys on the final brief before the 9th Circuit, working pro bono, were Ed Gaffney, Douglas Laycock, Erwin Chemerinsky (now Dean of the Law School at the University of California, Irvine), and former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso.

Extended discussion of the theological and constitutional issues in my case:

I may not win and may never serve a day in political office, but your vote for a Christian anarchist pulls the rope in today's political "Tug-of-War" in the strongest possible way.

next: Campaign Finance, Corruption and the Oath of Office