Amendment XXVIII
of the Constitution of the United States
[Proof by Oath for Oath] 

Section 1.  As is requisite for various officers of government, heretofore mentioned, that they be bound by oath or affirmation to support this constitution, such shall be the requirement for any and all persons participating in the elections of said officers, and for any persons acting as agents or advisors for said officers.

Section 2.  All persons bound by oath or affirmation to support this constitution, herein noted, shall, requisite to their oath, Demonstrate their understanding of this Constitution, in a manner to be prescribed and certified by law.

Section 3. This Amendment shall become operative as of the third Congressional election following its ratification.

~~~

Reference Articles:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Article VI, Clause 3:
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.

Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment XIV, Section 3:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Links to the Constitution: (add 06.30.2012)
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html/
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm (annotated)
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Constitution.html

~~~

Simply stated, this Amendment seeks to:

1. Bind the people to “support the Constitution of the United States”, in the same way that the people whom they empower and advise, are bound to it, as a prerequisite to empowering (voting for) or advising them.
2. Prior to being “bound by oath or affirmation to support this constitution”, persons must prove their understanding of the Constitution of the United States. This applies to all “oath takers”, providing for the same standard for officers of government and the people who make them so.

More simply, if you want to vote for a person who must take this oath, then you have to take this oath. And you, and them, must know the Constitution which you are taking an oath to support.

I am full aware that this (pretend) proposal is too commonsensical for today’s elite intelligentsia body politik to reason with, along with most of the electorate. Maybe we can incorporate this logic whilst America is ascending from the ashes.

No claims to any expertise here, rather a simple idea for America by an American.
(quick update) “Proof by Oath for Oath” means Proof of Understanding as companion to (by) Oaths, and an Oath taken for the empowerment of an Oath to take.

~tdv (dreamer)

Discuss here or on Twitter: subconch tweet or hashtag: ‪#28thAmendment‬

Related Articles: (add section 09.01.12)

• Election Reform: a Modest Proposal (notesonliberty.com) by Warren Gibson
  …modest :] Yes it’s “fun to speculate”. His point (3) related here specifically.