David Eastman: The Left’s relentless campaign to make loyalty to Constitution ‘unconstitutional’



In a day when professional athletes are encouraged not to stand for the national anthem, and pundits declare that Americans everywhere should feel ashamed of America and her founding, I suppose it is but a small step to next attack the U.S. Constitution itself.

In Alaska, I find myself at the tip of the spear as this latest assault on the Constitution unfolds. Using the Constitution to attack those who support the Constitution — when did that even become a thing?

For me, that became a thing on Aug. 1, when I learned that a well-financed law firm was filing suit to overturn my 2020 election and give my district’s seat in the legislature to someone that voters in my part of the state never elected. A second part of the lawsuit also would overturn the results of this year’s primary election and legally bar voters in my district from being able to vote for me in November—and all in the name of protecting the Constitution.

This is where the front lines have moved to today.

By the way, in Alaska, there is no government agency to defend the results of an election against these kinds of attacks. Our Division of Elections has balked at having to assess every political candidate’s loyalty to the Constitution, which they should never, ever be asked to do, but they have stopped far short of defending the rights of the voters in my district to continue to be represented by a legislator they actually elected.

At present, the legal responsibility for defending the right of my constituents to choose their own elected representatives falls on me alone, with the help of my attorney and those willing to financially support that effort.

To turn away from this latest attack means forfeiting that right, and inviting a future in which the voters in my state will only be permitted to vote for those candidates whom the state has first deemed appropriately “loyal” to the Constitution; from state governor to the city dogcatcher.

Let that sink in.

What the attorneys against me are arguing is that the Constitution not only allows, but in fact requires, the state to subject political candidates to a loyalty test where the state will subjectively determine whether someone is sufficiently loyal to the government—prior to allowing that individual to serve in a government position or even allow that candidate’s name to appear on the ballot.

What the attorneys against me are arguing is that the Constitution not only allows, but in fact requires, the state to subject political candidates to a loyalty test where the state will subjectively determine whether someone is sufficiently loyal to the government—prior to allowing that individual to serve in a government position or even allow that candidate’s name to appear on the ballot.

This manner of conducting elections would flip the Constitution on its head. In the future, instead of candidates seeking to obtain the consent of the governed (voters) before serving in office, they would first have to seek and obtain the consent of the government.

What this also means practically, is that a well-financed law firm will be able to unilaterally double or triple the cost of running for office for any candidates they decide to target. Not only will conservative candidates have to win a primary and a general election, but before even competing in an election, they will face the prospect of an expensive legal battle in the courts over whether or not the state has accurately assessed their loyalty.

In my case, the other side has already indicated that they plan to appeal to the supreme court and pursue the lawsuit into next year, assuming they are not successful in the lower court. As a candidate, just defending my candidacy in court, even if we win the case at every level, will almost certainly cost more than my election campaign.

How many conservative candidates have an extra $50K or $100K to spend on an election lawsuit, the results of which are never certain? And perhaps that’s the point: getting conservative candidates to think twice about ever running for office.

To add insult to further insult, in my case, the other side is trying to make the case that my unwavering support for the Constitution is actually further proof that I am unfit for office, and that I am violating the constitution today just by the mere act of serving in the legislature.

Like every other state legislator, on January 19, 2021 I took the oath of loyalty to the Constitution immediately before assuming office. But while that oath was sufficient to establish the loyalty of every other legislator, those behind the lawsuit argue that it wasn’t sufficient to establish my loyalty.

They point back to thirteen years ago when I became a Lifetime Member of an organization that requires members to take an oath of loyalty to the United States Constitution before joining and, consequently, forbids any member from being disloyal to the Constitution or advocating for its overthrow.

They point back to January 6th, 2021, before I was sworn in as a legislator, and the fact that I willingly attended the speech that President Donald Trump gave that day, in person. It was in Washington, D.C.—more proof that I am disloyal to the Constitution, that my election should be overturned, and that the voters in my district should lose their elected representative.

This is what the front line of the battle for the Constitution looks like today. It is crucial that we hold the line at this point. With your help, that is exactly what we intend to do. Please visit: www.davidlegal.org.

David Eastman is a state representative who lives in Wasilla, Alaska.


  1. Let me guess, the Republican Party is not lifting a finger to help…
    Also a note to others here. A judge has no authority to decide if Eastman can be on the ballot. The division of elections has that authority and they have already decided that Eastman is qualified. Whatever the judge says needs to be ignored and laughed at by the division of elections.

  2. No one who associated themselves with Donald J. Trump comes away unscathed. Not his lawyers, not his employees, not his business associates, not his Vice President, and no, not even his children.

    And neither will you, Mr. Eastman.

    • Under a reprehensibly vindictive, politicized, corrupt, intolerant, hysterical, illegitimate and rogue cabal such as that of usurper Xiden, you are correct, Whidbey the Cur.

        • It is called “grammar”, Lucinda. You know, the kind of rules (linguistic, in this case) that your beloved governmental mis-education system no longer teaches, due to them being ‘racist’ or something.

      • Rather, under a just system.

        Just a thought-good we are all talking. Points get muddle with name calling. Also, it generally makes folks not want to agree with you.

        I hear your guyis having a hard time and that is hard for you. I am sorry you are suffering.

    • Whidbey, such high and mighty words you invoke! Trouble is you haven’t a shred of evidence to indict Mr. Eastman on any account, especially him being entwined with the Donald, who despite years of special investigations, impeachment and now a RAID on his Palace has yet to be convicted of anything.

      But then when did evidence matter to a lynch mob or a witch burning anyway.

      • Patience Schenker. There are 8 lawsuits currently against the Trump. One of them may find that the Traitor sold national secrets.

  3. Let’s be frank: What is under attack is Oathkeepers, and these attacks on Rep. Eastman are based on his membership in that organization. My own research on Oathkeepers leads me to the conclusion that if I was invited to a table to have a beer with a group of Oathkeepers, and simultaneously invited to have a beer with a group of Antifa or BLM, I’d much prefer the beer with the Oathkeepers……..but would ultimately decline politely and go home to drink alone, because I trust nobody.

    • Consider your research criteria.

      My own research says Oathkeepers like to bill themselves as really a guy drinking club. They advertise themselves as defenders of the constitution. They have acted as Oathkeepers in their attempt to stop a constitutional government procedure of Congress, branch of government, by the President within another branch of government at the President’s request.

      Oathkeepers as an organization, and Oathkeeper members in government need an exhaustive light of wisdom and justice to shine upon their demonstration and defense of January 6-and show us how that by engaging in insurrection against the constitution was indeed defending the constitution.

      I’m open.

      There’s a lot of organizational coruption all over the US.

      • “……There’s a lot of organizational corruption all over the US.”
        Indeed. So since so many BLM chapter founders are now going to trial and prison on a literal potpourri of charges and convictions, are BLM members now going to be banned from elected office?

      • Long winded bunch of BS. If you believe what your peddling then all the politicians should be bared as they are destroying this country. You and your Mindset are not important to true Americans.

  4. I feel sad for Mr. Eastman.
    But in the Bizarro World of radical leftist extremism, up is down, black is white, good is bad, freedom is slavery, unreality is reality, and loyalty to this nation’s founding principles is treason.

  5. Soldiers and officers are expected to refuse unconstitutional orders even if given through the proper chain of command.

    Are we to declare that any person who served in the armed forces inelligible to hold office?

  6. Can’t stop people from writing in a candidate’s name.

    And thanks to a judge on the day of elections in 2010 when Murkowski was running, you don’t even have to follow the law and spell the write-in candidate’s name correctly for your vote to count!

  7. Dave, you have my support. Once this frivolous lawsuit is over, I would go for a countersuit for defamation to recover all legal fees as well as the hardship these fools are causing you. This is a concerted effort nationwide to destroy any and all conservative candidates for actually standing by their oath to support and defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign (China) and domestic, The Biden Regime and his allies. Thank you for faithfully representing your constituents and the Constitution.

  8. One set of Americans do not have special privileges over their neighbors. It would be unconstitutional to accord lawyers, a monopoly of law sayers who have a pledged loyalty to some British support group. NO special privies in the US. Scat on off to privieland GB you know?

  9. Anyone else find it telling that Democrats are attacking the only patriot in the Alaska State Legislature who openly swore to uphold the solemn oath of office to support and defend the constitution?

    • Every legislator swears the oath of office to support and defend the constitution before their term begins that is nothing new.

  10. Randall Kowalke is a disgruntled has-been Valley Politician! He went after Doyle Holmes & now He has turned His venom on the Honorable David Eastman who was elected overwhelmingly by His Constituents & May I ask where are the voices of the other Rino Valley politicians?

  11. Representative Eastman says “They point back to January 6th, 2021, before I was sworn in as a legislator” Hasn’t Representative Eastman been a sworn legislator since January 17, 2017? Did Representative Eastman step down during his second term? Last I heard legislators are sworn for a full two year term.

    Representative Eastman is the best Democrat in the legislature. While I disagree with the way Representative Eastman has conducted himself while in the legislature he’s certainly entitled to the same constitutionally protected freedom of speech and freedom of association, as well as a fair trial that the rest of us are.

    Personally I don’t see how going to Washington DC and flying a flag makes you unfit for office, there are plenty of other things that disqualify Representative Eastman.

Comments are closed.