All corrections
X March 1, 2026 at 07:10 AM

x.com/3YearLetterman/status/2027512440062161044

1 correction found

1
Claim
It is a violation of their constitutional oath of loyalty
Correction

The U.S. Constitution’s oath requirement applies to government officials, not to private companies—so a “company” generally has no “constitutional oath of loyalty” it could violate.

Full reasoning

The post refers to “this company” and asserts that its actions violate “their constitutional oath of loyalty.”

Under the U.S. Constitution, the relevant oath requirement (Article VI, Clause 3) binds specified government officeholders—“Senators and Representatives,” members of state legislatures, and “all executive and judicial Officers” of the United States and the states—to an oath or affirmation supporting the Constitution. It does not impose an oath obligation on private corporations simply because they are companies.

Authoritative summaries of this clause likewise describe the oath as an obligation of federal officials/employees and other public officers, not private companies. Therefore, characterizing a private “company” as having a constitutional oath (and violating it) is incorrect in the ordinary meaning of “company.”

(If the author meant a specific individual who is a government officer/employee associated with that company, that would be a different, more specific claim—but that’s not what the quoted sentence says.)

2 sources
Model: OPENAI_GPT_5 Prompt: v1.6.0