Eight sample testimonies — the kind of statements voters encounter every day — run through all three OathCheck engines. Constitutional Check. BS Finder. Bully · Best Bet. Click the tabs on each analysis to see all three.
These are sample analyses. Paste any testimony into OathCheck and get your own results instantly. Always free. Always anonymous.
“...press credentials permanently revoked...”
Triggered by: press revoke credentials
Relevant Precedent: New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) — prior restraint on publication presumptively unconstitutional
“...subject to prosecution under the Espionage Act...”
Triggered by: espionage act silence
Relevant Precedent: Near v. Minnesota (1931) — government cannot use criminal threat to suppress press
“We will not tolerate unauthorized reporting...”
Triggered by: censor ban speech
If the speaker holds a position requiring a constitutional oath (Cabinet Member), 2 high-concern findings may represent a conflict with their sworn obligation to “support and defend the Constitution.”
Using threat of criminal prosecution to deter legally protected activity.
Triggered by: subject to prosecution permanently revoked
Framing press access as “privilege not right” to justify removal — ignoring constitutional press freedom.
Triggered by: privilege, not a right
Triggered by: permanently revoked subject to prosecution
Document the threat. Press freedom is constitutionally protected. The statement itself is evidence of overreach — share it widely rather than self-censoring, which is the intended effect.
“...all materials...be removed from school libraries immediately...”
Triggered by: censor ban speech
Relevant Precedent: Board of Education v. Pico (1982) — students’ right to receive information; libraries cannot remove books solely due to ideological disagreement
“...alternative religious viewpoints be removed...”
Triggered by: religion
Relevant Precedent: Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) — government may not tailor public education to principles of any religious group
Using “divisive propaganda” to characterize educational material — replacing factual description with charged framing.
Triggered by: propaganda divisive
Invoking “parents’ rights” to override constitutional protections and established precedent.
Triggered by: right to protect
Triggered by: removed from prohibited from
This targets vulnerable groups through institutional power. Cite Board of Education v. Pico directly. Organize community testimony. When they say “protect children,” ask “from what, specifically?” — forcing vague claims into the open is the best disinfectant.
“...directing all federal agencies to withhold funding from any state...”
Triggered by: withhold funding states
Relevant Precedent: NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) — coercive conditional funding violates state sovereignty
“By executive authority, I am directing...”
Triggered by: executive authority
Relevant Precedent: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) — executive power limited without congressional authorization
Only Congress holds the power of the purse. Executive withholding of congressionally appropriated funds raises impoundment concerns.
If the speaker holds a position requiring a constitutional oath (President / Executive), 2 high-concern findings may represent a conflict with their sworn obligation to “support and defend the Constitution.”
Creating artificial consequences to force compliance — “cooperate or face consequences” replaces governance with threat.
Triggered by: face consequences not optional
Creating artificial time pressure to prevent deliberation and analysis.
Triggered by: immediately not optional
Triggered by: shall be required violations will result
When one branch of government threatens another, the system is being tested. Contact your state attorney general. Document the threat. The Constitution distributes power for exactly this reason — the appropriate response is to exercise your portion of it.
“...all visa applicants from predominantly Muslim countries...”
Triggered by: religion
Relevant Precedent: Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah (1993) — laws targeting a specific religion are subject to strict scrutiny
Policy applies differential treatment based on national origin, implicating equal protection analysis.
If the speaker holds a position requiring a constitutional oath (Cabinet Member), 1 high-concern finding may represent a conflict with their sworn obligation to “support and defend the Constitution.”
Explicitly targeting Muslim-majority nations while denying it’s religious. The denial contradicts the operational criteria.
Triggered by: not a...ban simply being
Deflecting intent by recharacterizing religious targeting as neutral “security measure.”
Triggered by: national security measure
Triggered by: prohibited from subject to
When they say “this isn’t about religion” while specifically targeting religious groups — believe the policy, not the disclaimer. Document the contradiction. Support affected communities. The Establishment Clause exists to prevent exactly this.
“...consolidating polling locations in high-density urban areas...”
Targeted reduction of polling access in urban (typically minority-majority) areas raises voting rights concerns.
Relevant Precedent: Shelby County v. Holder (2013) and subsequent voting access litigation
Differential burden on urban vs. rural voters implicates equal protection in exercise of fundamental right.
If the speaker holds a position requiring a constitutional oath (Governor), 1 high-concern finding may represent a conflict with their sworn obligation to “support and defend the Constitution.”
Framing voter access reduction as “integrity” and “cost savings” — conflating administrative convenience with democratic access.
Triggered by: protect election integrity reduce costs
“Simply need to travel a bit farther” downplays real barriers — transportation, disability, work schedules, childcare.
Triggered by: simply
Triggered by: eliminated prohibited from
Map the closures. Show which neighborhoods are affected. When they say “a bit farther” — provide the actual distances, transit times, and demographics. Data makes invisible harm visible.
“Protesters...will be classified as domestic security threats...”
Triggered by: protest assembly
Relevant Precedent: Edwards v. South Carolina (1963) — peaceful protest is constitutionally protected
“...subject to detention...”
Detention without due process or criminal charge raises fundamental rights concerns.
Use of military forces for domestic law enforcement raises statutory and constitutional concerns.
If the speaker holds a position requiring a constitutional oath (President / Executive), 2 high-concern findings may represent a conflict with their sworn obligation to “support and defend the Constitution.”
Reclassifying protected political activity as “security threats” to justify disproportionate force.
Triggered by: subject to detention security threats
Triggered by: subject to permanently
Know your rights before you exercise them. The right to peaceably assemble is in the First Amendment for a reason — it was the first thing the framers thought to protect. Legal observers, documentation, and ACLU contacts should be in place before any demonstration.
“We intend to proceed...regardless of this court’s opinion...”
Triggered by: court judge judicial
Relevant Precedent: Marbury v. Madison (1803) — judicial review is the foundation of constitutional governance; Cooper v. Aaron (1958) — no official can defy a court order
“...activist judge does not reflect the will of the people...”
Delegitimizing judicial authority undermines the constitutional structure of separated powers.
If the speaker holds a position requiring a constitutional oath (President / Executive), 2 high-concern findings may represent a direct conflict with their sworn obligation. Defiance of court orders by an executive is among the most serious constitutional concerns.
“Activist judge” is a framing device designed to undermine judicial authority by implying bias without evidence.
Triggered by: activist judge
“Will of the people” used to override constitutional protections — the Constitution exists precisely to limit majority overreach.
Triggered by: will of the people override an election
Triggered by: shall be required violations will result
When someone in power tells you to ignore the courts, that is the moment to pay the closest attention. Judicial review is not a bug — it’s the load-bearing wall. Contact your representatives. This is a five-alarm constitutional fire.
“Tenants who file complaints with external agencies will be subject to enhanced inspections...”
Triggered by: petition
Relevant Precedent: The right to petition the government for redress of grievances is explicitly protected. Retaliatory action for exercising this right is unconstitutional.
“Expedited violation proceedings” in response to complaints suggests punitive process without adequate due process protections.
Explicit threat of institutional consequences for exercising legally protected complaint rights.
Triggered by: subject to violations will result
“Internal grievance procedures” used to contain complaints where the institution controls the outcome — preventing external accountability.
Triggered by: internal rather than
Triggered by: subject to violations will result terminated
This is textbook retaliation — and it’s illegal under federal tenant protection law. Save this memo. File it WITH the external complaint as evidence of retaliatory intent. The institution just handed you proof. When they tell you not to go outside for help, that is precisely when you should.
Paste any testimony, policy statement, executive order, or press conference transcript. Three analysis engines. Instant results. Always free. Always anonymous.
⚖ Analyze Testimony Now →