State laws that violate the US Constitution

Somerville · May 29, 2012

Article VI, third paragraph of the Constitution

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.

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

Isn't acknowledging "the existence of a Supreme Being" a religious test? Under these state constitutions, it would be legal for a Muslim (oh the horror!) to be elected but not an atheist or a polytheist. Does anyone really think that would be acceptable under the Constitution?

ttwtt78640 · May 29, 2012

Somerville said:
Article VI, third paragraph of the Constitution

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

Isn't acknowledging "the existence of a Supreme Being" a religious test? Under these state constitutions, it would be legal for a Muslim (oh the horror!) to be elected but not an atheist or a polytheist. Does anyone really think that would be acceptable under the Constitution?

It appears that we are a nation based on religion, just not a particular flavor or sect of it. It is also interesting that the 1st amendment seemed to intend to exempt the states as the wording "congress shall pass no law to..." is far different from the wording of the 2nd amendemt "the right of the people to... shall not be infringed". The 1st appears to apply only to the federal gov't, while the 2nd clearly applies to ALL levels of gov't. ;-)

Somerville · May 29, 2012

ttwtt78640 said:
It appears that we are a nation based on religion, just not a particular flavor or sect of it. It is also interesting that the 1st amendment seemed to intend to exempt the states as the wording "congress shall pass no law to..." is far different from the wording of the 2nd amendemt "the right of the people to... shall not be infringed". The 1st appears to apply only to the federal gov't, while the 2nd clearly applies to ALL levels of gov't. ;-)

Are you saying that the phrase "any office or public trust under the United States" only applies to offices in the federal government? Do you think it is Constitutionally acceptable to bar atheists from public office?

By the way - Article VI is part of the original Constitution, you know - the bit that was passed before the Bill of Rights were added. You might also read the Article, particularly the phrase "the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States", a phrase which at least to me indicates the authors of the Constitution intended for it to apply to the States and not just the federal government.

ttwtt78640 · May 29, 2012

Somerville said:
Are you saying that the phrase "any office or public trust under the United States" only applies to offices in the federal government? Do you think it is Constitutionally acceptable to bar atheists from public office?

No I do not, but let us remember that the 1st amendment trumps that phrase. Does it not?

Somerville · May 29, 2012

ttwtt78640 said:
No I do not, but let us remember that the 1st amendment trumps that phrase. Does it not?

No it does not, it adds stipulations, restricting the actions of Congress without removing the initial statement which applies to the "several states". All of the first ten amendments are 'additive' to the original requirements found in the Constitution with more precise stipulations as to the authority of Congress and the federal government as a whole.

Jredbaron96 · May 29, 2012

Why do the selection of states not suprise me?

American · May 29, 2012

Somerville said:
Are you saying that the phrase "any office or public trust under the United States" only applies to offices in the federal government? Do you think it is Constitutionally acceptable to bar atheists from public office?

By the way - Article VI is part of the original Constitution, you know - the bit that was passed before the Bill of Rights were added. You might also read the Article, particularly the phrase "the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States", a phrase which at least to me indicates the authors of the Constitution intended for it to apply to the States and not just the federal government.

If this applied to the States, then why are their consitutions unchanged?

Somerville · May 29, 2012

American said:
If this applied to the States, then why are their consitutions unchanged?

Simply because the states have not tried to enforce the provisions, the last time it was tried was following the election of Cecil Bothwell to the Asheville, NC city council in 2009.

The provisions have probably not been removed from the various state constitutions due to the ever-present possibility of religious nut cases acting in a bad way. The various constitutional provisions were declared invalid by two Supreme Court decision back in the days of flagrant liberalism on the bench (that's sarcasm by the way)
TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) and CANTWELL v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)

from the Torcaso decision

Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States

from the Cantwell decision

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.

In a more recent case the Supreme Court of South Carolina told the state that it could not prevent an atheist from becoming a notary public
Silverman v. Campbell, et al.

We affirm the circuit court's holding that South Carolina Constitution art. VI, § 2 and art. XVIII, § 4 violate the First Amendment and the Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution. The appeals from the denial of summary judgment are dismissed, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Aunt Spiker · May 29, 2012

Interesting that the belief in a God is so important to many even though most total psycho nut-jobs in the world who have ravaged societies and slaughtered a multitude of innocent people have done so under the name of their Godly backed beliefs.

American · May 30, 2012

Aunt Spiker said:
Interesting that the belief in a God is so important to many even though most total psycho nut-jobs in the world who have ravaged societies and slaughtered a multitude of innocent people have done so under the name of their Godly backed beliefs.

There is no need for this here.

tecoyah · May 30, 2012

American said:
There is no need for this here.

Are we to understand, that if you considered there to be a "Need for this Here", it would then be acceptable?

American · May 30, 2012

tecoyah said:
Are we to understand, that if you considered there to be a "Need for this Here", it would then be acceptable?

We're having a good discussion right now, do you have a problem with that?

tecoyah · May 30, 2012

American said:
We're having a good discussion right now, do you have a problem with that?

Nope...sorry to interrupt.

ttwtt78640 · May 30, 2012

Somerville said:
No it does not, it adds stipulations, restricting the actions of Congress without removing the initial statement which applies to the "several states". All of the first ten amendments are 'additive' to the original requirements found in the Constitution with more precise stipulations as to the authority of Congress and the federal government as a whole.

Nonsense. Amendments, by definition, alter by either adding, changing or deleting parts of the original text of the constitution. The first 10 amendments are no different than the next 17 in that respect, some of the amendments even modify other amendments as well as the original base document.

Wiseone · May 30, 2012

ttwtt78640 said:
Nonsense. Amendments, by definition, alter by either adding, changing or deleting parts of the original text of the constitution. The first 10 amendments are no different than the next 17 in that respect, some of the amendments even modify other amendments as well as the original base document.

What is your legal evidence that the 1st amendment overrules this requirement in the Constitution? Let me show you some precedence that it took me a few minutes to find on wikipedia .

Silverman v. Campbell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1992, Herb Silverman was a mathematics professor at the College of Charleston, who applied to become a public notary. Silverman is an atheist and had earlier run for the post of Governor of South Carolina.[3] His application was rejected after he crossed off the phrase "So help me God"[4] from the oath, as was required by the South Carolina State Constitution.[5] Silverman filed a lawsuit naming Gov. Carroll Campbell and Secretary of State Jim Miles as defendants.[6] After a lower court passed a ruling in favor of Silverman, the state appealed to the Supreme Court contending that the case was not about religion.[7]

The South Carolina Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision[2] ruled that Article VI, section 2 ("No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution") and Article XVII, section 4 ("No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution") of the South Carolina Constitution[1] was in violation of the First Amendment protection of free exercise of religion and the Article VI, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution banning the use of a religious test for public office.[8]

Torcaso v. Watkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the early 1960s, the Governor of Maryland appointed Roy Torcaso as a notary public. At the time, the Maryland Constitution required "a declaration of belief in the existence of God" (Maryland Declaration of Rights, Article 37) in order for a person to hold "any office of profit or trust in this State" (ibid.).

Torcaso, an atheist, refused to make such a statement, and his appointment was consequently revoked. Torcaso, believing his constitutional rights to freedom of religious expression had been infringed, filed suit in a Maryland Circuit Court, only to be rebuffed; the Circuit Court rejected his claim, and the Maryland Court of Appeals held that the requirement for a declaration of belief in God as a qualification for office was self-executing.

The Court unanimously found that Maryland's requirement for a person holding public office to state a belief in God violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The Court had previously established in Everson v. Board of Education (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

Writing for the Court, Justice Hugo Black recalled Everson v. Board of Education, and explicitly linked Torcaso v. Watkins to its conclusions:

There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us - it sets up a religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public "office of profit or trust" in Maryland. ... We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

So even if the First amendment overrules the requirement mentioned in the OP(it doesn't), the SCOTUS has ruled on multiple occasions that these kinds of things violate the 1st amendment anyway. There you're argument is irrelevant

ttwtt78640 · May 30, 2012

Wiseone said:
What is your legal evidence that the 1st amendment overrules this requirement in the Constitution? Let me show you some precedence that it took me a few minutes to find on wikipedia .

Silverman v. Campbell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Torcaso v. Watkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So even if the First amendment overrules the requirement mentioned in the OP(it doesn't), the SCOTUS has ruled on multiple occasions that these kinds of things violate the 1st amendment anyway. There you're argument is irrelevant

What? Your own "legal evidence" supports my position as ALL of these cases cite the 1st amendment as well as confirm it overrides even the OP cited federal requirement in the U.S. constitituion the important part (that I have copied) from YOUR last SCOTUS decision noted follows: {...neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion."}

Aderleth · May 30, 2012

Somerville said:
"Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States"

from the Torcaso decision

The language you quoted actually alludes to the technical reason why the first amendment (and most of the Bill of Rights) applies to the states. I've put the important part in bold.
It's referencing a concept called incorporation. I've posted the wiki link below, but the basic idea is that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment includes the basic liberties provided in the first 8 amendments in the bill of rights. The first case to discuss this concept was Twining v New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)

Here's the wiki:

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shadow Serious · Jun 3, 2012

I believe that this is one of those red flag laws and by that I mean those sort of laws that came out when the automobile was new and sharing the road with horse and buggies. Those laws are not in effect.

Aberration · Jun 3, 2012

If our rights come from our Creator, as recognized in our founding document, and a person holding office does not recognize our Creator, how can they recognize the rights? What they view as the source of our rights would conflict with where our founding document says they originate from.

Seems like a conflict of interest to me.

Aderleth · Jun 3, 2012

Shadow Serious said:
I believe that this is one of those red flag laws and by that I mean those sort of laws that came out when the automobile was new and sharing the road with horse and buggies. Those laws are not in effect.

Is that in reference to my post, or the OP?

Somerville · Jun 3, 2012

Aberration said:
If our rights come from our Creator, as recognized in our founding document, and a person holding office does not recognize our Creator, how can they recognize the rights? What they view as the source of our rights would conflict with where our founding document says they originate from.

Seems like a conflict of interest to me.

What, in your opinion, is "our founding document"? There is no mention of a "Creator" in the Constitution

also your T. Jefferson quote is a fake one and appears to be a creation of the internets

Aberration · Jun 4, 2012

Somerville said:
What, in your opinion, is "our founding document"? There is no mention of a "Creator" in the Constitution

also your T. Jefferson quote is a fake one and appears to be a creation of the internets

The Constitution is not our founding document.

also dig around on the internet enough you will someone that say something is fake.

Somerville · Jun 4, 2012

Aberration said:
The Constitution is not our founding document.

Maybe you should read a bit more

Aberration · Jun 4, 2012

Somerville said:
Maybe you should read a bit more

Wow a webpage!

I notice it does not include the Articles of Confederation. Why not? Hmm.

The Federalist papers are part of our founding documents? The Bill of Rights?

How did any of those documents 'Found' our nation? Sorry, that is rhetorical and not fair. None but the Declaration of Independence did.

Somerville · Jun 4, 2012

Aberration said:
Wow a webpage!

I notice it does not include the Articles of Confederation. Why not? Hmm.

The Federalist papers are part of our founding documents? The Bill of Rights?

How did any of those documents 'Found' our nation? Sorry, that is rhetorical and not fair. None but the Declaration of Independence did.

yes a "webpage" with the original documents for you to read

The Articles of Confederation were superseded by the Constitution, the little that was found to work in the Articles was included in the Constitution, most of it was thrown out.

Federalist Papers are seen as "founding documents" by most historians, maybe not by those who choose to ignore their relevance and frequent citation at times of political strife.

The documents listed did 'found' this nation, for without them their would be no United States of America.

The Declaration of Independence was a declaration of war and rebellion with little in it that has become law in these United States. It did not 'found' this nation in any legalistic understanding of foundation.

You cite the beginning of the second paragraph in the Declaration as 'proof' of the Founding Fathers intentions and beliefs, yet for some reason there is zero mention of any Creator in the Constitution, instead we have the 3rd paragraph of Article VI which tells us there will be no religious tests for political office.

It just might be that those who created this nation had a much closer experience of state-supported churches and said churches interference in the political process than any of those who today babble on about this "christian nation". Maybe that is why they kept religion out of the actual founding documents, they knew how bad things could be.

oh yeah - and your Jefferson quote is still a fake

State laws that violate the US Constitution

Somerville

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Somerville

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Somerville

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

Somerville

Aunt Spiker

Cheese

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

tecoyah

Illusionary

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

tecoyah

Illusionary

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Wiseone

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Aderleth

Shadow Serious

Aberration

Aderleth

Somerville

Aberration

Somerville

Aberration

Somerville

State laws that violate the US Constitution

Sometimes wrong

Sometimes wrong

Gen 4:10

Trump Grump Whisperer

Cheese

Trump Grump Whisperer

Illusionary

Trump Grump Whisperer

Illusionary

Sometimes wrong

Sometimes wrong

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency