Does Cain's test for Muslims fail the Constitution?

respectfully, you would be OK with people who officially belong to an organization like the Nazi Party or Communist party, when their party constitution expressly calls for the overthrow of the USA government?

It doesn't matter much what oaths you require, or what the law says, if no one considers it to be of enough importance to enforce it. Case in point below. Ask yourself if anyone held Barack Obama or the Illinois Democrat Party to the requirements below. Other states have similar laws on the books:

From the Illinois Code:

ARTICLE 7. THE MAKING OF NOMINATIONS BY POLITICAL PARTIES
10 ILCS 5/7-2) (from Ch. 46, par. 7-2)
Sec. 7-2.

[...]

A political party, which at the municipal election in any other municipality or political subdivision, (except townships and school districts), for municipal or other officers therein then next preceding a primary, cast more than 5 per cent of the entire vote cast in such municipality or political subdivision, is hereby declared to be a political party within the meaning of this Article, within said municipality or political subdivision, and shall nominate all municipal or other officers therein under the provisions hereof to the extent and in the cases provided in section 7--1.

Provided, that no political organization or group shall be qualified as a political party hereunder, or given a place on a ballot, which organization or group is associated, directly or indirectly, with Communist, Fascist, Nazi or other un-American principles and engages in activities or propaganda designed to teach subservience to the political principles and ideals of foreign nations or the overthrow by violence of the established constitutional form of government of the United States and the State of Illinois.
(Source: Laws 1943, vol. 2, p. 1.)

(10 ILCS 5/7-10.1) (from Ch. 46, par. 7-10.1)
    Sec. 7-10.1. Each petition or certificate of nomination shall include as a part thereof, a statement for each of the candidates filing, or in whose behalf the petition or certificate of nomination is filed, said statement shall be subscribed and sworn to by such candidate or nominee before some officer authorized to take acknowledgment of deeds in this State and shall be in substantially the following form:
United States of America
                         ss
State of Illinois
    I, .... do swear that I am a citizen of the United States and the State of Illinois, that I am not affiliated directly or indirectly with any communist organization or any communist front organization, or any foreign political agency, party, organization or government which advocates the overthrow of constitutional government by force or other means not permitted under the Constitution of the United States or the constitution of this State; that I do not directly or indirectly teach or advocate the overthrow of the government of the United States or of this State or any unlawful change in the form of the governments thereof by force or any unlawful means.

.......................

Subscribed and sworn to by me on (insert date).

.......................

(Notary Public)

My commission expires: .....
(Source: P.A. 91-357, eff. 7-29-99.)

But for the most part they are respected.

I disagree, vehemently!

Amendment X -- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
-- This means that things like telling us we cannot grow wheat that we never sell, even on the intrastate market, CANNOT be regulated by the federal government. [ref Wickard v. Filburn]
Amendment IX -- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
-- This means that just because the right to travel is not mentioned in the Constitution that it does not exist. Ironically, while this amendment is perhaps the least on-the-radar, it is likely one of the most endangered simply because of all the things that the government asserts that it may regulate.
Amendment VIII -- Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The war on drugs has completely repudiated the notion of a fine being excessive; further, the sentencing that we do issue (since some idiots think that corporal punishment is cruel and unusual) punishments that are vastly disproportionate to the crime committed. "Blue-collar" crimes especially, where the person gets twenty years, which is about a quarter of their life, thrown into a cage: give them lashes and make them pay back twice what they stole or damaged and let the law be done with them!
Amendment VII -- In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
A string of court decisions and political developments are aimed at limiting the jurisdiction of the courts in civil suits; either limiting the role of the jury in civil suits or eliminating the jury altogether in favor of federal regulators through preemption; and/or unilaterally imposing onerous filing burdens on plaintiffs. -- 7thamendmentadvocate.org
Amendment VI -- In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
It it absurd to claim that criminal trials are speedy for anything more serious than a traffic ticket. The jury-selection process is hideously tainted to generally favor the state (just look at the attitude toward the right of Jury Nullification which has been a part of English Law since the Magna Carta and American (Colonial) since the trial of Peter Zenger); and these words from USSC Justice Scailia should send shivers down your spine:
Since Thompson’s trial, however, we have decided a case that appears to say just the opposite of the training the dissent would require: In Arizona v. Youngblood , 488 U. S. 51, 58 (1988) , we held that “unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.” We acknowledged that “ Brady … makes the good or bad faith of the State irrelevant when the State fails to disclose to the defendant material exculpatory evidence,” [link] in other words "the state has no obligation to preserve (or consider) evidence indicating the innocence of a defendant".
Amendment V -- No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
There's a LOT here but consider just this: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" This phrase itself invalidates a majority of ALL the firearm restrictions in State statutes of states with something like "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied" or "No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes" precisely because those sections have not been amended/revised out of that constitution (The 14th amendment incorporates this, but also forbids that violation of due process itself).
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.
Do a search here on FR about 'no knock raids' and 'SWAT' and you'll see how laughable to claim this is (if only to keep from crying) upheld against police officers; the TSA and airports are another blatant violation: they have NO WARRANT which particularly describes the person they are searching.
Amendment III -- No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
This is probably the least trampled upon; though I would be unsurprised to hear of soldiers being quartered in houses during Katrina. (My unit quartered in a high-school building.)
Amendment II -- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Being written in the passive voice means that the ACTION of infringing is the subject which is being denied and the ACTOR irrelevant; thus ALL levels of government are prevented from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. Amendment I -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Speech is regulated now; else there would be no reference to "hate speech" laws. The press's freedom is being challenged by the Government's position that amateur or 'unofficial'/'non-mainstream'/'alternative' sources are excepted from this amendment.

Do you still wish to claim that "for the most part they are respected"?

“But the Constitution explicitly prohibits officials of the U.S. government from applying religion as a criterion for public trust, whatever their individual inclinations...”

Very well.

But I proffer that, at the time the Constitution was reasoned and written, that those who insisted on a clause barring any “religious tests” did so because they believed that only Christians and perhaps Jews would ever fall under such a test.

I further proffer that not a single delegate to the Constitutional convention ever once believed or imagined that, someday, Islamics would stand to hold government positions under their newly-created Constitution.

To them, this would have seemed unfathomable.

Thus, from their limited perspective, they endeavored to create a document and a government that would pertain solely to Christians and Jews.

But the Constitution’s views and dictates of religious freedom are destined to fail us in a multicultural environment in which a new and definitely foreign culture in our midst will use the protections of that document to gain power and to subvert and perhaps ultimately destroy us.

We MUST begin to apply “a religious test” insofar as it may determine loyalty to the basic foundations of freedom that The West represents and cherishes.

If you disagree with what I’ve written, do you also disagree that ISLAM, in EVERY facet of that religion, also applies “a religious test” to everyone in its domain?

Whether you view Islam simply “as a religion”, or see it for what I believe it to be — a totalitarian political system cloaked behind a “burqha of religion” — it is Islam that is our nemesis.

It does not warrant the protection of the United States Constitution.
Not if that Constitution is to survive, that is.

Just sayin’….

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.