Posted on 12/11/2009 5:33:11 AM PST by Locomotive Breath
A strange story surrounding a North Carolina city council election has suddenly become national news. Cecil Bothwell won his election fairly, a fact no one disputes. However, the former head of the Asheville NAACP has attempted to block Bothwell’s seating by pointing out an obscure clause in North Carolina’s state constitution that bars atheists from holding public office. The dispute will likely have to be settled in federal court:
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
What does "under the United States" mean? No test shall be required in any *federal* capacity, or in *any* capacity? I'm not so sure that all the first section of what you posted (which clearly refers to the State Legislatures etc.) carries over to the second.
I'm no Constitutional Scholar, but the reason I'm sticking on this point is that it's hard for me to see how the religious tests for office that clearly existed in the Federal period were not struck down immediately by Article 4. Also...how would article 4 have passed in the first place if there were states who had such tests for office?
Something's not jiving here.
Or maybe this sort of thing would finally wake people up. Then again, maybe not. Pass the soma, eh?
the civil war decided that Federal law trumps state law
The Civil War decided that the liberal northeastern states would be allowed to loot and hold sway over the rest of the country, and do so under the color of law and right, lead by the finacial power of New York and Boston. The maps of relative wealth of the states before and after the war, and lasting up to this day bear this out quite well. The war took states like Lousiana, Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina, which had formerly lead in per capital wealth down to the bottom, while raising up New England, New York, etc.
If you doubt this is still going on, just look at the TARP law, which sucked wealth from the people in "flyover land" and deposited it with bankers in New York, Boston, and San Francisco.
I would have to say that Article VI is the law in this case.
As much as I don’t like atheism, this is ridiculous. The SCOTUS ruled long ago that state provisions, even in their constitutions, represent unconstitutional religious tests.
However, let’s look at what the REAL story behind this is: the coming crackup of part of the already-fragile Democrat coalition. Most atheists are Democrats, and most blacks are Democrats. Now, get the two to fighting, as we see here with a black pastor trying to use this law to subvert the election of a pencil-necked white atheist....
Ok? No. But in theory, they have the power to do so via their State Constitution. The people of Oregon have the sovereign power to surrender various and sundry of their rights to their State if they so choose. That principal is the basis of all our constitutional law, federal and state.
Yeah, I know, citing Wikipedia. Nonetheless:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_religious_test_clause
EXCERPT: “Earlier in U.S. history, the doctrine of states’ rights allowed individual states complete discretion regarding the inclusion of a religious test in their state constitutions. Such religious tests have in recent decades been deemed to be unconstitutional by the extension of the First Amendment provisions to the states (via the incorporation of the 14th Amendment).”
So Article IV has not traditionally applied to states. The 14th Amendment is the linchpin here, as some of you stated above.
I think it clearly does. It applies to any position of public trust in the U.S., be it at the federal, state, or local level. If you look at Article I, Section 6 it says that "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." The second half of that clause has always been interpreted to mean that you cannot hold office in Congress if you are also holding office at any other level. Can't be a state senator and a U.S. senator, or a mayor and a congressman, or a state judge and a city councilman. "Under the United State" in Article VI undoubtedly means the same.
For it to be struck down someone would have to sue and the matter taken through the judiciary to the Supreme Court. For the first 150 or so years there was a bias towards Christianity and such laws didn't attract much opposition, if any. Things have changed.
You may be right. But if you’re right, then someone needs to explain how it is that states HAD such tests for office for a long time? Was the principle just not tested in front of SCOTUS? More likely, I think, it was simply not applied to states. Be interesting to have a summary of court thinking on this issue from the 1790s on.
Hmmm...I doubt that. I am a Catholic, and I know for one the Catholic religion wasn't even legal in most of the colonies until the late 1700s. I'd have to do research, but I'm sure some of these laws targeted Catholics as well as Quakers, Unitarians, and other non-mainstream Protestant groups.
There have to be some legal opinions on this from the time period.
Other than certain positive legal rights established in law and not intuitively obvious as a matter of course (right to trial by jury, for example), Federal and State Constitutions do not "guarantee rights".
Constitutions properly should be thought of as restricting the power of governments to those powers enumerated within them that the people have chosen to have handled by their government.
In other words, a Constitution is a document outlining what powers the government shall have among a free people, not what rights a people retain in the face of a levithan state.
The First Amendment does not guarantee the right of free speech, which is a natural human right. Rather, it says that Congress has no power or competency to pass laws restricting speech because the people have not given their legislature such authority.
Since a Constitution is an instrument of the people, and the people determine who shall serve them in public office, it is obvious that the people should be allowed to determine what the qualifications are for those public servants.
An test prohibiting atheists in public office is no more discriminatory than the clauses restricting the Presidency to natural born citizens, restricting other offices only to citizens of the country, or clauses establishing ages well above that of legal majority to attain to high office. The people have determined that they wish to be served in public office by citizens with enough age to have matured to some wisdom. A related qualification stating that such public servants must believe in God differs little in substance, since in essence it is a qualification requiring people to have a rational view of the reality of creation and divine governance of the affairs of mankind, and a future state of rewards and punishments for all men. In this sense, it is like requiring a oath upon taking office or providing testimony in Court. An atheist is obviously incapable of taking such an oath since they cannot make such a promise to a deity they do not believe in.
Furthermore, serving in public office is not a right, but a privilege. As a privilege, it is very rationally subjected to reasonable qualifcations.
Scripture tells us atheists are fools. Can a free people not deny public office to fools?
Thanks for your reply, although I vehemently disagree with the interpretation that Amendment XIV calls for the restrictions on Congress in Amendment I to be applied to the States as well. There is nothing in Amendment XIV (including equal protection) that allows this expansion of restriction. The restrictions on Congress are for the individual and are already applied equally, regardless of State law since State law cannot remove a restriction placed upon Congress.
I agree. The 14th can prevent the states from abridging natural rights—heck, every government can and has to do that. But to say that it empowers Federal law to trump it every time makes a mockery of federalism and subsidiarity.
Equal protection is the law of the land. Deal with it.
Nonsense. The people of Oregon have *no* right to surrender any individual's *natural* rights, regardless of the popularity of that right. The basis of the Bill of Rights is that the rights are not *granted* by the Constitution, but merely *recognized* by it. No change to the Constitution itself will ever change our natural rights. To do so would be folly.
TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
The court ruled unanimously in Torcaso's favor. Here are some highlights of Justice Black' opinion:
"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 [it] 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. The power and authority of the State of Maryland thus is put on the side of one particular sort of believers - those who are willing to say they believe in 'the existence of God.' It is true that there is much historical precedent for such laws. Indeed, it was largely to escape religious test oaths and declarations that a great many of the early colonists left Europe and came here hoping to worship in their own way. It soon developed, however, that many of those who had fled to escape religious test oaths turned out to be perfectly willing, when they had the power to do so, to force dissenters from their faith to take test oaths in conformity with that faith. This brought on a host of laws in the new Colonies imposing burdens and disabilities of various kinds upon varied beliefs depending largely upon what group happened to be politically strong enough to legislate in favor of its own beliefs. The effect of all this was the formal or practical 'establishment' of particular religious faiths in most of the Colonies, with consequent burdens imposed on the free exercise of the faiths of nonfavored believers....."
When our [Federal] Constitution was adopted, the desire to put the people 'securely beyond the reach' of religious test oaths brought about the inclusion in Article VI of that document of a provision that 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States'....."
Thanks. Seems pretty clear to me.
“I agree. The 14th can prevent the states from abridging natural rights—heck, every government can and has to do that. But to say that it empowers Federal law to trump it every time makes a mockery of federalism and subsidiarity.”
You know, in some ways I really can see what you are saying. If Federal law trumps local and state law ALWAYS, then what’s the point of local and state laws? That is an issue that is ongoing in the California Medical Marijuana battle and on that side, I agree with state rights.
However, in this case, the issue is Federally protected individual RIGHTS. The elected official is being told if he does not adhere to a religious principle, he is not allowed to be a part of ‘We the People’ and self govern. That is the problem.
I have to disagree with your point, simply because “being elected to public office” is not a right granted to every person under the constitution.
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.