Article 37 of Maryland's constitution provides 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 Almighty God" (emphasis added).
Article I, Sec. 4, of Pennsylvania's constitution is more insidious: "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth
But when those "requirements" are finally brought before the Supreme Court on a claim of non-compliance, they must then be found to conform to our Constitution's mandates, or they must be changed
And you sir can rant all you want but BEFORE the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was passed, these requirements stood as the standard to hold public office. As a matter of fact,the Arkansas anti-atheist provision survived a federal court challenge as recently as 1982. Only Maryland's provision has been explicitly overturned by the Supreme Court, at that was in 1961. The issue was never raised in federal courts before 1865 because it was understood the states had the right to make these decisions. If your argument held true then the writers of the state constitution would not have put them in there time and time again knowing that they would be overturned by federal courts. Ah, but they weren't were they? Not until the passage of your 14th Amendment.
Once an Amendment is passed, it is as much of our Constitution than the original script, and is to be assumed as valid. [see amendment 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 etc]
So I guess you agree with the 16th and 17th Amendments just fine, both of which destroyed the last vestiges of the Republic and the ideals of the Founders in writing said document? The 17th Amendment didn't just change the Constitution, it destroyed what was left of it after the 16th president trampled over it. It turned a Federal Republic into a true democracy, something the Founders never had in mind. Oh, but it is as valid as the original script. < /sarcasm> What about Prohibition? That was an Amendment but overturned less than two decades later. If your argument holds true, then we wouldn't have alcohol. But it was overturned because in reality it was just another fine example of the federal government at work, acting without thinking
A state cannot outlaw freedom of speech.
It cannot outlaw the ownership of firearms.
It cannot deny the freedom of the practicing of a specific religion privately or in congregation.
It cannot deny legal due process. Etc etc etc etc.
It can pass legislation, change it's constitution or attempt to regulate those very things; and it can force those in that state to comply, until the matter of conflict between these laws and our Constitution's mandates are resolved. - 21 -
------------------------------------------
Can we assume your failure refute the above is an admission that you were wrong about the 14th?
| "...So I guess you agree with the 16th and 17th Amendments just fine, both of which destroyed the last vestiges of the Republic and the ideals of the Founders in writing said document? The 17th Amendment didn't just change the Constitution, it destroyed what was left of it after the 16th president trampled over it. It turned a Federal Republic into a true democracy, something the Founders never had in mind. Oh, but it is as valid as the original script. < /sarcasm> What about Prohibition? That was an Amendment but overturned less than two decades later. If your argument holds true, then we wouldn't have alcohol. But it was overturned because in reality it was just another fine example of the federal government at work, acting without thinking....." |
I read your post three times. And assuming you are claiming
that "amendments to our Constitution" are not valid and can be
[and should be] revoked at whim, how will you feel when the
democrats move to reverse Amendment #2, or the Republicans
move to reverse amendment #5?
Amendments are as much of our Constitutional mandate as the
original document. Each amendment must be honored as law until
the day it is reversed by amendment. And neither should be done
carelessly. Our Constitution is our backbone; it does not have a
life of it's own; it should not change to suit times and conditions.
Time and conditions of society change constantly; they are fluid
and non-committal.
It was through neglect, if we allowed alleged flawed amendments
to pass. You argue that they should be ignored or denounced, but
the only correct action, is to work for reversal. Are you willing to
do that work? Or do you prefer to simply complain?