Nope. I disagree.
There's no way the reviewers missed the preamble. The judicial culture that review it was different than today's judicial culture. It was OK back then, and it isn't today. Things have changed.
How could they see it fine in 1901, but you think it violates Art 3 in this era?
My guess is that they considered a religious test to be a requirement that one be of a certain sect. In other words, an establishment of religion.
There's no way the reviewers missed the preamble.
They didn't.
There is nothing wrong with the preamble. The problem is in (for the third time) Judge Moore's stated interpretation of it, which directly conflicts with Article VI of the United States Constitution. If an interpretation of an otherwise constitutional state constitution conflicts with the US Constitution, then the interpretation is wrong. If you are unable to see that, then maybe you're letting your desire to see a certain outcome (one that Moore himself apparently does not desire to see) overcome your logic.
The judicial culture that review it was different than today's judicial culture. It was OK back then, and it isn't today. Things have changed.
Wrong answer. Moore is using a bizarre interpretation that has never, ever worked--or, for that matter, ever been tried with a straight face in any courtroom of the United States.
How could they see it fine in 1901, but you think it violates Art 3 in this era?
One more time: there is nothing wrong with the Constitution of Alabama. The problem is in the specific interpretation that Judge Moore is attempting to use, which overrides the Constitution of the United States. That interpretation
My guess is that they considered a religious test to be a requirement that one be of a certain sect.
Then they would have said precisely that, not a "religious test." You're arguing that one must profess a belief in God in order to hold office or public trust in the state of Alabama.
OK, newsflash for you: Mr. Clinton's penis in Ms. Lewinsky's mouth meets the definition of "sexual relations," no matter what definition of "is" you care to employ. Likewise, requiring someone to profess a belief in God to hold office or a public trust is a "religious test."
Better than a guess. Until fairly recently the acknowledgement of God as creator and final authority was a given on everything from the coins in our pockets to the oaths sworn in the courtroom.
I imagine most of the Founding Fathers would be shocked to see how protection from federally-supported religious taxation has morphed into denying God's existence in our daily lives.
Judge Moore has every right to do just what he chooses in the rotunda of his courthouse. And the fact that some chiseled rock causes this much consternation among the bubbleheads who pose as intellects is indicative of the petty, retrogressive, secular mudhole those in power want us to swim in.
As a society, we've abandoned any sense of moral perspective when we sanction Judge Moore and venerate Judge Judy.