When passing a law, wouldn't it make sense to check it's legality before submitting it? Right wing idiots do it all the time, especially around election time. As for the following states, did these nonsense and somehow slip through the cracks when no one was looking or are these state government plain mentally challenged? As for the southern states, I really do believe they have morons running the joint. I do have a problem of people running our government that believe in talking snakes.
CORRECTION: These laws are 200 years old and the U.S. Constitution allows for an affirmation instead of an oath in order to accommodate atheists and others in court or seeking to hold public office. In 1961, the United States Supreme Court explicitly overturned the Maryland provision in the Torcaso v. Watkins decision, holding that laws requiring "a belief in the existence of God" in order to hold public office violated freedom of religion provided for by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This decision is generally understood to also apply to witness oaths.
The 1961 case is interesting because there is nothing in the Constitution, and specifically the first amendment, to prevent states from setting up a state religion that everyone must attend. Only the federal government is banned from such action.
Then there is a problem under the concept of the first amendment, states cannot set up some religious litmus test to keep otherwise eligible candidates from holding office. If it not expressly provided in the constitution as applicable to the states, I say that in view of the principle involved that it is strongly implied.
That principle was originally included because the individual states of the union didn't want other states interfering in their religion. The reasoning, then, does not include forbidding a state run religion, although court decisions have seen fit to turn their head and cough a bit when handing down decisions contrary to the constitution.
A good thing they have, too, or we could well have more than a handful of states being run by various religions and trying to force their ideas on other states.
Yes, indeed. But, I would be more concerned about the state interfering in my choice of religion or lack thereof as an individual.
by Doug Hughes6 years ago
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”First Amendment – in that Constitution thingie.Granted, the prohibition is against *Congress*...
by Charles James6 years ago
As some fellow hubbers will know, I am involved in writing hubs for a Socialism 101 series.There are a few issues raised by the conservatives where I do not fully understand what they are saying. Before I address these...
by My Esoteric5 days ago
Sorry about the paraphrase, but was space limited (hubpages should take note). What James Madison actually wrote was: "In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the...
by Cassie Smith5 years ago
A NJ judge ruled against a Christian retreat house that refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its premises. The United Methodist Church, the owner of the retreat house, holds the view...
by Sophia Angelique4 years ago
Here are some quotes from the article below:"“America is in danger, I think, of becoming something of a legal backwater,” Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia said in a 2001 interview. He said...
by My Esoteric18 months ago
If you were King for a day, what elements of of the U.S. Constitution amd its Amendments would you want to see deleted, repealed, added, or mofified to make it fit more to the way the SIGNERS of the Constitution...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.