ydoaPs Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 In NC, people are attempting to bar an atheist from holding a public office on the basis of the NC Constitution's prohibition of atheists holding public office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 He doesn't even fit the description, as he is not a Strong Atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Isn't this simply a case of which constitution over-rules the other: state constitution of federal constitution. I don't see why it would be any different from federal law over-ruling state law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 14th amendment will win (emphasis added) 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. States can't take away rights that the Constitution guarantees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 Isn't this simply a case of which constitution over-rules the other: state constitution of federal constitution. I don't see why it would be any different from federal law over-ruling state law. Yes(in fact there are many state constitutions like this. it's even illegal to be an atheist in Massachusetts). The unusual thing about this case is that the state constitution is being pushed despite that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 14th amendment will win (emphasis added) 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. States can't take away rights that the Constitution guarantees Indeed. There is also the Supremacy Clause of Article VI. In my mind, the Supremacy Clause is an even stronger argument than the 14th amendment when it comes to demonstrating State-level constitutions or provisions invalid... but both provide the requisite ammunition against such idiocy as that shared in the OP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause The clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land". The text establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, mandating that state judges uphold them, even if state laws or constitutions conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Indeed. There is also the Supremacy Clause of Article VI. In my mind, the Supremacy Clause is an even stronger argument than the 14th amendment when it comes to demonstrating State-level constitutions or provisions invalid... but both provide the requisite ammunition against such idiocy as that shared in the OP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause The clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land". The text establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, mandating that state judges uphold them, even if state laws or constitutions conflict. Ah, of course. Double whammy. There's a slew of laws that are simply unenforceable because of this. In the case of a state constitution, it probably can't simply be stricken from the books because that doesn't follow the proper procedure for amending the document. The mind-boggling thing is that people still try and enforce these laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 The mind-boggling thing is that people still try and enforce these laws. Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 The mind-boggling thing is that people still try and enforce these laws. This however is not an example of such. The State Constitution reads, The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God So, no Strong Atheists. But Cecil Bothwell says I don't ‘deny the being of Almighty God;' I simply consider the question of denial or acceptance irrelevant. So even if the State Constitution overrode the US Constitution, it would still not apply. Except of course it does, and the state constitution is unconstitutional due to at least 2 parts: the First Ammendment, and Article IV. Anyhow, someone is a sore loser and is trying to make Bothwell look bad. Politics as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
npts2020 Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Does that mean if Mr. Bothwell was a member of a devil-worship cult it would be OK for him to serve? I wonder which would upset the proponents of barring him from office more atheism or satanism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Does that mean if Mr. Bothwell was a member of a devil-worship cult it would be OK for him to serve? I wonder which would upset the proponents of barring him from office more atheism or satanism? Revelation 3: vs 15-16 15I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Revelation 3: vs 15-16 15I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. See! Proof that the bible sanctions a preference for devil worshipers over atheists! Ah... is there no end to the silliness in that cursed book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 That's not how I read it. In any case, I guess whatever books you read don't teach tact. Topic please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now