![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Er, it's called separation of church and state
Evangelicals in North Carolina are pissed because a public official doesn't believe in God.
You see, in NC, to hold any sort of public office... you're required by the state constitution to believe in God. Except, of course, that it violates the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court said so in 1961 when it said a similar law in Maryland was unconstitutional.
But hey... I'm only pointing this out because it's making North Carolina look more backward then South Carolina. Which is quite a feat.
You see, in NC, to hold any sort of public office... you're required by the state constitution to believe in God. Except, of course, that it violates the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court said so in 1961 when it said a similar law in Maryland was unconstitutional.
But hey... I'm only pointing this out because it's making North Carolina look more backward then South Carolina. Which is quite a feat.
no subject
Considering how many states had state religions for a long while after the constitution was ratified, and the judges then saw no issue...
Do I think it's a stupid law? Yes. Do I think it unconstitutional? No.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins
no subject
no subject
Uh, no. SCOTUS precedent applies to all US law.
I'm pretty sure it'll go before the SCOTUS, who pretty much end up deciding based on personal opinions.
Depends on the Justice and the case.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Mind you, 14th is a far stronger argument than the 1st, and depending on the makeup of the SCOTUS, might be a close one, depending on the arguments.
no subject
no subject
Now, to further outline my whole 'this means naturalized citizens can become president' bit.
If you are using the 14th amendment to say that the constitution, and all its amendments, also apply to public office, well, obviously the 1st amendment applies.
But then again, so does the 14th. By effectively declaring public office a privilege of US citizenship, this applies to all, at state or federal levels. The part of the constitution denying naturalized citizens the right to the Presidents predates the 14th amendment, which means that it is AMENDED by the 14th amendment under its current interpretation.
Since the 14th amendment guarantees the equality of native-born and naturalized citizens in all legal privileges, and public office is now seen as a legal privilege, if an earlier part of the US constitution is overturned by a later amendment, the later amendment stands (as the 21st did for the 18th). Therefore, as a logical outgrowth of the 1961 decision, naturalized citizens have the right to be President.
Mind you, with all the fuss this would cause in court, it would just be easier to pass an amendment to change this, but the outcome would be quite interesting to watch.
no subject
The 14th Amendment is quite clear that it applies to the states not the Federal Government.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"
Thus the States cannot do anything as restricted by the Constitution and thus bringing the First Amendment into play on the state level.
Nothing in the Constitution says you cannot restrict eligibility for office on additional factors than just citizenship - only that those factors can't include religion.
no subject
You're wrong! Check out the 14th Amendment. The 1st Amendment applies to *all* levels of government in the US, not just Congress.
no subject
no subject
So, when do we see our first immigrant president? I think Schwarzenegger would be delighted to hear that the law that prevents him from the presidency should, in fact, have been declared unconstitutional as early as the 60s.
no subject
You either are attempting to use quite faulty logic or you're intentionally misreading things.
no subject
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Congress is the only legislative body mentioned.
no subject
...in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
Nwo go read the 14th, which expands the protections of the First to *all* government actors, not just Congress.
no subject
This provides you the first amendment rights with regards to freedom of speech or religion, yes, but it in no way limits a state from a preference of religion. I refer you to the tenth amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You can make a good argument that public office is a constitutionally guaranteed privilege. I personally think it should be. What I disagree with is your assumption that it is ironclad. It is not. For instance, certain public offices on a Federal level are not offered to naturalized citizens, only native-born. This is the biggest hole in what seems to be your assumption that public office is a privilege.
Now, if you really really want President Schwarzenegger, go from that argument.
no subject
Thus someone who passes all the other checks and is allowed to run and hold office may do so regardless of his religion or lack thereof.