Er, it's called separation of church and state

[kierthos]

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.

Comments

[kierthos.livejournal.com]

Yes, but since the Supreme Court already ruled that states cannot have restrictions based on religious beliefs for public office..... well, that pretty much settles it.

[morinon.livejournal.com]

Not really. You can find legal precedents to support or oppose ANYTHING you want. Even supreme court cases.

[delwin.livejournal.com]

Given that the only thing that can overrule the SCOTUS is the SCOTUS or a Constitutional Amendment... I find it hard to believe that.

[morinon.livejournal.com]

What they ruled for Maryland was regarding that law in Maryland. Until they rule for NC, they haven't ruled for NC. And if this comes into court, I'm pretty sure it'll go before the SCOTUS, who pretty much end up deciding based on personal opinions.

[delwin.livejournal.com]

... I find your lack of legal knowledge disturbing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins

[morinon.livejournal.com]

Okay, you're right there. Until it's brought up again, which it may well be. In which case, see my above comment.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

What they ruled for Maryland was regarding that law in Maryland. Until they rule for NC, they haven't ruled for NC

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.