No test is required. All men of equal capacity and integrity are equally eligible to offices I do not suppose an infidel, or any such person, will ever be chosen to any office unless the people themselves be of the same opinion. Supreme Court Justice James Iredell nominated to the Court by President Washington similarly explained: But it is objected that the people of America may perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own. Article VI simply reaffirmed the Founders’ belief that any provisos on religion should remain beyond federal jurisdiction. The Court’s initial abrogation of the original purpose of the Constitution’s religious test clause occurred in Torcaso v. Watkins 44 (1961) the Court’s first ever Article VI ruling. In that case, the Court used this federal constitutional provision to strike down Maryland’s 200 year-old State constitutional requirement that a candidate must declare a belief in God to hold office.
This utilization of Article VI obviously resulted in the breaking of new legal ground. As legal authorities observed: Not until 1961 was this “declaration of belief in God” invalidated. The Torcaso ruling reflected two major mistakes by the Court: one in jurisdiction and one in interpretation. The jurisdiction error was that the Article VI prohibition against religious tests applied only to the federal and not to the State governments. The interpretation error was that the Founding Fathers did not consider a requirement to believe in God to be a religious test.
As an example, consider the provisions of the 1796 Tennessee Constitution a document created with the help of Constitution signer William Blount 46: Article VIII, Section II. No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State. Article XI, Section IV. That no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this State. Article VIII first requires a belief in God to hold office; then Article XI prohibits a religious test. Clearly, then, requiring a belief in God was not a religious test in their view. In fact, the Founders believed that any oath or affirmation including that of elected officials to uphold the Constitution presupposed a belief in God.
This utilization of Article VI obviously resulted in the breaking of new legal ground. As legal authorities observed: Not until 1961 was this “declaration of belief in God” invalidated. The Torcaso ruling reflected two major mistakes by the Court: one in jurisdiction and one in interpretation. The jurisdiction error was that the Article VI prohibition against religious tests applied only to the federal and not to the State governments. The interpretation error was that the Founding Fathers did not consider a requirement to believe in God to be a religious test.
As an example, consider the provisions of the 1796 Tennessee Constitution a document created with the help of Constitution signer William Blount 46: Article VIII, Section II. No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State. Article XI, Section IV. That no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this State. Article VIII first requires a belief in God to hold office; then Article XI prohibits a religious test. Clearly, then, requiring a belief in God was not a religious test in their view. In fact, the Founders believed that any oath or affirmation including that of elected officials to uphold the Constitution presupposed a belief in God.
No comments:
Post a Comment