Article 6 of the United States constitution says the following:

"[...] but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification
to any office or public trust under the United States."

Article 6 of the North Carolina constitution states the following:

"The following persons shall be disqualified for office:

First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. [...]"

The contradiction could not be clearer.

Could someone explain to me how this is *possible*? Does nobody in the
United States actually enforce the constitution and make sure that the
member states follow it?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 12/12/2012 7:45 AM, Warp wrote:
>
> Could someone explain to me how this is *possible*? Does nobody in the
> United States actually enforce the constitution and make sure that the
> member states follow it?
>

My understanding is that enforcing this would be a matter of 
constitutional interpretation, and would thus fall under the judicial 
branch.  Thus for the judicial branch to rule the clause in the North 
Carolina constitution invalid, a case would actually need to be brought 
to the court.  So long as North Caroline doesn't bother to enforce that 
clause, that's unlikely to happen, so the clause remains.  It's an 
artifact of the way that the US system has more in place to enforce a 
consistent execution of the law via reactive mechanisms, rather than a 
consistent letter of the law via proactive mechanisms.

When similar clauses have been challenged in recent times, they've been 
declared unconstitutional (often on grounds of the first and 14th 
amendments instead of the 6th).

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:45:28 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Could someone explain to me how this is *possible*? Does nobody in the
> United States actually enforce the constitution and make sure that the
> member states follow it?

Any law can be passed, it's up to someone who wouldn't meet the criteria 
to challenge it in court.

And yes, there are people who challenge laws like this as a matter of 
course - FFRF has a track record of doing so - but in order to bring an 
action, they have to have standing to do so (or be representing someone 
who does).  They can't just say "this violates the constitution so we'll 
challenge it" if they're not a resident of the state in question with the 
intention of running for an office that has this requirement.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Any law can be passed, it's up to someone who wouldn't meet the criteria 
> to challenge it in court.

But I thought the whole idea of a constitution is that anticonstitutional
laws can *not* be passed.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 12/12/2012 9:36 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:45:28 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> Could someone explain to me how this is *possible*? Does nobody in the
>> United States actually enforce the constitution and make sure that the
>> member states follow it?
>
> Any law can be passed, it's up to someone who wouldn't meet the criteria
> to challenge it in court.
>
> And yes, there are people who challenge laws like this as a matter of
> course - FFRF has a track record of doing so - but in order to bring an
> action, they have to have standing to do so (or be representing someone
> who does).  They can't just say "this violates the constitution so we'll
> challenge it" if they're not a resident of the state in question with the
> intention of running for an office that has this requirement.
>
> Jim
>
Because, being a citizen and/or resident of the state, for some damn 
reason, doesn't qualify you as "having standing". Its this sort of BS 
that allows them to get by with a lot of shitty stuff, including the 
recent decision in one state to vote in a "right to work" law, in such a 
way that, supposedly, it can't be just shot down via a referendum (i.e., 
private citizens are not allowed to present a bill, which targets the 
removal of the law). And, of course, this was in direct retaliation 
against unions, who had tried, and failed, to put through a law which 
would have protected their rights, and, in the process, killed a list of 
other laws already on the books, which already undermined their ability 
to negotiate. Now.. no one gets to, basically, negotiate, and any thing 
the unions do get, and, as in the case of health insurance here in my 
state, with a similar law, have to pay for, ends up coming out of the 
pocket of the union, even if only one person in the entire store is in 
it, and there are 150 employees, all of them getting the "same" union 
paid insurance. (Well, I think the store puts in some money, since they 
recently shafted us $5 a week, then gave us a pitiful 10 cent raise to 
compensate, over, "We imagine the cost will go up, so, you need to pay 
some of it out of your pocket!" Because, you know, the $25 co-pay for 
just seeing a damn doctor wasn't screwing us enough...)

Post a reply to this message

On 12/12/2012 9:45 AM, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Any law can be passed, it's up to someone who wouldn't meet the criteria
>> to challenge it in court.
>
> But I thought the whole idea of a constitution is that anticonstitutional
> laws can *not* be passed.
>
Sadly, no. It just, in theory, unless someone appointed idiots and 
assholes to SCOTUS (but that would never happen...) means that they can 
do so, but it will be shot down. Usually the cases are borderline, so 
some careful consideration needs to be taken. All too often, and 
especially recently, with the, "You won't let us impose 
theocracy/oligarchy/dictatorships!", wackos panicking over how small 
their movement has gotten, and the appearance of the "wrong color" 
president, its gotten far more common, and way more blatant.

Mostly though, some of those laws have been around for a bloody long 
time, an they just never got enforced. State constitutions, city 
ordinances, etc., are all a bit like some people's basements/attics. A 
lot of stuff gets shoved into a corner, and since no one ever bothers to 
go in and clean them out (or, more to the point, the people allowed to 
are too busy cluttering it with more junk to crawl through what is 
already there), it all just sort of stays in there until some idiot 
notices it, tries to apply it to some situation, and gets sued over 
doing so.

Personally, I think every state, and even the fed, should have a group 
specifically designated to rummage through these basements and figure 
out what shouldn't be in there, or propose legislation to replace things 
that are currently covered by like 50 overlapping bits of incomplete 
gibberish, if for no other reason that to bloody simplify the whole 
thing. But.. you just know, if someone proposed this, all the nuts would 
crawl out of the woodwork, and object that either, "We should keep 
that!", or, "Why isn't that being enforced." It would be like watching 
an episode of 'Hoarders'.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:45:12 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Any law can be passed, it's up to someone who wouldn't meet the
>> criteria to challenge it in court.
> 
> But I thought the whole idea of a constitution is that
> anticonstitutional laws can *not* be passed.

No - at least not in the US - laws are passed and then are challenged as 
to whether or not they are constitutional.  Lawmakers don't judge the 
constitutionality of laws they write (though ideally they should create 
laws with an awareness of the constitution) - the judicial branch is 
responsible for making that evaluation, and they only do so on laws that 
have been passed.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:45:58 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Because, being a citizen and/or resident of the state, for some damn
> reason, doesn't qualify you as "having standing".

Well, no, it depends on whether or not you can demonstrate that you are 
harmed by that law.  That's one of the questions before SCOTUS with the 
Prop 8 case out of California - do those who appealed even have standing 
to appeal?  General wisdom is no, they don't, because they're not harmed 
by Judge Walker's ruling.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Am 12.12.2012 18:45, schrieb Warp:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Any law can be passed, it's up to someone who wouldn't meet the criteria
>> to challenge it in court.
>
> But I thought the whole idea of a constitution is that anticonstitutional
> laws can *not* be passed.

Well, I guess it's a matter of taste, whether a constitution should 
prevent *passing* an anticonstitutional law, or whether it should 
prevent *enforcing* such a law.

It seems that Europe favors the former flavor, whether America favors 
the latter.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler <nob### [at] nowherenet> wrote:

>
> My understanding is that enforcing this would be a matter of
> constitutional interpretation, and would thus fall under the judicial
> branch.  Thus for the judicial branch to rule the clause in the North
> Carolina constitution invalid, a case would actually need to be brought
> to the court.  So long as North Caroline doesn't bother to enforce that
> clause, that's unlikely to happen, so the clause remains.

Yes, it's a very odd system IMO. Funny thing is, we kids brought up in the US
are led to believe, early on in school, that 'bad laws don't get passed' (to put
it simply.) Only *much* later does the reality of the situation sink in, that an
individual state can pass just about any law, bad or good--AND put it into
practice. Then, only if it's *challenged" by someone or some group afterward,
does it go up the legal-chain-of-command (possibly all the way to the Supreme
Court--*if* it decides to hear the case) to decide on the law's actual
constitutionality. The subtlety here is whether it's 'constitutional' or not. If
the law happens to be really bad--but still constitutional, per the Supreme
Court's thinking--then chances are it will remain on the books. The SC decides
these cases based ONLY on whether or not the law violates the constitution in
some way. In essence, a technical argument. And the SC members are certainly
fallible--that's how slavery in the US remained 'legal' for a long time. The
'interpretation' of the constitution is what it's all about, and seems to
'change with the wind' over time.

BTW, the new California law that was just passed--legalizing or de-criminalizing
the possession of marijuana--goes flatly against a seemingly-overarching Federal
law. It's a current example of this State-vs-Federal system that we have. If no
one in California challenges it, then I'm *guessing* it will remain valid. I'm
not sure if the Federal government itself can summarily strike it down simply
because it differs from the 'higher' law.

Post a reply to this message