Religious Test for Public Office

Do you agree or disagree with this decision? See bold.

U.S. Supreme Court
TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
367 U.S. 488

TORCASO v. WATKINS, CLERK.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 373.
Argued April 24, 1961.
Decided June 19, 1961.

Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public; but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission; but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing without need for implementing legislation and requires declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 489-496.

Originally posted by JS357
Do you agree or disagree with this decision? See [b]bold.

U.S. Supreme Court
TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
367 U.S. 488

TORCASO v. WATKINS, CLERK.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 373.
Argued April 24, 1961.
Decided June 19, 1961.

Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public; b ...[text shortened]... ment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States.[/b] Pp. 489-496.[/b]

Is this really USA? The best freedom of the world? If in Teheran I wouldn't be suprised, but in USA? Really?

Of course.

Many outdated laws like this were abolished during the '60s push for civil rights.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Is this really USA? The best freedom of the world? If in Teheran I wouldn't be suprised, but in USA? Really?

The thing to note is that the US Constitution upheld this man's rights that Maryland tried to take away.

Originally posted by JS357
Do you agree or disagree with this decision? See [b]bold.

U.S. Supreme Court
TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
367 U.S. 488

TORCASO v. WATKINS, CLERK.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 373.
Argued April 24, 1961.
Decided June 19, 1961.

Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public; b ...[text shortened]... ment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States.[/b] Pp. 489-496.[/b]

Do you agree or disagree with this decision?

Agree.

Originally posted by Suzianne
The thing to note is that the US Constitution upheld this man's rights that Maryland tried to take away.

You mean that Maryland is the Teheran of USA?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You mean that Maryland is the Teheran of USA?

Many conservative states in the US are run by stupid people.

I'm from Arizona, I know from whence I speak.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Many conservative states in the US are run by stupid people.

I'm from Arizona, I know from whence I speak.

However the problem isn't the stupid people who run the place... That's a symptom.

The problem is the stupid people who elect (and then re-elect) them in the first place.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Of course.

Many outdated laws like this were abolished during the '60s push for civil rights.

Apparently Maryland has not repealed this article from its constitution. Here are three articles showing one to have been amended and another vacated and then repealed. The one of interest hasn't been any of these.

But you are right that the USSC took care of it. It's probably a hot potato nobody in Maryland wants to sponsor.

quote:
Art. 36. That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come.

Nothing shall prohibit or require the making reference to belief in, reliance upon, or invoking the aid of God or a Supreme Being in any governmental or public document, proceeding, activity, ceremony, school, institution, or place.

Nothing in this article shall constitute an establishment of religion (amended by Chapter 558, Acts of 1970, ratified Nov. 3, 1970).

Art. 37. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Art. 38. Vacant (amended by Chapter 623, Acts of 1947, ratified Nov. 2, 1948. Repealed by Chapter 681, Acts of 1977, ratified Nov. 7, 1978).

Originally posted by Suzianne
Of course.

Many outdated laws like this were abolished during the '60s push for civil rights.

Legislators are not worried about outdated laws, rather, they only want to make new ones.

What boggles my mind is, however, that some laws are simply ignored, like laws regarding illegal immigration, while laws such as these are observed?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Many conservative states in the US are run by stupid people.

I'm from Arizona, I know from whence I speak.

Well I"m a conservative and all I can tell you is any state who repeatedly elects John McCain probably is not too bright.

Originally posted by whodey
Well I"m a conservative and all I can tell you is any state who repeatedly elects John McCain probably is not too bright.

a conservative? Which biblical principles have formed your political ideology?