SO, WHAT PART OF ARTICLE 6 DON'T THEY UNDERSTAND?
In my opinion, the last paragraph of Article 6 of the U. S. Constitution contains one of the clearest statements to be found in that august document (emphasis mine):
" The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
End of discussion.
Courage,
Woody
Advertisement
Well except for allegiance to the bible of course.
I mean we are a Christian Nation.
I know this cause Pat Robertson told me.
jeeeeeeeeeeez
November 6, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean we are a Christian Nation.
Of course, it should be pointed out that the nation refers to the people, the country the land, and the state to the government. While we are not a Christian state, one could argue what we are as a Christian nation based on the predominance of Christianity of the people is. Of course, that might depend on how you define Christianity and whether or not you believe that everyone who identifies as Christian really is.
November 16, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, ya see -- the JUDEO-CHRISTIAN people who started this nation really meant that -- THEIR religions were on the approved list.
Thomas Jefferstein, James Madistein (the JUDEO's) coupled with the CHRISTIANS (too numerous to mention, and also hard to prove since many of them were DEISTS)
So that Article 6 thingy -- well, that only applies to the "others." It's true! Michelle Bachman said so.
November 6, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
SO, WHAT PART OF ARTICLE 6 DON'T THEY UNDERSTAND?
No, it's you who does not understand. The law of man is secondary to the law of God. We who live in the light of God's eternal grace choose to ignore any mere work of man when it conflicts with the Unalterable and Sacred Word of the Ineffable and Perfect One.
Or when it interfers with our political agenda...which is actually the same thing.
November 7, 2009 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or compromises our Purity of Essence - - -
November 7, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whew! These comments really clear it up!
November 7, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
well all we can do is try. hahahah
November 7, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the problem with the "no religious test" comes down to this:
While there cannot be a religious test officially imposed, as long as the voters have the absolute right to vote for the candidate of their choice, you cannot prevent them from using religion as a factor.
Moreover, for appointed offices, as long as the executive has the unchecked power not to appoint anyone he does not want to*, there is no way to enforce Article 6 against an executive who only chooses people from a particular religion, unless you wish to argue for the Supreme Court to force him to appoint someone.
Of course, one would hope that if a President were abusing the system in that way, Congress might decide to block all confirmations until he appointed someone if they thought he was denying them an appointment on religious-discriminatroy grounds.
Article 6 can, of course, be enforced much more easily for civil service positions, where no one person has appointment power.
*The President has the unchecled power not to appoint; but not unchecekd power to appoint; Congress can reject his appointments but cannot make appointments that he refuses to make.
November 16, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink