Skip to main content
Law

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

7
  • 1
    Footnote 1 to Torcaso reads: "Appellant also claimed that the State's test oath requirement violates the provision of Art. VI of the Federal Constitution that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant's contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices." Some argue that provision does not apply to the states. Since the 1st has the same effect, it makes no difference in practice. Commented Dec 20, 2021 at 15:44
  • 2
    Yes. The Supreme Court tends to move in slow steps, one at a time. The NC Constitution can be interpreted as prohibiting an atheist from running for office. If it's ever applied that way, the Court might reach Article VI, Clause 3. Commented Dec 20, 2021 at 16:03
  • It might, but the same result would be reached by applying the 1st/14th amendments, as in Torcaso, so they might not. Prior to the US Civil war several states had such provisions and they were not challenged, which suggests that Article VI, Clause 3. might not have applied to the states, under arguments similar to those in Barron v Baltimore. That something was never challenged does not, of course, prove that it would have been upheld if challenged. Commented Dec 20, 2021 at 16:10
  • @DavidSiegel: Also, Torcaso was aiming to be a notary public. That's not a member of a state legislature, and it's open to question whether it would make him an "executive or judicial officer" of the state of Maryland. Again, the Supreme Court saved themselves the trouble of sorting that out. Commented Dec 20, 2021 at 17:19
  • @Nate Eldredge Quite true, and if a future case involved someone running for the legislature or Governor in NC, there might be more inclination to focus on the Art VI religious test clause. I don't think itm is as clear cut as this answer suggests that this clause applies tom the states by its own terms, or is absorbed into the 14th, although neither is clearly impossible. Commented Dec 20, 2021 at 17:30