Reply #9: I refuse to get into a "debate" with laypeople about law . . . [View All]

[TaleWgnDg]

.
I refuse to get into a "debate" with laypeople about law. It's fruitless. With that being said, I will state the following:

1.) The Massachusetts constitution was authored by John Adams and ratified by the ppl of Massachusetts BEFORE the federal constitution existed. As such, the original Massachusetts constitution contains some, shall we say, antiquated terms. When its terms are picked over out of context, the full meaning of its entire contents is lost.

2.) Regardless, the later federal constitution is the superior law of the land, all across America -- all the several states and territories:

"The (U.S.) 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." (italicized emphasis added by TaleWgnDg)

U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Clause 3, in pertinent part

3.) The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has interpreted this federal constitutional clause as reaching the states. Thus, any state constitution or state law or state regulation or state executive order or any color of law u/ any state in the nation that conflicts with federal constitution (SCOTUS opinions), fails. This is true whether a state has amended or not its state constitution to comply with the federal constitution. Again, the state con or action fails, period.

Therefore, the entire premise is bogus, from start to finish, that anyone in any state of the nation is mandated to take a "religious test" in order to achieve a public office of whatever bent . . . is BOGUS!

Furthermore, no one is mandated to say "oath" because "oath" has been interpreted to have a religious base in violation of the 1st amendment and Article IV, Clause 3. To say "affirm" in place of "oath" is within your federal constitutional rights.

One last item: for anyone to allege anti-godliness of another merely for asserting his/her constitutional rights is waaaaaaay the hell off-base in constitutional law, and, may I add, is being erroneously instructed by whom -- the extreme religion-into-law radical rightwingers? Nothing more need be said.





.