Does the Constitution of the State of Tennessee contradict itself?

[Ghost in the Machine]

It looks like Article 1, Section 4 would rule out Article 9, Section 2, doesn't it?

"ARTICLE I.

Declaration of Rights.

Section 1. That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

Section 2. That government being instituted for the common benefit, the
doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

Section 3. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship
Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.

Section 4. That no political or religious test, other than an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of this state, shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state."

Yet Article 9 goes on to say:

"ARTICLE IX

Disqualifications.

Section 1. Whereas ministers of the Gospel are by their profession, dedicated to God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; therefore, no minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either House of the Legislature.

Section 2. No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Section 3. Any person who shall, after the adoption of this Constitution,
fight a duel, or knowingly be the bearer of a challenge to fight a duel, or send or accept a challenge for that purpose, or be an aider or abettor in fighting a duel, shall be deprived of the right to hold any office of honor or profit in this state, and shall be punished otherwise, in such manner as the Legislature may prescribe."

It says that "no political or religious test, other than an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of this state, shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state", yet it turns right around and says that, basically, an atheist cannot "hold any office in the civil department of this state".

Is there legal grounds to challenge this in court? Whay say you, great legal minds of DU?

Ghost

[MonkeyFunk]

1. There's no need for a court challenge

the section 2 item clearly violates the federal constitution, and therefore can't be enforced.

[northzax]

3. see, there you go again

being reasonable. Stop already. :)

[Ghost in the Machine]

4. Well, apparently it *does* need to be challenged... and *removed*..

from the Constitution, right? If it violates the Federal Constitution, why was it allowed int he State Constitution?

[TheUniverse]

2. As I non believer I will make sure to never step foot in that crappy state.

Considering it openly discriminates against me in its constitution.