Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Discrimination in Texas Constitution?

  1. May 30, 2012 #1

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    According to the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 4: http://www.constitution.legis.state.tx.us/

    Am I reading this correctly?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 30, 2012 #2

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Futher on
    Whilst the constitution is written in a tone that suggests freedom it clearly is written with the absolute conviction in mind that there is a god. The idea that one has to acknowledge god to work in public office is disgusting.
     
  4. May 30, 2012 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I think "disgusting" is a little harsh: "anachronism" is the word I would choose.

    I can't imagine this isn't ignored today, especially since it violates the federal Constitution.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2012
  5. May 30, 2012 #4

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    That section has to be ignored, because as soon as it ever becomes an issue, it would eventually wind its way up to the US Supreme Court and be struck down for violating the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

    I don't know that it was ever applied to anyone (one would think they at least intended to apply it when their constitution was ratified in 1876, which was 4 years before the first 14th Amendment case reached the US Supreme Court), but it hasn't been applied in modern times.
     
  6. May 30, 2012 #5

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The two are not mutually exclusive.
     
  7. May 30, 2012 #6

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Texas is not only state with a clause like that in their constitution
     
  8. May 30, 2012 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Perhaps... but I just get concerned that when we use-up our harsh language on minor wrongs, we don't save any to use on major ones.

    Just an opinion.
     
  9. May 30, 2012 #8

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I agree but I don't see this as a minor wrong, rather another symptom of a major one.
     
  10. May 30, 2012 #9
    IMO, you are dead wrong. You have totally ignored the fact this document was written long before the modern purges of religion from public life. Additionally, if you read the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the US, it states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The Congress refers to the federal congress and not the state. At the time of the constitution was written, approximately 6 states had "state religions". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion Note from the reference the following: [The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833.[4] As of 2010[update], Article III of the Massachusetts constitution still provided, "... the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."] Additionally, "The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 disestablished the Anglican Church, but until 1835 the NC Constitution allowed only Protestants to hold public office. From 1835–1876 it allowed only Christians (including Catholics) to hold public office. Article VI, Section 8 of the current NC Constitution forbids only atheists from holding public office.[52] Such clauses were held by the United States Supreme Court to be unenforceable in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, when the court ruled unanimously that such clauses constituted a religious test incompatible with First and Fourteenth Amendment protections." e.g The ruling was made in 1961, so to rail at the Texas legislature for something that was lawful at the time and only ruled unenforceable in 1961 is ridiculous, IMO.
     
  11. May 30, 2012 #10
    There's still a blasphemy law in Massachusetts, among other places.
    Why they don't just have these removed, I have no idea.

    Are there any laws against blacks on the books still? Like "No colored man shall ever drink from the whites only water fountain, lest he be smote by the belt of the nearest white man."
     
  12. May 30, 2012 #11

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Your premise is flawed and thus the rest of your comment defunct. My statement was mainly regarding requiring religion for public office in general but aside from that my line of thinking was cultural rather than legal. When things like this are still enshrined in your culture and there hasn't been a concerted effort in recent history to move on from them then something isn't right.

    When your document, even if it is no longer legally valid, says such things it indicates that the matter is not considered enough of an issue to pursue and that is not good.
     
  13. May 30, 2012 #12
    My guess is that it might be because politicians are concerned about the possible political consequences of pushing for the removal of religion based laws.
     
  14. May 30, 2012 #13

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    It became an issue with Torcaso v. Watkins, which was about a clause very similar to the cited one in Maryland's state constitution. Seven states have such clauses. They are all unconstitutional.

    While the courts can declare a law or a part of a state constitution unconstitutional per the US constitution, the courts cannot rewrite laws or rewrite the constitution. That's the job of the legislature. I suspect that all seven of these states still have that clause in their constitutions. Put yourself in a legislator's shoes. Propose to remove that clause and you have just lost your seat. Your opponent in the next election will use that proposed amendment to prove that you are a godless commie and need to be tossed. The voters will comply. The end effect: Clauses such as this stay in the constitution but aren't applied or used.
     
  15. May 30, 2012 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I think you are being overly dramatic, Ryan. If a bad law isn't being used, then no actual harm is resulting from not fixing it. Sure, it is a wrong, but an itty-bitty little one that isn't hurting anyone.

    Now if you'll excuse me I need to go get a thesaurus to try to find a word to describe what I felt when looking at the pictures of dozens of hacked-to-death Syrian children last night. The word I was going to use has lost its punch.
     
  16. May 30, 2012 #15

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    As I've said, more than being enforced having such things in a political and legal document indicates a broader problem.
    You think there are words enough to describe these atrocities?
     
  17. May 30, 2012 #16

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    I don't know why you are picking on Texas. Look at Tennessee's Constitution. Article 1, Section 4 says there is to be no religion test. Article 9, Section 2 then describes the religion test.

    (And, interestingly, Article 9, Section 1 prohibits Christian ministers from being elected state legislators, but not Rabbis, Imans, Druids, Jujumen....)

    As pointed out, these were written ~130 years ago, and are not enforced because they have been declared unconstitutional. My reaction? "Move along...nothing to see here.."
     
  18. May 30, 2012 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    What disgusting problem does it indicate?
    No: partly because people overuse words that othetwise would have been appropriate, thereby stripping them of their descriptive value.
     
  19. May 30, 2012 #18

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    A cultural acceptance of platitudes that do not support the principle of separation of religion and politics.
    I disagree that this applies in this case. Either way disgust is a subjective experience, you may not find something I find disgusting disgusting but me using the word conveys my experience of disgust.

    Either way, this is off topic.
     
  20. May 30, 2012 #19

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    What is the problem?

    As I've mentioned, it's not just Texas. There are six other states with nearly identical clauses. None of those seven clauses are used or are enforced because they are unconstitutional. There are lots of examples of state constitutional clauses and laws that are still on the books but are never enforced because they have been found unconstitutional.

    There is no practical way to remove these obsolete clauses from these constitutions. A legislator would have to propose amending the constitution, a super-majority would have to pass that proposed amendment, and in Texas at least, the proposed amendment would have to be approved by the voters. There's little chance that a legislator in Texas would make such a proposal (it would be political suicide), even less chance that the legislature as a whole would approve it (this would be mass political suicide), and zero chance that it would pass that final test by the voters (we voters can be downright stupid and very bigoted.) There isn't a law that prohibits voters from being stupid or bigoted. Such a law would in fact be unconstitutional.
     
  21. May 30, 2012 #20
    Umm Prohibition is still in the federal constitution it was an amendment. There is another amendment removing its effects but once somehting is passed you never just delete it. It happened it was the law it may be superceded or countmanded by later bills or amendments but you do not strike it from the books as if it never happened. That is revisionist history and honestly not the way I would want my children taught.

    No matter what you do it will not remove anything from the old books unless you scrap the entire code and start over with a new constitution that is why "all these nonsense laws" are still on the books.

    What do you want to wipe out of history next? How about old voting laws I bet you can find some about land owners or what race you need to be. Should we pretend women and minorities could always vote?

    Like it or not its our history but that is the point its history and as has been pointed out has been resloved at the federal level years ago.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Discrimination in Texas Constitution?
  1. Modern Discrimination (Replies: 3)

  2. European Constitution (Replies: 68)

  3. European Constitution (Replies: 63)

Loading...