Wahat is the significance of Article Six of the Constitution, for an expert in Constitutional law (as I consider myself, as a matter of fact)? IIt contains the Supremacy Clause, which makes the Constitution the "law of the leand", superior to all other law. In other words, Federal law trumps state law, so long as the Federal government is acting according to the Constitution, which is still being litigated todaywith regard to these illegal immigration laws of Arizonaa, and other states. This has been true from the beginning of our country, and it was a focus of myu Constitutional law cours under the nationally known Lno Graglia at the University of Texas School of Law (circa 1971). I, by the way, received the highest gradein that course.
What was NOT covered, to any extent, in my Constitutional law course? Well, Article Six requires EVERY public officilail in the United States to ttake an "oath or arrimation" to support the Constitutoin of the United States. It is, of course, the refusal to do this---along with a declaration of war--that led to the Civil War. As professor Graglia said, it was a little controversial as to whehter the Supreme Court had the authority to declare acts of CONGRESS unconstitutional, as was the holding in Marbury vs. Madison, but it was never n question that the Supreme Coutrt had the POWER (subejct to misuxe) to declare acts of STATES unconstitutional . That was really explicitly iimplied in the "supremacy clause".
Thus, the "supremacy caluse" is still a very current isssue in Constitutional law, and was in 1971, when I tool Constitutional law under Professor Graglia (a brilliant man, but one of the most SARCASTIC men you will ever encounter, in the event you don't like MY "sarcasm disease).. One woman student caeme up to me after a Graglia class, and essentially asked me why I found it FUNNY (I had reatd with silent laughter) for Gragallia to ABUSE a student with sarcasm. What could I say (explaining why I was not married until long after law school)? I was never a nice person. I was willing to laugh at Professor Graglia abusing a fellow student, and unwilling to trly to make time with a woman who (probably in perfect good faith and concern over my soul, and perhaps even wanting to make a connection) who wanted to talk to me about my evil impulses
Tis is the IMPROTTANT part of Article Six--the ONLY part really deiscussed in law school (or anywhere else, until the media EVIL attempt to make religion an issue in the Presidenttial election). There is an UNIMPORTANT part of Article Six, not even discussed in my Constitutional law class (because it was NEVERF an issue). Article Six goes on to say that EVERY officail in the Untited States is requried to take an oath of support for the Constitution, "but no religious Teset shall be requried as a Qualification for office or public Turst under the Untied States".
Why is that quotted phrase int he Constitution at all? Well, I think it is because of the concerfn that would eventually be addressed by the First Amendament: namely that the Federal Government might eventually try to establish a NATIONAL CHURCH. In other words, this portion of Article Six was pretty much superseded by the First Amendment, and has been entirely superseded since theFirst Amendment has been applied to the states by the Supreme Court, through the 14th Amendment.
Notice how LITTLE Article Six does. It does NOT guarantee freedom of religon, or say that a national church cannot be established. It merlly says that an OAT, or similar "test" , cannot be required as a "religious test" for QUALIFICARION to hold an office or public trust "under the Untted States". What does "under the United States" mean? Hell, I don't know. It has never been a real issue, since religious oaths have never been a big issue in the United States. You could take it to mean that this only aplies to FEDERAL offices. You might also take it to mean that it applies to even state and local officials, since the part of Article Six requiring support of the Constitution obviously appies to state and local officials. I assume that this meaning is fairly easily cleared up by the Federalist Papers, or other authoritative sources. It is not worht my time. This has NEVER been a real "issue" i Constitutional law. It is not like RELIGOUS OAHTS have been common in America. Why is that phrase even in Article Six? My own explanation is that it wa anattmept to mitigate the concerns of peole who weree afraid of the new Federal governement establishing a national church. If so, it did not work. The REAL protection agianwst a national church was provided by the First Amednment, which guaranteed that CONGRESS "shall pass no law...." establisihing a religion, or infringing upon freedom of religion.
Look at my article on Kyra Phillips, liear on The Liar Network. I obviously forgot about Article Six--since I knew it was unimportant--and I only concentrated on the First Amendment (the more imp9ortant text).
So do I apologize to Kyra Phillips? Not on yhour life. Kyra Phillips is a LIAR, on The Liar Network. Notice that Article Six does NOT apply to private conduct. Indded, it does not apply t conduct at alll. It merely provides that you may not use a religious test, or oath, as a QUALIFICATION for an office "under the United Staes" (whatever that means). Look at Mitt Romney. Is ANYONE saying that Mitt Romney is not QUALIFIED to be President of the United States? Of coure not The ONLYL 'qualifications" are that a person be 35 yars of age and a citizen of the United States. So what does Article Six have to do with Mitrt Romney and "Mormonism"? NOTHING. I called Kyra Phillips a LIAR, and that is what she is. Phillips said that Article Six prohibits a "religious test" for a CANDIDATE for the Presidentcy. That is a LIE--an outright, obvious lie. That is one reaons I did not remember this obscure part of Article Six.. Kyral Phillips MISSTATED the text and never referenced the actual source of her lies. No, Mitt Romney is NOT runnign for President of the United States. He is running for the REPUBLICAN NOMINATION. Aarticle Six does NOT prohibit a "religious ttest" by a POLITICAL PARTY (a private organization). Kyra Phillips is a LIAR twice over (misrepresenting Article Six as being appliceable to individual voters AND failing to say that it was only applicable to QUALIFICATIONS for a political office. Mitt Romey, under Article Six, could not be required to seare an OATH to disavow his Mormmon religion, but Article Six says nothign about what the REPUBLICAN PARTY can "require". No, the Republican Partyt does NOT require any oath on religion, but Article Six does NOT say that the Repubican Party cannot . IF an attack were to be made on such a "requirement" , it would have to be under the Firt Amendment, and NOT under Article Six. That is undoubtedly why the First Amendment exists int he first place, at least as far as its reference to religiohous freedom.
Let us get even more explicit. Is there ANYTHING in the Constitution which prevents a CHRISTIN PARTY? Nope. And could such a party require that its members swear allegiance to a particular religion? I don't see why not. Certainly , Article Six has nothing to do with this question. It ouwld actuall ybe interesting what the Supreme Court would say about eh First Amedment. For the life of me, I dont' see why the First Amendment would prevent a Christian Party, but I dont' agree with the Supreme Court a good part of the time. In other words, Article Six prohibits an OATH to a cerain religion as a QUALIFICATION, but it doesn not prohibit a political party from setting its own requirementts. Mitt Romney is NOT running for PRESIDENTof tehe Untited States lyet. He is running for the NOMINATION fof the Republican Partty. Article Six has nothing to do with taht.
That is one of the problesms I ahve with Mitt Romney. He is perfectly willing to take LEFTIST "talkng points" and run with them. I heard him say, in connectin with the Christie endoresement, that Article Six shows how the founders wanted "religious diversity". I felt like gagging . The "Founders' did nto want a NATIONAL RELIGION, but it is abusrd to suggest that Article Six has any application to Mitt Romney and his perceived prolem with evangelicals.--a "problem" whic is really entirely manufactured byt he BIGOTS of the media. No, Mitt, you do NOT make points wiht me by buying into mainstream media and lefitst talking points. As this blog has saiid, in multiple articles, it is an EVIL thing to try to make the DETAILS of a person's religion an "issue" in public political debate. However, that is the MEDIA who are primarily doing that, and it confirsms my (rather low) opinon of Romney that he sdoes not appear to recognize that.
But dont' I owe an apology to Kyra Philliops? NOt a chance. Phillios is a LIAR, on The Liar Network. She was obviously never interested int what the Constitu;tin really said, or otherwise she would nto have misrepresented it so badly.
No. Kyral Phillipss is a dishoenst, evil person. What can be said here is that I FORGOT the UNIMPROTANT provison of Article Six that Philliops was MISREPRESENITNG. That is why I have an accuracy rating of only 99.8%. This is my first mistake in a YEAR or more. I was about to anounce the audited RAISING of my accuracy perentage. With this error, however, I think we caN say that my accuracy rating stays at 99.8%.
No. It is ABUSRD for Mitt Romney, and media people, to make more out of the pretty meaningless Artiflcle Six than is there. However, that does not totally edcuse me from forgetting what is there, even though I was RIGHT that the real standard here is in the First Amednment, and nto in Article Six.
What about my oft-stated position trhat the ORIGINAL Constitution did nto prohibit Virginia from establishing a STATE CHURCH? That is stil an absolutely accurate statement. The First Amendment did not apply to the states ("CONGRESS shal make no law..."). ARticle Six MIGTHT apply to the states, depending on what "under the Untiited States" means, but that article does NOT prohibit a state religion. All it does, at most, is prohibit a required OATH swearing allegiance to such a state religion. The FACT still is that Virtinia could have declared a state religion under the original Constitutin, even with the First Amednment, so long as Virginia did not make it QUALIFICATION for office that yo swear an oath to that religion. Againt, that is surelyl why the First Amendment was insisted upon, as a more MEANIGNFUL limitation on theFEDERAL GOVERNMENT. People really did fear a NATIONAL RELIGION, and an out-of -control Federal Government. Taht was the entire reason for the Bill of Rights. Hoever, this had NOTHING to do with "paryer in the schoosls". or posting the Ten ccommandments in schools", or so many of the absurd attacks on recognition of religion sserted by the ACLU (and like minded leftists).
Nope. I don't apologieze to the despicable Kyraa Phillips. However, I do apologize to YOU. You readeers of this bog expect NO ERRORS :(sort of like th eRed Ball Express in World War II, or the security standard in the same war). I have to admit an error, , even if I was led intot it b a STUPID misrepresentation of the meaning of Article Six. Article Six can NEVER be asserted to be a real guarantee of religious freedom, and Mitt Romney and the others trying to boo9tstrap it into what it was not ANNOY ME.
Oh. Why do I se VIRGINIA as an example of a state that could designate a "state church"? That is because Thomas Jefferson pretty much wrote the Constituion of Virginia, and Jefferson was the world's gereates t exponent of religiojus freedom. STATES pretty much guaranteeed religious rfreedom, even if the Constitutin did not, and veven if they were not so INSANE to say that meant no mentin of religion in the ublic schools. Taht is why Article Six ihas never been important. No one has eve felt inclined to requir3e a RELIGIOUS oath for public office. Stilll if Virginia had WANTED to designate a "state church", the original Constitution did NOT prohibit it. .
P.S. No proofreaiding or spell checking (bad eyesight).