Seven States in United States require a religious test for public office holders.

[snoopy369]

Probably easier just to challenge it in court, no? Have a test case in each state?

[regexcellent]

There would have to be actual damages. As long as it's totally unenforced there's no opportunity to challenge it.

[loinburger]

State's rights, numb scull.

You're about a hundred and fifty years too late with that retarded opinion

[SlowwHand]

No.

[Elok]

There was a fun bit on FB a few months back where Tennessee or somewhere was forcing Federal employees to affirm their belief in God. Er, actually, it required them to put up a plaque about God on a wall of the local Homeland Security HQ or pay a fine of $150. But man, did some of my FB friends freak out about that.

[loinburger]

No.

You honestly believe that state law can nullify the US Constitution? What the hell is wrong with you?

[Guynemer]

Other than not knowing how to spell "skull"?

[SlowwHand]

A mistake. Stuff happens. I'm not above admitting to an error, unlike you, Dr. Punky. Did I spell "Punky" OK?


I honestly think that you're trying to blend arguments. Gutless, but typical. Read Wiki, if nothing else.

Contemporary debates

In 1964, the issue of fair housing in California involved the boundary between state laws and federalism. California Proposition 14 overturned the Rumsford Fair Housing Act and allowed discrimination in any type of home sale.[citation needed] Martin Luther King, Jr. and others saw this as a backlash against civil rights. Actor Ronald Reagan gained popularity by supporting Proposition 14, and was later elected governor of California.[23] The U.S. Supreme Court's Reitman v. Mulkey decision overturned Proposition 14 in 1967 in favor of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Conservative historians Thomas E. Woods, Jr. and Kevin R. C. Gutzman argue that when politicians come to power they exercise all the power they can get, in the process trampling states' rights.[24] Gutzman argues that the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798 by Jefferson and Madison were not only responses to immediate threats but were legitimate responses based on the long-standing principles of states' rights and strict adherence to the Constitution.[25]

Constitutional scholar Kevin Gutzman is an advocate for states' rights.[26][27]

Another concern is the fact that on more than one occasion, the federal government has threatened to withhold highway funds from states which did not pass certain articles of legislation. Any state which lost highway funding for any extended period would face financial impoverishment, infrastructure collapse or both. Although the first such action (the enactment of a national speed limit) was directly related to highways and done in the face of a fuel shortage, most subsequent actions have had little or nothing to do with highways and have not been done in the face of any compelling national crisis. An example of this would be the federally mandated drinking age of 21. Critics of such actions feel that when the federal government does this they upset the traditional balance between the states and the federal government.

More recently, the issue of states' rights has come to a head when the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) recommended that Congress and the Department of Defense implement sweeping changes to the National Guard by consolidating some Guard installations and closing others. These recommendations in 2005 drew strong criticism from many states, and several states sued the federal government on the basis that Congress and the Pentagon would be violating states' rights should they force the realignment and closure of Guard bases without the prior approval of the governors from the affected states. After Pennsylvania won a federal lawsuit to block the deactivation of the 111th Fighter Wing of the Pennsylvania Air National Guard, defense and Congressional leaders chose to try to settle the remaining BRAC lawsuits out of court, reaching compromises with the plaintiff states.[28]

Current states' rights issues include the death penalty, assisted suicide, gay marriage and the medicinal use of marijuana, the last of which is in violation of federal law. In Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government, permitting the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to arrest medical marijuana patients and caregivers. In Gonzales v. Oregon, the Supreme court ruled the practice of physician-assisted suicide in Oregon is legal.

These concerns have led to a movement sometimes called the State Sovereignty movement or "10th Amendment Sovereignty Movement".[29]

Some, such as Ron Paul, have proposed repealing the 17th Amendment of the United States Constitution.[30]
[edit]
10th Amendment Resolutions

In 2009-2010 thirty eight states have introduced resolutions to reaffirm the principles of sovereignty under the Constitution and the 10th Amendment; Nine states have passed the resolutions. These non-binding resolutions, often called “state sovereignty resolutions” do not carry the force of law. Instead, they are intended to be a statement to demand that the federal government halt its practices of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution.[2]

States' rights and the Rehnquist Court

The Supreme Court's University of Alabama v. Garrett (2001)[31] and Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (2000)[32] decisions allowed states to use a rational basis review for discrimination against the aged and disabled, arguing that these types of discrimination were rationally related to a legitimate state interest, and that no "razorlike precision" was needed." The Supreme Court's United States v. Morrison (2000)[33] decision limited the ability of rape victims to sue their attackers in federal court. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist explained that "States historically have been sovereign" in the area of law enforcement, which in the Court's opinion required narrow interpretations of the Commerce Clause and Fourteenth Amendment.

Kimel, Garrett and Morrison indicated that the Court's previous decisions in favor of enumerated powers and limits on Congressional power over the states, such as United States v. Lopez (1995), Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996) and City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) were more than one time flukes. In the past, Congress relied on the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause for passing civil rights bills, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[22]

Lopez limited the Commerce Clause to things that directly affect interstate commerce, which excludes issues like gun control laws, hate crimes, and other crimes that affect commerce but are not directly related to commerce. Seminole reinforced the "sovereign immunity of states" doctrine, which makes it difficult to sue states for many things, especially civil rights violations. The Flores "congruence and proportionality" requirement prevents Congress from going too far in requiring states to comply with the Equal Protection Clause, which replaced the ratchet theory advanced in Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966). The ratchet theory held that Congress could ratchet up civil rights beyond what the Court had recognized, but that Congress could not ratchet down judicially recognized rights. An important precedent for Morrison was United States v. Harris (1883), which ruled that the Equal Protection Clause did not apply to a prison lynching because the state action doctrine applies Equal Protection only to state action, not private criminal acts. Since the ratchet principle was replaced with the "congruence and proportionality" principle by Flores, it was easier to revive older precedents for preventing Congress from going beyond what Court interpretations would allow. Critics such as Associate Justice John Paul Stevens accused the Court of judicial activism (i.e., interpreting law to reach a desired conclusion).

The tide against federal power in the Rehnquist court was stopped in the case of Gonzales v. Raich,[citation needed] in which the court upheld the federal power to prohibit medicinal use of cannabis even if states have permitted it. Rehnquist himself was a dissenter in the Raich case.

[Ben Kenobi]

You honestly believe that state law can nullify the US Constitution? What the hell is wrong with you?

Do you believe that federal law can nullify the US constitution? The constitution protects Nullification.

[loinburger]

I honestly think that you're trying to blend arguments. Gutless, but typical. Read Wiki, if nothing else.

This thread is about state laws/constitutions that respect an establishment of religion by requiring a religious test. The US Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Clearly the state laws/constitutions are unconstitutional - nobody in this thread says otherwise, except you, who says that States' Rights trump the US Constitution. So I don't know if you're an idiot who has severe problems with reading comprehension, or if you're an idiot who believes that state laws trump the US Constitution.

[loinburger]

The constitution protects Nullification.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

[Hauldren Collider]

The constitution is silent on nullification, actually, but precedent dating back to Andrew Jackson makes it unconstitutional.

[SlowwHand]

Read up.

I honestly think that you're trying to blend arguments.

[Hauldren Collider]

Sloww, you're an idiot. Just because there's a debate doesn't mean it isn't legally settled.

[Al B. Sure!]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

I just wanted to bring attention to this signature quote:

The very next job that I see that for Manager that stipulates "Must speak Spanish", I'm suing...big time. It's illegal to hire wetbacks. - SlowwHand