3.24.2010

ARTICLE VI

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The 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.
Posted by LandShark 5150 at 08:01

9 comments:

LandShark 5150 said...

griper -- i find this article interesting for the 'bound by oath, to support this constitution'. Sure makes one wonder - what part?
Yep, I had hoped to get more from others on this project, considering today's constitutional climate. Maybe it is due to the climate control global government warming. Hey until its proven to be a hoax, I'm running with it.

March 24, 2010 at 10:24 AM
The Griper said...

yes, and the other interesting part is the religious test. it is the only individual right stated in the main part of the Constitution.
and when you read it in comparison to the first amendment, you can see that it is written differently.

and i have learned over the years of reading that the way the author uses words is indicative of his intent. this would lead me to believe that this clause was written with a different intent than the religious clause of the Bill of Rights. So, what was the intent of the two clauses?

then he laughs as he see the word verification. the word was "unrest". given the political climate of today, a mighty appropriate word. lolol

March 25, 2010 at 8:20 AM
LandShark 5150 said...

But you confuse me here - the bill of rights, freedom of - or to worship at your freewill and this articles no test. To me they are saying the same thing. That no religous value pro or con is or shall be deemed to one's character, individually or collectively. what I am thinking in reguards to intent of the author is the same.

March 25, 2010 at 9:22 AM
The Griper said...

alright,sharky, just follow my line of thinking.
look at the wording and ask yourself this question. under what circumstances would a government even want to make religious test a requirement? in other words, why would some deem it necessary to exclude people of some religion from seeking office?

we have a very good example of today that would fit this question perfectly. there are plenty of people today who would declare that those of the Islamic religion should not be allowed to run for political office at any level of government. now think of reasons that might justify this in people's eyes.

March 25, 2010 at 12:34 PM
LandShark 5150 said...

I see your point, but this ,to me, just reaffirms the freedom of relig. That is why it says 'no religious test' and an example would be dear leader. I'm not sure as to our histories religions when this was written but I would say that this meant that someone of no faith in a God, was able to run for office equally to one who does have faith or a belief. And I just thought of it -- but doesn't this small section only adds detail to the oath, as in swearing to, so help me God or the article of literature(Bible,Toran)which the hand is avowing to?
Don't get me wrong - i'm not looking for an argument, I'm just asking for my knowledge. After looking at it more, it seems as if the test in question doesn't mean squat. It is the being bound by one's oath or affirmation to the constitution that is the importance not the religion behind the person's belief.

March 25, 2010 at 2:34 PM
The Griper said...

this section deals directly with elected officials and how they act in that capacity. without this section a law could be passed making religious test as a requirement of office. and they could justify it by saying, "you can live in this nation and practice the concepts of your religion in this nation and no one will stop you.

the only thing is that while you have the freedom to worship as you please you just cannot run for political office because of your religious beliefs. you may vote on some issue based upon your religious beliefs rather than on the Constitutionality of it."

March 25, 2010 at 10:28 PM
LandShark 5150 said...

Thanks that helped. And THANK YOU for contributing to the cause here.

March 26, 2010 at 6:32 AM
The Griper said...

one more thing about this section, sharky. in recognition of this, we can see that the founding fathers never intended for this nation to be secular in nature. they intended it to be governed by the laws of God.

the only difference being that the laws of God was not to be determined by one man (a king) but democratically as each man saw those laws to be.

this section assured that men of every faith had the opportunity to have his say as to what the laws of God were in regards laws enacted by government.

March 26, 2010 at 8:59 AM
LandShark 5150 said...

Being that they were all men of God, or at least men of religious values, I would agree whole-heartedly with you. They were men of intelligence and VIRTUE (side note: something that our leaders of today are missing).
The only monkey wrench to this is the issue man's law and what was eloquently written in our founding documents a presence of God, would be slavery.
That issue is one that is hard to define due to beliefs of their time and biblical teachings that contained slavery in that history. It is easy to assume that slaves were considered property, much like cattle, at best. Having no soul or intelligence to provoke the concept of a God. Yes I am going back, but even at the time of the documents writing, isn't it reasonable that there where free black men? Or Indians that lived amongst them. Yet there say to the law of God would be unheard ---------------
Sorry Griper -- I've been up all night, 42 hrs straight and I'm getting punchy. After reading this gibberish, and giving a loud HA at it -- never mind. I'll do that shot of Jack and head off to meet me pillow. later my friend

March 27, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)