People Of Praise ( Amy Barrett )

  • Thread starter Thread starter RidgeSprinter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But, I’m also a secularist.
Secularists also have bases for their approaches to situations in life. Most of them are religious-based, they just don’t realize they are. If an American secularist was obliged to navigate the culture of, say, Japan, they would realize how different their underlying philosophical assumptions are.
 
Is he a lawyer? What’s the back up? This has been said to violate the religious test by lawyers.
I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet… 😀
Sure, got it, there will be no religious tests for public office but Article VI doesn’t apply to Senators. Got it!

That makes no sense at all.
The Constitution is about the government, and people’s rights before the government.

The US Government has applied no religious test to judicial appointments. You cannot show me anywhere that there is a regulation, procedure, or law that prohibits nominees of a certain religious belief.

However, a Senator can vote for or against a nominee for any reason or for no reason at all.. That’s the way this works.
 
The Constitution is about the government, and people’s rights before the government.

The US Government has applied no religious test to judicial appointments. You cannot show me anywhere that there is a regulation, procedure, or law that prohibits nominees of a certain religious belief.

However, a Senator can vote for or against a nominee for any reason or for no reason at all. . That’s the way this works.
Article VI, Clause 3: "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."
Good, we have that straight. Nothing about Senators being exempt from this. We already know they vote however they want to. Bipartisanship.

No Religious Test Clause - Wikipedia.
 
Last edited:
Good, we have that straight. Nothing about Senators being exempt from this. We already know they vote however they want to. Bipartisanship.
Do you think an individual Senator deciding to vote yes/no on a nominee is the government?

I don’t think so.
 
40.png
Victoria33:
Good, we have that straight. Nothing about Senators being exempt from this. We already know they vote however they want to. Bipartisanship.
Do you think an individual Senator deciding to vote yes/no on a nominee is the government?

I don’t think so.
Who signs their paycheck?
 
Last edited:
Who signs their paycheck?
The fact that a Senator cannot declare a religious test that others would follow shows she is not acting on behalf of the government but on her own behalf as an elected official.
 
40.png
KMC:
Who signs their paycheck?
The fact that a Senator cannot declare a religious test that others would follow shows she is not acting on behalf of the government but on her own behalf as an elected official.
They are part of one of three branches of government. When they vote, they are acting in their role as member of that part of government. They don’t have two separate jobs: as if sometimes when they are ‘on the clock’ for "the government: and sometimes they are ‘on the clock’ as “elected officials”.

Is there a section of the constitution that describes their role as “elected officials” that are separate from US Senators who are part of the Legislative Branch?
 
Is there a section of the constitution that describes their role as “elected officials” that are separate from US Senators who are part of the Legislative Branch?
I don’t know why we’re going round and round on this. I’m not going to continually restate my position.
 
40.png
KMC:
Is there a section of the constitution that describes their role as “elected officials” that are separate from US Senators who are part of the Legislative Branch?
I don’t know why we’re going round and round on this. I’m not going to continually restate my position.
I won’t go around and around any more. I don’t think you made your case.
 
Who signs their paycheck?
Absolutely correct,

3 branches of government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial… but now, we are saying members in the Legislature are not government? That Judges on the SCOTUS are not government? I can see what one is arguing. I will drop it as well.
 
Last edited:
Do you think an individual Senator deciding to vote yes/no on a nominee is the government ?
When a senator asks a question of a candidate, he is in fact acting as an officer of the government.
 
Sounds like the answer to the riddle, when is your son also your father?
 
Well, if one could establish that the chaplaincy of the House is understood as an Office or public Trust to which Article VI is referring, which I do not think has been established, perhaps we could look into that.

W/R/T the enforcement mechanisms, perhaps when the question is asked about a nominee’s religious background influencing the nominee’s judging, the chair will rule it irrelevant based on Article VI, assuming also that a nominee would take the oath preceding the clause we are discussing.
 
Every one of them takes an oath of office that makes them officers of the government.
 
Every one of them takes an oath of office that makes them officers of the government.
Did you remember that when the Civil Rights Act was passed, it did not apply to Congress as an institution?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top