U.S. Politics and atheism

[L.A.F.]

If we consult the U.S. Constitution, we read in Constitutional Amendment VI, §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."

And yet we read n the laws of some states:
- "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court." (Arkansas, Art. 19, Sec. 1)
- "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God." (Maryland, Art. 37)
- "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state." (Mississippi, Art. 14, Sec. 265)
- "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth." (Pennsylvania, Art. 1, Sec. 4)
- "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution." (South Carolina, Art. 17, Sec. 4)
- "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State." (Tennessee, Art. 9, Sec. 2)
- "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." (Texas, Art. 1, Sec. 4)

How is it possible that in 7 U.S. states the laws are in contradiction with the U.S. Constitution?
Please notice that I am not familiar with U.S. politics.

[festive1]

My best explanation is these laws just haven't been contested. If they were they would be overturned, but someone has to bring a lawsuit first.

[Violet]

My best explanation is these laws just haven't been contested. If they were they would be overturned, but someone has to bring a lawsuit first.

And then the supreme court would have to be interested in hearing the case... good luck with that.

[CleanShavenJesus]

Nobody gives a damn what the Supreme Court says. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the portion of the Pledge of Allegiance ("under God") is unconstitutional, but it's still there.

The only way any of these laws can be effective is if they're enforced. And no President is going to enforce a law that hinders religion.

[Angrboda]

Such religious tests have in recent decades been deemed to be unconstitutional by the extension of the First Amendment provisions to the states (via the incorporation of the 14th Amendment).[1]

[1] Certain protections which were originally reserved at the federal level have been interpreted to extend to the states as a consequence of the fifth and fourteenth amendments. (IANAL)

[A_Nony_Mouse]

If we consult the U.S. Constitution, we read in Constitutional Amendment VI, §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."

And yet we read n the laws of some states:
- "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court." (Arkansas, Art. 19, Sec. 1)
- "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God." (Maryland, Art. 37)
- "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state." (Mississippi, Art. 14, Sec. 265)
- "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth." (Pennsylvania, Art. 1, Sec. 4)
- "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution." (South Carolina, Art. 17, Sec. 4)
- "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State." (Tennessee, Art. 9, Sec. 2)
- "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." (Texas, Art. 1, Sec. 4)

How is it possible that in 7 U.S. states the laws are in contradiction with the U.S. Constitution?
Please notice that I am not familiar with U.S. politics.

Because they have been null and void since they ratified the Federal constitution which also has a clause on its own supremacy. Meaning those states cannot apply the provisions of their constitutions. If you want to get into constitutional law be prepared to set aside a few hundred hours just to get started.

---

My best explanation is these laws just haven't been contested. If they were they would be overturned, but someone has to bring a lawsuit first.

Correct but someone has to be harmed by their application before they can be contested and no one has.

And a constitution is fine but if there are no laws implementing the constitution it is a meaningless provision.

No one can violate a constitution. One can only violate a law and all laws must be written pursuant to a constitution.

It is an odd chain of reasoning but it is the one that governs.