Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ulysses.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ulysses!smb
From: smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.politics,net.legal
Subject: Re: religion and public life: texas
Message-ID: <936@ulysses.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-Aug-84 08:27:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: ulysses.936
Posted: Thu Aug  2 08:27:27 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 3-Aug-84 02:20:37 EDT
References: <2927@ut-sally.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 19


	From: crandell@ut-sally.UUCP
	Message-ID: <2927@ut-sally.UUCP>
	Date: Tue, 31-Jul-84 21:13:30 EDT

	The Bill of Rights stipulates that no one's rights shall be
	abridged on account of uncontrollable characteristics or for
	choosing to accept or to reject the tenets of some religion.
	But nowhere is the privilege of holding public office
	identified as a ``right''.

Well, the 14th Amendment guarantees to all citizens uniform "privileges
and immunities", and "equal protection of the laws".  Given the context
of the times, I'd say it was most certainly intended to include the right
to hold office.  Article VI of the Constitution itself explicitly bars any
religious test as a requirement for holding office (my thanks to Joe Presley
for pointing this out); though it isn't clear to me whether the language
applies to the states, it's certainly within the general class of restrictions
that have been extended to the states by the Supreme Court under the banner
of the 14th Amendment.