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.