• bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    We have a law in Texas that an Atheist can’t hold office. Really stupid, but it would have to be challenged to get rid of it.

    Just to be clear that’s unconstitutional. That law has no force or effect.

    Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

    • Valon_Blue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Yes, it’s unconstitutional…buuut, the shitty way our political system works, somebody would have to sue to get it removed in Texas. Until someone does, they’re going to enforce it.

      edit: in Texas

      • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        The text is never going to be removed for sure because that takes action. But also no one is enforcing it either. I’d love to hear about anyone it’s been enforced against, if they exist.

        • Valon_Blue@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          If you think they’re not going to fight tooth and nail to enforce it in Texas, you don’t know Texas. It would probably have to go to SCOTUS.

          • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I just asked who has been barred from the ballot as a result. I’m aware of Republican candidates raising the issue in TX, only to be informed that it’s unconstitutional. To my knowledge, no one has ever been barred since that case. If you have different information please let me know.

            If someone were barred, they would sue in federal district court and immediately receive an injunction. Federal courts cannot ignore precedent from SCOTUS.