DISCUSSION

Read persons discussion and respond in 250 words Also include one in text bluebook citation. Give your opinion and agree or disagree.

A prior review of the case Torcaso v. Watkins, [1] 367 U.S. 488. (1961). had been on appeal from the Court of appeals of Maryland. [2] there it was rejected, Torcaso in defense of the ruling, went forward against the court of Appeals of Maryland. face with the old laws of Maryland, Torcaso had a uphill battle against the state of Maryland and the Supreme court of Maryland. [3] all whom denied Torcaso his Constitutional rights. [4]

Torcaso was a appointed official to the office of Notary Public by then the Governor of Maryland. but under the state of Maryland, their constitution asks before he could receive his commission to serve that he announce his belief in God as the state of Maryland Constitution ask of him. [5]

Article VI, should be review again, if the Constitution and laws of the United States are “the supreme law of the land.” where federal officials, judges, are required to take an oath to support the Constitution. yes, to support the constitution only in its self, but not in the name of God. A person or anyone should not have to swear an oath, unless it is upon the symbol they sworn to honor and protect. [6]

Torcaso rebuke the Court of Appeals of Maryland, including the Md. Const. article 37, [7] “requiring persons who were qualified for any office of profit or trust in the state of Maryland must declare their belief in the existence of God.” Torcaso sought for relief under the ground his constitution rights were being violated. the first [8] and Fourteenth Amendment. [9]

Many of the U.S Constitutional laws, Torcaso believe were being violated or over looked, the Bill of Rights, Fundamental Freedom, Freedom of Religion, Free Exercise of Religion, by the heavy strength and authority of the State of Maryland, who favor a single believer, one’s who were willing to volunteer and say they believe in the existence of God. [10]

When the framers wrote into law the Constitution, they wanted to put the peoples “safely out of reach” of religious test oaths, involving Article VI, a statement which read “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” it is supported by Girouard v. United States, [11] 328 U.S. 61, 69, (1946). which said, “the test oath is abhorrent to our tradition.” the opinion of the court was also view the same in Reynolds v. United States, [12] 98 U.S. 145, (1878). Davis v. Beason, [13] 133 U.S. 333. (1890). Everson v. Board of Education, [14] 330 U.S. I (1947). Cantwell v. Connecticut, [15] 310 U.S. 296 (1940).

The court opinion in the Torcaso v. Watkins were strong reviews as the previous court cases. the first and Fourteenth Amendment have a long reach far more intruding depth. “neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.” [16