Texas Republicans fail to oust Muslim official over religion

[Captain Obvious]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46841814

A Republican county official in Texas has survived a vote to oust him after several local party members took issue with his Muslim religion.
The motion to remove Shahid Shafi from his position as vice chairman of the Tarrant County Republican party failed by a vote of 139-49 on Thursday night.
The effort was led by several county Republicans who argued that Dr Shafi was more loyal to Islam than the US.
The movement led to criticism from prominent state Republican officials.
Speaking to reporters after the vote at a church in Fort Worth, Dr Shafi said: "As an immigrant to this great country, I am honoured and privileged to receive the support of my fellow Republicans."
"We were fighting for religious freedom - a founding principle of our nation. And today, we have come out victorious," he declared.
In addition to serving as the Republican vice chairman of Tarrant County - the third largest county in Texas - Dr Shafi is a surgeon and Southlake City Councilman who immigrated to the US nearly 30 years ago.
He reportedly is originally from India, and became a US citizen in 2009.

[DGUtley]

That would be unconstitutional, I think.

[Admiral Ackbar]

I think so too.

[Green Arrow]

That would be unconstitutional, I think.

Violation of the First amendment and the clause about requiring tests for public office I would think.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Violation of the First amendment and the clause about requiring tests for public office I would think.

Yes..Isn't the irony of this that Kamala Harris and Sen what's her name from HI were recently imposing such a test on a Roman Catholic that was up for judgeship? They should head this as well.

[DGUtley]

Violation of the First amendment and the clause about requiring tests for public office I would think.

That was my thought exactly, I was just hesitating whether that was in the 1st and/or elsewhere. It's specifically in Article VI, though it impacts the free exercise thereof:

. . . .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.


I question whether the argument that the term "under the United States" is interpreted to mean only federal officials has been made. I think it is weak but Article 1, Section 4 of the Texas Constitution has the same provision. It would never stand. IMNSHO.

[DGUtley]

Yes..Isn't the irony of this that Kamala Harris and Sen what's her name from HI were recently imposing such a test on a Roman Catholic that was up for judgeship? They should head this as well.

Agree and several prominent D's stood up against Harris and whatshername from Hawaii.

[Green Arrow]

That was my thought exactly, I was just hesitating whether that was in the 1st and/or elsewhere. It's specifically in Article VI, though it impacts the free exercise thereof:

. . . .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.


I question whether the argument that the term "under the United States" is interpreted to mean only federal officials has been made. I think it is weak but Article 1, Section 4 of the Texas Constitution has the same provision. It would never stand. IMNSHO.

Agreed.

[Chris]

That was my thought exactly, I was just hesitating whether that was in the 1st and/or elsewhere. It's specifically in Article VI, though it impacts the free exercise thereof:

. . . .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.


I question whether the argument that the term "under the United States" is interpreted to mean only federal officials has been made. I think it is weak but Article 1, Section 4 of the Texas Constitution has the same provision. It would never stand. IMNSHO.

It has to be the no religious test clauses in the body of those two Constitutions.

As I reported in Conservative Supreme Court could reverse decades of First Amendment law, the current preecedent regarding the establishment claise of the 1st amendment is based on "feelings of offense and exclusion."

[Captdon]

That was my thought exactly, I was just hesitating whether that was in the 1st and/or elsewhere. It's specifically in Article VI, though it impacts the free exercise thereof:

. . . .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.


I question whether the argument that the term "under the United States" is interpreted to mean only federal officials has been made. I think it is weak but Article 1, Section 4 of the Texas Constitution has the same provision. It would never stand. IMNSHO.

The several states should cover it.