Question for any Constitutional law specialists

[PrinceofWands]

The last line of Article VI is:

"...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

I need legal precedent and definitions for 'religious Test' (especially why it's capitalized that way), 'Qualification' (and again, why it's capitalized), 'Office', and 'public Trust under the United States'.

I'm not really interested in personal opinions, I have my own. What I need is some foundational research material about this sentence. If you don't know any specifics does anyone at least have good starting points (like oyez.com)?

 

[everman]

Do you have access to any academic journal databases? Try those if you do because that's where you'll find the best material.

 

[RKS]

Originally posted by: everman
Do you have access to any academic journal databases? Try those if you do because that's where you'll find the best material.

like Westlaw or LexisNexis.

Discussions on this level are for Con Law professors and are the bane of practicing attornies...The chances of finding one of these professors outside of their ramshackle office are slim however. 😀

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: RKS

Originally posted by: everman
Do you have access to any academic journal databases? Try those if you do because that's where you'll find the best material.

like Westlaw or LexisNexis.

Discussions on this level are for Con Law professors and are the bane of practicing attornies...The chances of finding one of these professors outside of their ramshackle office are slim however. 😀

Well put. I got an A in Con Law, but this clause was never, ever discussed in class or in our casebook. The only time I can recall it ever even being discussed was when Chief Justice Roberts was up for confirmation, and was asked whether his Catholicism would allow him to side with the judicial precedent set by Roe v. Wade and its progeny.

 

[RKS]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: RKS

Originally posted by: everman
Do you have access to any academic journal databases? Try those if you do because that's where you'll find the best material.

like Westlaw or LexisNexis.

Discussions on this level are for Con Law professors and are the bane of practicing attornies...The chances of finding one of these professors outside of their ramshackle office are slim however. 😀

Well put. I got an A in Con Law, but this clause was never, ever discussed in class or in our casebook. The only time I can recall it ever even being discussed was when Chief Justice Roberts was up for confirmation, and was asked whether his Catholicism would allow him to side with the judicial precedent set by Roe v. Wade and its progeny.

everything after Marbury vs Madison was blur for me... 😉

Edit:
and as far as researching Congressional/Constitutional intent; good luck

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: everman
Do you have access to any academic journal databases? Try those if you do because that's where you'll find the best material.

Yeah, I'll hit those eventually. I've started a dialogue with my Constitutional Law prof on it, but figured I'd expand my search to the internet. It's amazing the esoteric crap that random people know sometimes. 😎