|
Delegate Macdonald.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Mr. Chair-
man and fellow Delegates:
I for one would hate to see us adopt a
Constitution which shows promise of being
one of the finest Constitutions in the
United States, and yet have it contain an
unconstitutional oath or one which may be
shrouded in doubt as to its constitutionality.
Now, in the case of Torcaso v. Watkins,
decided by the United States Supreme
Court, the Supreme Court held that it was
unconstitutional to require a reference to
Almighty God in the taking of an oath,
and that case originated here in Maryland.
That oath was prescribed by the Con-
stitution.
Now, the oath that we have in this Com-
mittee Recommendation is optional, so the
question is, does the fact that it is op-
tional save it? Would that make it con-
stitutional?
In Engle v. Vitale, a case which was
decided by the United States Supreme
Court in June of 1962, the question of a
prayer which had been prescribed by the
New York Board of Regents was involved.
The prayer read as follows:
"Almighty God, we acknowledge our de-
pendence on Thee and we beg Thy bless-
ings upon us, our parents, our teachers,
and our country."
The decision, the facts in the case made
it clear that this prayer was optional. It
was not required. It was not compulsory.
As Justice Douglas stated — and I quote
— "As I read this regulation, a child is
free to stand or not stand, to recite or not
recite, without fear of reprisal or even
comment by his teacher or any other school
official." The United States Supreme Court
held that, nevertheless, it was unconstitu-
tional to require, to establish the prayer.
Let me read a little bit from the court's
decision. The court stated — and I quote —
"Neither the fact that the prayer may be
denominationally neutral nor the fact that
its observance on the part of the students
is voluntary can serve to free it from the
limitations of the establishment clause.
The establishment clause" — and I am
still quoting — "unlike the free exercise
clause, does not depend upon any showing
of direct governmental compulsion and is
violated by the enactment of laws which
establish an official religion, whether those
laws operate directly to coerce non-observer
individuals or not."
|
In other words, the basis of the decision
was not compulsion nor the lack of com-
pulsion. The basis of the decision was that
there was an official establishment of a
prayer, and by that very fact the court
struck it down.
In the Torcaso case by the United States
Supreme Court the court stated that
neither the state nor the Federal Govern-
ment can require a person to profess a
belief or disbelief in any religion. So the
fact that the prayer is optional does not
save it. I think it should be removed.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other del-
egate desire to speak against the amend-
ment?
Delegate Adkins.
DELEGATE ADKINS: Mr. Chairman,
I think that this Convention is being swept
off its feet. The proposal here is to elimi-
nate the words which are completely op-
tional with the person who is proposing
to take them. I personally would be very
happy to see the entire oath eliminated.
The oath does nothing, in my judgment,
to insure the proper performance of any
duties of a public official.
If this Convention elects to require an
oath, it seems to me the least it can do is to
permit the person taking the oath to decide
the terms in this context in which it would
take that oath.
Let me preface it by saying I do not pro-
fess to be a constitutional lawyer. I do not
even profess to be familiar with the cases
which are related to this problem. I do
suggest that the court cannot and will not
say that a man giving the right to either
affirm or state the words in the presence
of Almighty God will decree that that is
an unconstitutional exercise of an indi-
vidual right.
There is no constitutional denial of a
man's right to believe in God. There is a
constitutional denial of a requirement that
he shall believe in God; and I suggest that
we are confusing the issues in this section.
I am not a religious man. Should I take
the oath, I should probably prefer to say
that I affirm, because that is all in due
honesty I could say.
There are many people in this State who
do not so feel. We are doing great vio-
lence to many deeply held beliefs of the
people of Maryland in this constitution.
I beg you not to offend their sensibilities
beyond what you must do. I suggest to you
that in this instance you are offending their
|
