|
declaration of belief in the existence of a
God from our previous Constitution be-
cause we were instructed to by the Supreme
Court.
Third, the Committee on Declaration of
Rights did not report this oath out with
the belief, or the affirmation of God even
in parentheses. It was included in an
amendment and not part of that committee
report.
I could be facetious and say that after
the last time this was discussed, I received
many oaths, many of which said "In the
presence of" and fill in the blank, and the
blanks were numerous.
There are many who believe in other
forms of a Supreme Being than we do, and
I feel that this could be a reflection on the
one who may refuse to use these paren-
thetical words. That is the reason that I
felt that I should bring this up this last
time before the entire article goes before
the Convention. I hope you support this
amendment, remembering that anyone who
is religious and believes in a Supreme Be-
ing will pray to him before he assumes any
responsible task.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Harry
Taylor.
DELEGATE H. TAYLOR: Mr. Presi-
dent, ladies and gentlemen of the Conven-
tion, the strongest argument seems to be
one of doubt and I ask you all to resolve
this doubt in favor of God and to allow
people to endeavor to join the public serv-
ice on a level that requires taking of an
oath to make this election.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other del-
egate desire to speak in favor?
Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. President,
I do not desire to speak either way except
to point out a matter of correct. This was
not reported by the Committee on Personal
Rights, but by the General Provisions
Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other del-
egate desire to speak in favor?
Delegate Marion?
DELEGATE MARION: Mr. President,
like Dr. Pullen, I am too a preacher's son,
but I think that this parenthetical language
in the constitution is out of place. When it
was considered before the comment was
made in very effective argument against a
similar amendment, that we would be tak-
|
ing away from the people something that iz
in the present Constitution —
I think that is incorrect, and I do ne:
believe that the present oath that has be&r.
used in the current constitution has a ref-
erence to the Deity in it. If the intention is
to make this type of phrase, or this phrs.se
an optional one, it will be omitted from the
Constitution because, if, even in paren
theses, there is the same element of com-
pulsion the Supreme Court found in the
case of Engel v. Vitale, and it seems to mo
that it is, or that it will not be long before',
based upon the decision in Engel v. Vitale,
when combined with the decision in the
Torcaso case, that this entire oath will be
struck down because of this language.
I think too, as a more practical matter,
this will pose a problem which we do not
wish to create. I would hate to see the
time come when future office holders of
this State are asked before they take; the
oath, are you going to take the oath with
reference to the Deity in it or out of it and
have newspaper stories say that governor-
elect so and so will take the oath without
reference to God, or that the governor so
and so will take it with God in it.
I do not think this is a matter that we
ought to put in the Constitution. I respect-
fully urge you to support the amendment,
and leave the oath in essentially the form
it is in the present Constitution.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Weide-
meyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr. Pres-
ident, I hope this amendment is defeated.
The only reason given for it is that some-
body somewhere has expressed some doubt.
I have no doubt of a Supreme Being and
I have no doubt of the fact that I should
have this in here, and if it is going to be
taken out, I suggest that we not do it at
this late hour, but have some judge in the
future who does not want to believe in
God and wants to spring him from this
place in the Constitution. Let him do it.
Let us not do it.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other delegate
desire to speak in favor?
Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. President, I
move the previous question.
THE PRESIDENT: Second?
(Whereupon, the motion was duly sec-
onded.)
|
