NationStates Jolt Archive

(Sorry if this is too US-centric for some people. :p)

In the United States Constitution, and, later on as ruled by the Supreme Court, the Establishment clause of the First Amendment applies to the state governments as well as the federal government. (The examples about to be listed are part of state constitutions.)

Arkansas State Constitution, Article 19 Section 1 ("Miscellaneous Provisions")
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court.

Maryland's Declaration of Rights, Article 36
"That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come."

Massachusetts' State Constitution, Article 3
"Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law."
Comment: Apparently Non-Christians are not "equally under the protection of the law".

Mississippi State Constitution. Article 14 ("General Provisions"), Section 265
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina's State Constitution, Article 6 Section 8
"Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

Pennsylvania's State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."
(Note: The wording on this one was a little weird. Feel free to correct me on it if it's wrong.)

South Carolina's State Constitution, Article 4 Section 2
"No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being; ..."
Note: If you continue reading you will find that (in Section 8) the Lieutenant Governor must also meet the same qualifications as the Governor.

Tennessee's State Constitution, Article 9 Section 2
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

Texas's State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."So, does the establishment clause of the First amendment render the specific portion void, or does it render the entire constitution void? (Would the state constitution have to be re-written to change this?)

1st amendment states that "Congress shall make no law" but does not place any restriction on the States. Furthermore, it could possibly be argued that the State constitutions supersede the U.S. Constitution since the Federal government theoretically exists under the authority of the several States.

1st amendment states that "Congress shall make no law" but does not place any restriction on the States. Furthermore, it could possibly be argued that the State constitutions supersede the U.S. Constitution since the Federal government theoretically exists under the authority of the several States.Establishment clause applies to the States. SCOTUS decision, Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

As far as the power of the laws go, it's city, state, and then federal, with federal laws being the most powerful. So the establishment clause would cancel out those individual state laws.

For instance, if some states decide to make medical marijuana legal (as my state recently did), it doesn't really matter, because federal law says that it is NOT legal.

PS. Most of those laws are sort of archaic. They're there because they've been there for such a long time, but they don't mean anything to anyone. Of course, the religious people usually are elected more often anyway.

As far as the power of the laws go, it's city, state, and then federal, with federal laws being the most powerful. So the establishment clause would cancel out those individual state laws.

For instance, if some states decide to make medical marijuana legal (as my state recently did), it doesn't really matter, because federal law says that it is NOT legal.

PS. Most of those laws are sort of archaic. They're there because they've been there for such a long time, but they don't mean anything to anyone. Of course, the religious people usually are elected more often anyway.So, it renders only the specific portion invalid, then? Huh, okay.

So, it renders only the specific portion invalid, then? Huh, okay.

It's not entirely invalid. I mean, those laws can't stand if federal law cancels them out. However, if there ever becomes a time that federal law is no longer stronger or if the establishment clause is removed, the state laws WILL stand.

But I do think the whole constitution should be dealt with anyway. d:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins - Enjoy.

There is a premise in legal practice to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If an unconstitutional portion of the law can be severed without destroying the whole thing, then do so. It's only when the whole thing is bad, or the unconstitutional part can not be removed without rendering the entirety of the thing essentially meaningless, will an entire law be struck.

1st amendment states that "Congress shall make no law" but does not place any restriction on the States. Furthermore, it could possibly be argued that the State constitutions supersede the U.S. Constitution since the Federal government theoretically exists under the authority of the several States.

wow. You didn't even TRY to be right, did you? I mean, what you said about the first amendment is technically correct, but these days our constitution goes past the first one.

wow. You didn't even TRY to be right, did you? I mean, what you said about the first amendment is technically correct, but these days our constitution goes past the first one.

Ah, only the first two matter. The rest is just filler. ;)

Ah, only the first two matter. The rest is just filler. ;)

I'd have thought you of all people would have appreciated the protections around arrests. :tongue:

All of the state constitution articles presented are illegal because they abridge the rights of citizens of the United States (14th Amendment). They are also ignored and not enforced therefore no opportunity nor reason to challenge them has occured.

Should any of the states attempt to enforce them you can be sure they would be immediately challanged and struck down.

I'd have thought you of all people would have appreciated the protections around arrests. :tongue:

If LG ever gets arrested it's the police that will need protection, not him.






Kinky games with Mrs. Goofball aside, of course.
All of the state constitution articles presented are illegal because they abridge the rights of citizens of the United States (14th Amendment). They are also ignored and not enforced therefore no opportunity nor reason to challenge them has occured.

Should any of the states attempt to enforce them you can be sure they would be immediately challanged and struck down.
I imagine the fact that atheists don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected also has something to do with those laws never being challenged. Though the ones about being a competent witness, I'm surprised that hasn't come up yet.

Though the ones about being a competent witness, I'm surprised that hasn't come up yet.

I can see the thinking behind it though...
Generally you are asked to swear on the bible that what you are saying is true, how binding an oath is that going to be for an atheist?

I'd have thought you of all people would have appreciated the protections around arrests. :tongue:

They have to catch me first. ;)

All of the state constitution articles presented are illegal because they abridge the rights of citizens of the United States (14th Amendment). They are also ignored and not enforced therefore no opportunity nor reason to challenge them has occured.

Should any of the states attempt to enforce them you can be sure they would be immediately challanged and struck down.

pretty much this.

pretty much this.

What don't the state governments just remove them now and stop some citizen having to go to the time and expense of pursuing it throught the courts?

(Sorry if this is too US-centric for some people. :p)

In the United States Constitution, and, later on as ruled by the Supreme Court, the Establishment clause of the First Amendment applies to the state governments as well as the federal government. (The examples about to be listed are part of state constitutions.)

So, does the establishment clause of the First amendment render the specific portion void, or does it render the entire constitution void? (Would the state constitution have to be re-written to change this?)

1st amendment states that "Congress shall make no law" but does not place any restriction on the States. Furthermore, it could possibly be argued that the State constitutions supersede the U.S. Constitution since the Federal government theoretically exists under the authority of the several States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins - Enjoy.

1. As GF correctly set forth, the "Congress shall make no law ...." language is not a limitation on the First Amendment. The First Amendment applies to all "state action'--in other words any government action. So the whole federal government is covered. Further, the First Amendment applies to the states through incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)); Cantwell v. Connecticut (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=310&page=296), 310 U.S. 296 (1940) (free exercise of religion applies to states); Everson v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=330&page=1), 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (establishment clause applies to states).

EDIT: Just in case someone thinks this is a liberal trick, here is an article on incorporation from the National Rifle Association (http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=23).

2. Again, GF was right that the U.S. Constitution is supreme over state constitutions. Article VI is very clear (emphasis added):

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

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.


3. Yootopia is correct that Torcaso v. Watkins (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=488), 367 U.S. 488 (1961), is directly on point. Here is some relevant language (footnotes ommitted):

Article 37 of the Declaration of Rights of the Maryland Constitution provides:
"[N]o religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God . . . ."

The appellant Torcaso was appointed to the office of Notary Public by the Governor of Maryland but was refused a commission to serve because he would not declare his belief in God. He then brought this action in a Maryland Circuit Court to compel issuance of his commission, charging that the State's requirement that he declare this belief violated "the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States . . . ." The Circuit Court rejected these federal constitutional contentions, and the highest court of the State, the Court of Appeals, affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing and requires declaration of belief in God as a qualification for office without need for implementing legislation. The case is therefore properly here on appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1257 (2).
There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us - it sets up a religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public "office of profit or trust" in Maryland.

....
When our Constitution was adopted, the desire to put the people "securely beyond the reach" of religious test oaths brought about the inclusion in Article VI of that document of a provision that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Article VI supports the accuracy of our observation in Girouard v. United States, 328 U.S. 61, 69 , that "[t]he test oath is abhorrent to our tradition." Not satisfied, however, with Article VI and other guarantees in the original Constitution, the First Congress proposed and the States very shortly thereafter adopted our Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment. That Amendment broke new constitutional ground in the protection it sought to afford to freedom of religion, speech, press, petition and assembly. Since prior cases in this Court have thoroughly explored and documented the history behind the First Amendment, the reasons for it, and the scope of the religious freedom it protects, we need not cover that ground again. What was said in our prior cases we think controls our decision here.

In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 -304, we said:

"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. . . . Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts, - freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be."

Later we decided Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 , and said this at pages 15 and 16:

"The `establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect `a wall of separation between church and State.'"
....

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

In upholding the State's religious test for public office the highest court of Maryland said:

"The petitioner is not compelled to believe or disbelieve, under threat of punishment or other compulsion. True, unless he makes the declaration of belief he cannot hold public office in Maryland, but he is not compelled to hold office."

The fact, however, that a person is not compelled to hold public office cannot possibly be an excuse for barring him from office by state-imposed criteria forbidden by the Constitution. This was settled by our holding in Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 . We there pointed out that whether or not "an abstract right to public employment exists," Congress could not pass a law providing "`. . . that no federal employee shall attend Mass or take any active part in missionary work.'"

This Maryland religious test for public office unconstitutionally invades the appellant's freedom of belief and religion and therefore cannot be enforced against him.

4. Finally, to answer the OP question directly, only the specific unconstitutional provision of the state law is null and void. The remainder of the state constitutions remain in effect.

What don't the state governments just remove them now and stop some citizen having to go to the time and expense of pursuing it throught the courts?

My guess would be: inertia & politics -- not necessarily in that order.

What don't the state governments just remove them now and stop some citizen having to go to the time and expense of pursuing it throught the courts?

why bother? The law isn't being enforced, there's no intention of it being enforced, and more to point, almost certainly can't be enforced. They continue to exist purely because of their irrelevancy.

I'm personally of two minds on this. On one hand, I think blatantly unconstitutional laws simply clutter our laws, and have no place in a legal society, and should be removed as a matter of principle. On the other hand, I'd prefer my legislature spend time doing things that are ACTUALLY useful, not spending time (and in the case of state constitutions, amending them can be a VERY time consuming and arduous process) eliminating essentially meaningless laws that everybody knows are unenforceable.

On the other hand, I'd prefer my legislature spend time doing things that are ACTUALLY useful, not spending time (and in the case of state constitutions, amending them can be a VERY time consuming and arduous process) eliminating essentially meaningless laws that everybody knows are unenforceable.

The problem comes from those people who don't realize that they are unenforceable...

What don't the state governments just remove them now and stop some citizen having to go to the time and expense of pursuing it throught the courts?
its not how we do things.

for example

mississippi abolished slavery in 1995

1. As GF correctly set forth, the "Congress shall make no law ...." language is not a limitation on the First Amendment. The First Amendment applies to all "state action'--in other words any government action. So the whole federal government is covered. Further, the First Amendment applies to the states through incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)); Cantwell v. Connecticut (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=310&page=296), 310 U.S. 296 (1940) (free exercise of religion applies to states); Everson v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=330&page=1), 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (establishment clause applies to states).

EDIT: Just in case someone thinks this is a liberal trick, here is an article on incorporation from the National Rifle Association (http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=23).

2. Again, GF was right that the U.S. Constitution is supreme over state constitutions. Article VI is very clear (emphasis added):

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

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.


3. Yootopia is correct that Torcaso v. Watkins (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=488), 367 U.S. 488 (1961), is directly on point. Here is some relevant language (footnotes ommitted):

Article 37 of the Declaration of Rights of the Maryland Constitution provides:
"[N]o religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God . . . ."

The appellant Torcaso was appointed to the office of Notary Public by the Governor of Maryland but was refused a commission to serve because he would not declare his belief in God. He then brought this action in a Maryland Circuit Court to compel issuance of his commission, charging that the State's requirement that he declare this belief violated "the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States . . . ." The Circuit Court rejected these federal constitutional contentions, and the highest court of the State, the Court of Appeals, affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing and requires declaration of belief in God as a qualification for office without need for implementing legislation. The case is therefore properly here on appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1257 (2).
There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us - it sets up a religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public "office of profit or trust" in Maryland.

....
When our Constitution was adopted, the desire to put the people "securely beyond the reach" of religious test oaths brought about the inclusion in Article VI of that document of a provision that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Article VI supports the accuracy of our observation in Girouard v. United States, 328 U.S. 61, 69 , that "[t]he test oath is abhorrent to our tradition." Not satisfied, however, with Article VI and other guarantees in the original Constitution, the First Congress proposed and the States very shortly thereafter adopted our Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment. That Amendment broke new constitutional ground in the protection it sought to afford to freedom of religion, speech, press, petition and assembly. Since prior cases in this Court have thoroughly explored and documented the history behind the First Amendment, the reasons for it, and the scope of the religious freedom it protects, we need not cover that ground again. What was said in our prior cases we think controls our decision here.

In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 -304, we said:

"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. . . . Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts, - freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be."

Later we decided Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 , and said this at pages 15 and 16:

"The `establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect `a wall of separation between church and State.'"
....

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

In upholding the State's religious test for public office the highest court of Maryland said:

"The petitioner is not compelled to believe or disbelieve, under threat of punishment or other compulsion. True, unless he makes the declaration of belief he cannot hold public office in Maryland, but he is not compelled to hold office."

The fact, however, that a person is not compelled to hold public office cannot possibly be an excuse for barring him from office by state-imposed criteria forbidden by the Constitution. This was settled by our holding in Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 . We there pointed out that whether or not "an abstract right to public employment exists," Congress could not pass a law providing "`. . . that no federal employee shall attend Mass or take any active part in missionary work.'"

This Maryland religious test for public office unconstitutionally invades the appellant's freedom of belief and religion and therefore cannot be enforced against him.

4. Finally, to answer the OP question directly, only the specific unconstitutional provision of the state law is null and void. The remainder of the state constitutions remain in effect.

You put in a lot of work to say what others have already said on this thread.

You put in a lot of work to say what others have already said on this thread.

I know. I go a little OCD in my posts sometimes. :$

Hopefully, I added a little value and the effort was not as much as it may seem. :wink:

I know. I go a little OCD in my posts sometimes. :$

Hopefully, I added a little value and the effort was not as much as it may seem. :wink:

I'm sure it wasn't. Even if you referenced a few different sources, I doubt that you were spending all of your time looking for the answers. You probably already had the knowledge and knew exactly where to look to share the information with everyone else. This is just my saying, "hey, you took our answers!" Haha.

You put in a lot of work to say what others have already said on this thread.
ya but the good thing about cattribes posts is that you can copy and paste them onto other forums and look really smart without the effort of BEING smart...


not that i would ever do that....

ya but the good thing about cattribes posts is that you can copy and paste them onto other forums and look really smart without the effort of BEING smart...


not that i would ever do that....

Spread it! Spread it all! No one cares where it comes from anymore. It's all just a fusion of knowledge...or something like it.

Spread it! Spread it all! No one cares where it comes from anymore. It's all just a fusion of knowledge...or something like it.
i think of it as......cattribes fanfiction without the fiction part....

yeah thats it, its a tribute!




no i really dont steal posts and pass them off as my own on other sites.

its not how we do things.

for example

mississippi abolished slavery in 1995

Err, is that a typo for 1895?
Please tell me its a typo for 1895.

Err, is that a typo for 1895?
Please tell me its a typo for 1895.

Nyet Tosvarich. 1995. One of those weird things where, although it was never practiced, was never explicitly outlawed.

ya but the good thing about cattribes posts is that you can copy and paste them onto other forums and look really smart without the effort of BEING smart...


not that i would ever do that....
Other forums? Heck, I've been using them for legal briefs. My shady law firm business has skyrocketed since I started viewing NSG.

So, it renders only the specific portion invalid, then? Huh, okay.
Generally, only the specific portions will be rendered invalid, leaving the rest in full force and effect. They probably were never changed to bring the documents into line with the US Constitution because it is difficult to amend constitutions, and it doesn't matter since the federal law governs.

EDIT: Note that some, though not all, of those state constitutions may be older than the US Constitution. Sorry if this was already covered. I haven't finished reading the thread yet.

Err, is that a typo for 1895?
Please tell me its a typo for 1895.
as late as that would have been...


sadly no, it wasnt a typo.

i suppose it was a "we are not going to let those stinking yankees push us around kind of thing"

unless they were waiting for the political tide to shift...

Other forums? Heck, I've been using them for legal briefs. My shady law firm business has skyrocketed since I started viewing NSG.
i patched them together and filed an amicus brief in the california supreme court review of prop 8.

check the pdf file for one from ashmoria.

My guess would be: inertia & politics -- not necessarily in that order.
Of course, if the state government follows the US Constitution in practice, there would be no occasion for a challenge to the state constitution to arise. For instance, no challenge to the provision against an atheist being competetnt to stand as a witness would ever come up if the state does not apply that provision and does not bar atheists from giving witness testimony. You know, so why bother about it, then?

why bother? The law isn't being enforced, there's no intention of it being enforced, and more to point, almost certainly can't be enforced. They continue to exist purely because of their irrelevancy.

I'm personally of two minds on this. On one hand, I think blatantly unconstitutional laws simply clutter our laws, and have no place in a legal society, and should be removed as a matter of principle. On the other hand, I'd prefer my legislature spend time doing things that are ACTUALLY useful, not spending time (and in the case of state constitutions, amending them can be a VERY time consuming and arduous process) eliminating essentially meaningless laws that everybody knows are unenforceable.
^^ This. The less immediately urgent a task is, the more it will get pushed down the "to do" list, superseded by more urgent things. In state government, running the departments on a daily basis and keeping the roads paved and the sewers separate from the drinking water is far more urgent business than cleaning up the old constitution.

The problem comes from those people who don't realize that they are unenforceable...
^^ But on the other hand, this. It is true, as long as such laws exist, some asshole is going to come along and try to apply them. That asshole will fail, of course, but there will be a big hasserei about it and lots of money spent, and lots of political embarrassment. On the plus side, it will likely force the legal challenge that will finally get that wart off that constitution's ass.

its not how we do things.

for example

mississippi abolished slavery in 1995
^^ And finally, there's this -- the assurance that it is on the "to do" list, and they will get around to it, eventually.