Talk:Constitution of North Carolina

United States: North Carolina Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Top-importance).

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Infeasible Provisions[edit]

I removed reference to a nonexistent case, Vosswinkel v. Hunt. From a search of LexisNexis and Westlaw, I can find no case in the entire history of the United States by that name, nor by any similar name. It seems that all references to the case on the Internet come from this page. The only time I see N.C. Const. art. VI, § 8 squarely referenced with regards to the religious test in North Carolina state or federal case law is in Brooks v. Edwards, 396 F. Supp. 662, 664 (W.D.N.C. 1974), where the entire treatment of the clause is made in two sentences:

He complains of denial of due process and equal protection in that the grand jury and the petit jury were illegal because of the requirement of the North Carolina Constitution, Article VI, Section 8, that all qualified jurors must believe in God. This claim, if valid, cannot not be considered here because state remedies have not been exhausted.

This far from overturns the provision; in fact, it appears to endorse it if anything. I have, however, added a reference to an Opinion of the North Carolina Attorney General, Opinion of Attorney General to Mr. Clyde Smith, Deputy Secretary of State, 41 N.C.A.G. 727 (1972), in which the Attorney General states that the provision violates the U.S. Const, amend. I. See Libertarian Party of N.C. v. State, 200 N.C. App. 323, 338 n.2, 688 S.E.2d 700, 711 n.2 (2009). I haven't gotten a hold of the actual text of the Attorney General's Opinion, but I can grab it from the library if anyone actually wants to see it. (I may do so anyway.) SQFreak (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]