Bad Meme Arising: This is one of those typically, sincerely, incredibly dishonest Facebook 'memes' which seem so apt, but which are so misleading: It's fuukin insidious. Think about it.
"The American Indian" did not "let the Government" take care of them. They resisted it pretty fiercely, and ultimately unsuccessfully, for a couple of hundred years. "The American Indian" was violently dispossessed by the US Govt operating wholly and solely at the behest of private, corporat/industrial/moneyed interests which prospered handsomely, thank you, by ensuring that the US Governmentt was taking care of THEM by exterminating the indigenous competition.
As my ol' pal, Prof Wombat put it :
"Well, the government killed them, drove them onto worthless land, fenced them in, introduced them to smallpox and alcohol, swept buffalo off the prairies, like that. Wasn't as if the Indians 'let the government take care of them', 'zackly..."And then there's Henry Ford, himself; we needn't dwell on his well-known, blatantly fascist sympathies.
Our "Good" Neighbors: Why do our northern neighbors seem to comport themselves with so much more restraint, vis a vis their armaments, than do Murkins?
Woody guessez: Because, though there was a 'minor' strain of the disease there, mainly enforced on indigenous, rather than imported, populations, Canadians never fought each other--never engaged in a civil war--to keep slavery in Canada. Being a British possession, Canada peacefully relinquished the "right" to own other persons in the 1820s and '30s when most of the rest of Europe and the world abandoned 'the peculiar institution.'
I think the stain of slavery, finally, is responsible for the apparently in-bred inclination in Murka towards violent acting out...
Dept. Of Law Or Justice: Woody's not a lawyer, though I took the LSAT (170) once and even played a pirate once in a movie, but: Such clauses are or at least do strongly seem to be prima facie cases for summary declaration. But:
They'd have to be ruled unconstitutional. You'd have to bring suit. You'd have to "show cause," and "demonstrate harm."
That would mean someone would have--not NOT to be elected, but--to be expelled from an office once they were seated in it BECAUSE they were atheists.
That would mean that such a case would have to go through the whole, judicial process, from State courts to District, to Appellate, and thence the SCROTUS. And the outcomed would not be certain, certainly NOT with the current incumbents still seated.
Probably the biggest impediment to that happening is that it would be PHENOMENALLY fuukin' expensive. Talking MILLION$ and MILLION$.
So it's pretty unlikely, especially given the sympathies of the places which enacted such egregious violations.