Giving brainiest me asap

sec. 1. ministers of the gospel being, by their profession, dedicated to god and the care of souls, ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions, therefore, no minister of the gospel or priest of any denomination whatever shall be eligible to the office of the executive of the republic, nor to a seat of either branch of the congress of the same. - from article v of the constitution of the republic of texas (1836)

though the constitution of the republic of texas was very similar to that of the united states, there were some differences.
the excerpt seen here from the constitution of the republic of texas would have not been allowable in the united state because it would violate

a) the first amendment.
b) the second amendment.
c) the "checks and balances" principle.
d) the "separation of powers" principle.

 A) The First Amendment

Explanation:

The First Amendment reads as follows:  

The quoted provision from the 1836 Constitution of the Republic of Texas prohibits the free exercise of religion by its assertion that religious ministers cannot be considered for service in public office. There is also a leaning in the Republic of Texas' statement toward official establishing of a religion by its comments about the "great duties" of a "minister of the gospel." The mention of "the gospel" is specifically Christian terminology, which would thus treat ministers or priests "of any denomination" (within Christianity)  as a special category of citizens.

According to an article by John David Rausch Jr., for The First Amendment Encyclopedia, this sort of provision was not just a phenomenon in the Republic of Texas.  Rausch write, "In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, 13 states adopted constitutional provisions prohibiting members of the clergy from holding public elected or appointed office. Most states dropped these statutes from their constitutions prior to 1880."

McDaniel v. Paty (1978) finalized the decision that church workers should be allowed to seek public office anywhere in the United States.  In that case, the Supreme Court case struck down Tennessee's restriction against religious ministers holding elected positions in government.    The court ruled that the restriction still in place in Tennesee (which was the last state to have held onto such a law), went against both the 1st and 14th Amendments.

buying socks and buying shoes are independent events.

answer; /// the only one of the above that makes good sense is ( the poor,plz check luck