Is Hugh Kidding Me?

One of Harriet Miers biggest defenders is Hugh Hewitt. Fine. She can use all the help she can get.

But I heard that someone suggested she should be opposed because of her religious background and Hugh replied that was illegal under Article VI, Clause 3 of our Constitution, stating "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Some have attacked Miers for reaching 60 without having a theory--or understanding in general-- of constitutional law. Hewitt's surprising defense has been Con Law is easy, so what's the big deal. Considering how easily Hugh misconstrues the religious test, perhaps he should reconsider this statement.

It is true, no one can pass a law stating you must or must not be a certain religion to hold public office. However, when it comes to deciding on how to vote for a particular candidate, anyone is allowed to take whatever they find relevant into account. Say you favor the death penalty and a candidate notes "due to my religious belief, I will do whatever I can to make sure no one is put to death by the state." (Or the candidate doesn't say it explicitly but you strongly suspect it.) You may vote against this candidate for any office, judge or otherwise, without running afoul of the Constitution.

ColumbusGuy adds: How does the great Homer say it? "It'll be the law soon enough."