I know several of the other blogs have already noted that Bush's statements about why picked Miers seem to violate Article VI of the US Constitution. But what I didn't think of until right now is this: Is it possible to challenge in court the president's nomination of Miers as being unconstitutional for violating Article VI?
Here's what got me thinking of this. A truly hilarious/biting commentary about the nomination (read it):
Article VI of the Constitution states that “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” As the New York Sun pointed out recently, it is the single most absolutist and emphatic sentence in the entire Constitution. For those who would say that just because President Bush considered Miers’ religion in nominating her, that doesn’t necessarily mean he was imposing any kind of “religious test,” I would implore you to think of it this way: if part of the reason the President nominated Miers was her religion, then that necessitates the fact that part of the reason other prospects were not nominated was because they did not have the same “quality” of religion that Harriet Miers did. Thus, they were subjected to a religious test by the President in considering them for an appointment to the Supreme Court. This is grossly unconstitutional, and if it is allowed to stand, it will be a tacit admission that the “Religious Test” clause has become outdated and inoperable, and we will be one major step closer to theocracy.He's right. This really is troubling. The Republicans, who claim to be such lovers of the constitution, are actually the folks most trying to trash that document and our entire democracy. But isn't that just like the new breed of Republicans running the party, do as they say not as they do.
