2016 Election

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by traceur

I feel like I should explain better....

The leap of logic you are making is that "a test" does not have to be
an actual concrete disqualifying test judging the person's qualifications
and legally preventing them from running, but rather that people judging
the qualification of the person fall under such a test.

I have not said that.

Ben Carson's words already made a religious test of Islam as not being consistent with the US Constitution.
That statement is a test and is, in itself, not consistent with the Constitution.

My argument is that it is not illegal (unconstitutional) to vote for Carson
because he made such an "unconstitutional test", but it is hypocritical.

In contrast, the established concept of such a test at the time was...

This is Scalian logic-tool used to argue that because my knowledge
of the historical thinking back at that time is authoritative, therefore:
"The Constitution means what I say it means."