The Constitution’s Most Emphatic Line

We’re glad to see Governor Whitmer of Michigan finally back up the state’s attorney general, Dana Nessel, from the attack on her by Representative Rashida Tlaib. Ms. Tlaib, a Palestinian American, objected to General Nessel’s charging of 11 University of Michigan students for infractions during an anti-Israel protest. The congresswoman had suggested that General Nessel couldn’t do her job without bias because she is Jewish. “It seems that the Attorney General decided if the issue was Palestine, she was going to treat it differently, and that alone speaks volumes about possible biases within the agency she runs,” Ms. Tlaib told the Detroit Metro Times on September 12. The students in question were charged with attempted ethnic intimidation and assaulting or obstructing police. Several of them used “physical force to counter” officers’ attempts to clear the illegal encampment. “Rashida Tlaib should not use my religion to imply I cannot perform my job fairly as Attorney General. It’s antisemitic and wrong,” Ms. Nessel responded in a post on X. Though before the attorney general came to her own defense, she addressed the circulation of a cartoon which depicted Ms. Tlaib as a target of the recent deadly Hezbollah beeper attack, condemning the image as “Islamophobic and wrong.” The brouhaha was raised over the weekend when Jake Tapper asked Ms. Whitmer on CNN if Ms. Tlaib’s accusation was antisemitic. The governor offered a long winded non-answer. Mr. Tapper pressed again: “Do you think Attorney General Nessel is not doing her job?” Another dodge. “I’m not going to get in the middle of this argument that they’re having,” she said. The outrage was swift and scalding. The next day the governor tried again. “The suggestion that Attorney General Nessel would make charging decisions based on her religion as opposed to the rule of law is antisemitic,” Ms. Whitmer stated on Monday in a post on X shared by Mr. Tapper. “Attorney General Nessel has always conducted her work with integrity and followed the rule of law. We must all use our platform and voices to call out hateful rhetoric and racist tropes.” Hear, hear. She found her spine. Meanwhile, Ms. Tlaib has denied any wrongdoing, sharing posts on X from her supporters. “Fact-check: Tlaib did not say Nessel charged pro-Palestinian protesters because she’s Jewish,” one post reads. It’s true, the congresswoman all but named Ms. Nessel a “Jew.” She merely alleged, without evidence, that Michigan’s first Jewish attorney general acted in accordance with an anti-Palestinian, pro-Israel agenda.One of the things to remember here is that the congresswoman was in her rights to side with the anti-Israel protesters who refused to vacate their encampment, if that’s what she wants. Even though, as Ms. Nessel said in defense of the criminal charges, “conviction in your ideals is not an excuse for violations of the law.” The accusation levied by Ms. Tlaib against Ms. Nessel, however, crossed a line — one that is drawn in Article VI of the Constitution. “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but” — here are the famous words — “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”“No . . . ever . . . any.” There it is, the most emphatic statement in the entire constitution. Known commonly as the “Religion Test Clause,” the prohibition upended a longstanding practice of religious discrimination and affirmed America’s defining commitment to religious liberty. Ms. Tlaib, in her gripe against the attorney general, was not only being antisemitic — she was also being unconstitutional.

The Constitution’s Most Emphatic Line

More from the New York Sun

Israel and Lebanon Coordinate Aid Convoy to Christian Villages in Combat Zone

Emerging Claim That Targeting Civilian Infrastructure Is a War Crime Proves a Bridge Too Far

Stanford Calls Bluff on Students Using Jain Faith To Dodge Meal Plan

More from the New York Sun

Israel and Lebanon Coordinate Aid Convoy to Christian Villages in Combat Zone

Emerging Claim That Targeting Civilian Infrastructure Is a War Crime Proves a Bridge Too Far

Stanford Calls Bluff on Students Using Jain Faith To Dodge Meal Plan

South Florida GOP Congresswoman’s Immigration Reform Bill Sparks Backlash From Colleagues, Conservative Commentariat

Middle-Class Americans Prove the Biggest Winners From Trump’s Tax Cuts in the Big Beautiful Bill

In a Funeral for Economic Liberty, the Casket Cartel Seeks To Bury the Competition

The Double Tragedy of the Jewish Bund

Borrowing a Page From El Salvador’s Bukele, Ecuadoran President Welcomes American Troops To Assist With His Drug Gang Crackdown