"under the United States" means under the general government, not under the several States. A complete analysis of usage of the phrase "under the United States" in the COTUS reveals this.
[1] (Article 1, Section 3, para 6) "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of Honor, Trust or Profit under the United States...".
The impeachment authority of the United States is limited to the United States. In other words, the US House cannot impeach a State office holder, etc.
[2] (Article I, Section 6, para 2) "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time: and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."
The United States can only increase the emoluments (pay) of its own, not the State's.
[3] (Article II, Section 1, para 2) "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
Can a State appoint one of its own as an Elector? Don't know if this has ever been done. But, my guess is that the only folks prohibited are US Congress folk, other federal officer holders or holders of Trust or Profit under the general government.
[4] (Article VI, para 3) "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 no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
We've been over this one already.
[5] (Amendment XIV, Section 3) "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
This last clearly distinguishes the different categories: "under the United States" and "under any State" are distinct catagories.
It's clear from the US Constitution itself, if it is internally consistent, that "under the United States" refers to the general government, not the several States. I think I've squeezed it dry.
"...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United States." (Article VI, para 3).
"under the United States" is key here. This provision only refers to offices of the general government (United States), not the State governments.
In context, "under the United States" clearly refers to "ANY office of public trust".
The Constitutional principles involved here are obvious.
ALL officials, Fed/State/Local were bound to honor our Constitution, and NO religious tests were to be used to qualify them for ANY office.
It's clear from the US Constitution itself, if it is internally consistent, that "under the United States" refers to the general government, not the several States. I think I've squeezed it dry.
Yep, you've squeezed the pedantic legalism you made of the 'under the United States' term dry as a bone.
But the principle remains that Officals of every level of our governments, Fed/State/Local, -- are bound to support our Constitution. And one of those BOR's they must support is the 1st Amendment.
-- Thus, the logic of using 'no religious test' to qualify for holding such offices.
Obviously, you want officals to be able to ignore certain of our Constitutions principles, based on religious grounds or even on State mandated tests. . That sort of position helps explain why we are in such a political mess right now, imo.
~Everyone seems to be ignoring our Constitution, and you want States to have the power to require religious testing for officials.