"...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.
You repeatedly ignore the language of Constitution to bolster your miscontructions. You are the one ignoring the TRUE principles, and place in their stead 20th century creations via judicial usurpation.
I suggest you read some of the early State Constitutions for a very clear treatment of what the TRUE Constitutional princles were intended to protect (State Sovereignty and individual freedoms/rights).
Good day.