In his December 5, 2006 article on the subject Prager denied that he was promoting a de facto religious test, despite his position that Ellison should not be allowed to take his oath on the Qurʻan.[9] Law Professor Eugene Volokh noted that the Constitution states officials "'shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required ...' The option of giving an affirmation rather than oath ... [shows] the Constitution thus already expressly authorizes people not to swear at all, but to affirm, without reference to God or to a sacred work.