First, read the first part.
Shall make “no law” respecting the “establishment” of religion. Is simply praying in public places or even teaching different religions in school making a law respecting the “establishment” of religion?
Second, read the second part.
“Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Ask yourself. By not allowing prayer, crosses, and teaching religion is schools are they “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”? How about free speech”?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I would contend that by prohibiting the “free exercise thereof” the government is breaking the law as it is written in the constitution.
Interesting theory, I’m not sure how it’s relevant here.
Christine might need to respond to this, with “Christine teaches Chris Coons, Yale Law Grad, about the Constitution”
The distinction is between Congress (in the Constitution) and Government (what Coons wants the Constitution to say, and what Coons said).
That’s what Limited Constitutional Government is all about. The difference between Congress and Government is what the Tea Party is all about.