Common Sense Constitutional Law Test

First read this passage.

A successful New Mexico high school soccer coach who claims he was forced to resign after praying for an injured opponent is in the market for a new team, he told

Tom Hirschman, a special education teacher at Eldorado High School in Albuquerque, said he was told to resign last month for violating district policy twice, most recently during a match in September in which the Albuquerque Public Schools’ 2010 girls coach of the year prayed with an opposing player after she was injured.

Then read this clause from the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

Okay then, here are your test questions.

Was Tom Hirschman’s prayer with a student tantamount to Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion?

Was his dismal by a government school for praying tantamount to the prohibition of the free exercise of religion?

Did the United States Congress establish or prohibit anything here?


Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Common Sense Constitutional Law Test

  1. notamobster says:




    It’s only gonna get worse.

    I think Barry’s gonna fundamentally transform the entire world over the next 4 years… and not for the betterment of man.

  2. Greg B says:

    He can try.

  3. Rockheim says:

    No to all of the above. However School and workplace “policies” are a backdoor run around to the constitution.
    Many things that the Constitution specifically protects can be undone completely and utterly with the addition of “workplace policies”..
    And it only EVER cuts AGAINST the Constitution.
    No.. You can’t pray, speak your mind, possess a firearm, you aren’t entitled to due process, your property can and will be siezed and forfeited without notice, etc etc.. But it’s ok.. Because it’s not the “Government” doing it.
    But if you used to have the ability to pray, wear religous symbols or the like.. We CAN and will sue to have those “workplace rules” altered because we see that as an affront to the “separation of Church and state”..

  4. RUDE JUDE says:

    Of course “they” want gun control. So “they” can transform us into the zombies they think we will be. That will be a bloody battle won’t it? Next thing they’ll do is ban aggressive dog breeds to hinder our ability to protect what is ours from being stolen only to be given to some wasted sperm of a transient that never contributes.

  5. R.D. Walker says:

    Good point Rockheim. The article doesn’t say he was canned for reasons pertaining to Constitutional Law.

    I guess I am used to atheists forcing schools to drop all things religious by citing the 1st Amendment. In this case, it might be that the school just hates religion all by itself.

  6. Greg B says:

    Of course you know if had been some habib with his fucking prayer rug, they wouldn’t have said boo.
    Or any faith other than Christianity, for that matter.

  7. rj says:

    Let me try again…
    When it comes to constitutional issues the simplist meaning is the correct meaning. We all know that.

    Congress will not make any law establishing a religion. Congress will not make any prohibition agaist free practice of religion.

    Means what it says and says what it means.

    So lawyers/leftist communits anthiest distort the simple meaning and use distorted meanings to try and prove “establishment of religion” in anything remotely related to school.

    The fact the federal gov is involved in school allows this to happen.

    So they use federal “hostile work enviroment” lawsuits to enforce their leftist policies and private businesses are forced to toe the line or be sued out of existance.

    Not just in schools but all businesses, even privately owned businesses are forced into politically correct bullshit.

    A few still stand on principle, IE Chik Filet, but most just cave to pressure.

    As my grandpa used to say, the day I cant call a lazy sumbitch a lazy sombitch and tell him to hit the road off a job as boss is the beginning of the end.

  8. Uke says:

    Kinda like how I feel about judicial law. Law school should train students that there are right and wrong answers on constitutional questions (as opposed to case law questions, but that’s another can of worms entirely).

    This whole thing about “varying interpretations” is maddening. I don’t know where it came from, but I bet it started with some self-important English Lit professor.