Well, Ron...that IS pretty close to what it says:

4 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
5 the following:
6 `` 1260. Matters not reviewable
7         ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter,
8 the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review,
9 by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to
10 the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Fed-
11 eral, State, or local government, or against an officer or
12 agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or
13 not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that
14 entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as
15 the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.''.

...but not 'exactly' what it says...in these matters, wording is everything.

It says: IF a federal representative, even if acting in an "official capacity", asserts (my emphasis and word, as a translation of what 'acknowledge' implies) that a Transcendent Being (presumably the federal officer's version of such) is the ultimate (my word for 'sovereign') source of the rules by which we determine our entire governmental system, THEN anyone who objects to this...(and *I* claim, any actions taken BY the federal officer in accordance with his belief), cannot challenge the officer, his beliefs, or his actions.

In my view, the key word in the entire thing is "acknowledgment"...the very word Judge Roy Moore used continuously in his defense. "Acknowledgment" presumes that position or opinion or concept at issue is not in doubt!

I have no doubt that every suicide bomber in Israel is "acknowledging" his notion of "God's Will" when he heads off to Paradise with special belt strapped around his waist. Extreme silly example? Perhaps...but pass this bill and wait until that atheist fellow in California tries to object to prayer in school or the funneling of federal funds to a fundamentalist church...etc... "Sorry, the courts will not even HEAR that sort of case, and any judge who tries to halt a federal officer's decision which is based on religious conviction can be impeached."

You see, if it is official that God is the source of our governmental system, then someone has to interpret and decide what God would think about an issue....and a federal official who follows the official interpretation of God's will is merely 'acknowledging' the rules, and we can't have silly lawsuits trying to upset what we have determined to be right, now, can we? IT IS ALL CIRCULAR AND INTERLOCKED! If truth is defined, then anyone who objects to the definition is against truth, and probably is a danger to the society and.......

There are countries RIGHT NOW which operate on this model. Do we want to get even close to being one of those? A law like this is a step in that direction. Smarter people than me are looking at this attempt and trying to explain more clearly than I can why it is so dangerous.

Bill D...in guest mode