I don't know what it has to do with whether or not those little evangelists are being abused, but the discussion has turned to Senator's Brownbaker's 2005 bill. The following may therefore be of interest:

1. The bill was represented as: "They introduced a bill to **tell the Supreme Court that it cannot do ANYTHING to interfere with ANY government officer or agency which acts as though "God" is the ultimate source OF law & government**"

The bill does NOT say that. Under the bill, the Supreme Court could continue to interfere with any government officer or agents to the same extent as always, regardless of whether or not the officer or agent said God is the ultimate source, with one exception only: it cannot interfere MERELY on the basis of the acknowledgment ITSELF.

Let's say that a judge somewhere wanted to place, in his courtroom, a bronze plaque with the 10 Commandments on it. Under the Brownback proposal, the Supreme Court could still review that action, and could still forbid that action. What they could not do is forbid the action MERELY because it was an acknowledgement of God. If they forbade it, they would have to do so on other grounds.

That is what the bill actually says. It would remove from judicial review actions "TO THE EXTENT THAT RELIEF IS SOUGHT against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), CONCERNING THAT ENTITY'S, OFFICER'S, OR AGENT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GOD AS THE SOVEREIGN SOURCE OF LAW, LIBERTY, OR GOVERNMENT." (Emphasis mine.)

2. Please re-read the U.S. CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE III, SECTION 2:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS, AND UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE CONGRESS SHALL MAKE." (Emphasis mine.)

Whether the Constitution should allow such an exception is a matter of opinion. But since it does allow it, we can't very well say that Brownbacker's proposal is unconstitional, can we?

Kent