I want to get back to the "The Constitution Restoration Act," because I have a couple of petty questions.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

And what about the acknowledgment of gods plural? Are pagans such as Hindus, Shintoists, animists, Wiccans and American Indians being discriminated against here? Might there be an equal protection problem?

What about the statue of the Roman goddess Justitia which adorns many of the nation's judicial buildings? Depending on how "God" is interpreted, this Act might, by prohibiting lawsuits based on the acknowledgment of one particular god (typically Yahweh, aka Jehovah), discriminate against acknowledgment of others. Shouldn't all religions be treated equally?

Just wondering. . . I mean, it's one thing for the Ten Commandments to replace the scales of justice, but another for the law to judicially protect the former but not the latter.

Then there's the idea (and yes, it is an idea, and ideas are not facts) of "God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." Many -- including many who believe in God -- would dispute whether God is the "sovereign source" of anything designed by men, especially law and government. Isn't that a matter of religious opinion? I have a problem with God as the source of tyrannical governments, and frankly, I am not entirely sure I'd consider God to be the "source" of this statute if it ever passed. That's because the god I believe in is not necessarily the same god as the one the authors of the statute apparently believe in. However, I'm not yet so arrogant as to attribute God's authorship to stuff I might write -- not even this post! Whether or not I'd sue anyone is another issue, but if we're going to allow any lawsuits at all, is it fair only to strip courts of jurisdiction to hear ONE CLASS of lawsuits, based on beliefs pertaining to one particular interpretation, of the thoughts of one particular deity?

Is this a theological dispute or a philosophical one? Millions, possibly billions, would disagree over exactly what God authored, and what things he's the sovereign source of. Law, liberty, and government are only three of these things, but a compelling philosophical and religious case could be stated for the proposition that all three are man-made. If I disagree (and if I think they are man-made) why is my disagreement any less valid than the argument advanced by the other side?

Why should they enjoy special legal protection not enjoyed by me?

While it cannot be denied that there is a distinct possibility that God is the sovereign source of law, liberty and government, by any fair standard this is an unsettled theological dispute. I think the advocates of one side have simply drafted themselves a statute granting them a particular legal immunity (exemption from suit, really) not enjoyed at all by the other side.

That simply strikes me as unfair, no matter what anyone thinks God may have authored.

ADDITIONAL NOTE: Beyond the scope of this post is the topic of what it is that might be seen as constituting the acknowledgement of God. Rastafarians acknowledge God by smoking pot, the Nation of Islam believes that the white man was created in test tubes by an evil black scientist, and followers of Sun Myung Moon believe their guy talked to Jesus, Stalin, and Hitler and set them all straight or something. (I just can't keep up with today's issues....)

MORE: As an afterthought, I'm wondering whether an unconstitutional statute may, by its own terms, exempt itself from being declared unconstitutional. By doing that, the "Constitution Restoration Act" strikes me as such a radical overreaching that it might be more appropriate as a constitutional amendment.

This all assumes, of course, that the proponents are serious. Here's a liberal blogger who seems to imply they're not:

....someone emailed me over the weekend to argue that I frequently highlight crazy pieces of legislation, most of which stand no chance of passing, just to make Republicans in Congress look foolish. To which I responded, "Guilty as charged."

Perhaps it's an echo of the Roosevelt court packing "plan." (It didn't work, but it scared the tar out of the anti-New Deal justices, most of whom resigned to take advantage of FDR's convenient new retirement package.)

MORE: On the other hand, here's an example of why the people supporting things like the Constitution Restoration Act are so angry:

"WASN'T APPROPRIATE"
Rossford cancels Christian rock band; local group was to play at anti-drug school assembly next week

By IGNAZIO MESSINA
BLADE STAFF WRITER
Rossford High School officials were considering letting a Christian rock band play during an anti-drug assembly next week, but decided yesterday to cancel the performance because of concerns over having religious music played in a public school.

"We are just shutting the whole thing down," Rossford Superintendent Luci Gernot said. "There is some controversy, and I'd rather err on this side."

The school district's law firm, Whalen & Compton of Akron told school officials yesterday that it "wasn't appropriate" to let the band Pawn perform at the school, Ms. Gernot said.

A representative of the law firm could not be reached for comment last night.

Pawn's songs regularly make reference to Jesus and God, said David Kleeberger, the band's manager who is also a member of the Rossford school board.

MORE (12/16/04): In a related issue, Dean Esmay shows that the ACLU now advocates censorship and book banning, provided the subject involves Christianity:

Sadly, I see that the ACLU is once again suing a local school district, this time in Dover, PA, for wanting to have discussions and questioning of evolutionary theory in the classroom. Story here.

Apparently now the first amendment means that the Federal government should ban books that have any content that remotely smacks of religion.

These people have no idea the damage they're doing--how much they turn people against science every time they muck about with how a local school district decides to run its business, I mean. It's pretty sad. It's even sadder that some parents, rather than respecting diversity of opinion, or using their right to attend school board meetings to voice their concerns and then allow the elected majority of the board make their choices, instead runs to the court to try to "protect" their children from hearing ideas they don't like. This just ratchets up resentment of scientists, resentment of government, resentment of the courts, and resentment of science as a whole.