Ustwo

(Note this post should be read with a ‘Foghorn Leghorn’ accent to achieve maximum effect.)

You gentleman will have to forgive me if I didn't take the word of the venerable 'Vermont Guardian' as, gospel, no pun intended of course, but after a quick perusal of its content it is my opinion that the 'Vermont Guardian' couldn't be trusted to give you the base ball scores without putting a left wing spin on them. As such I decided to find the bill itself and see what it says. Thankfully it was mercifully brief, unlike many such matters which come before congress.

Here is the, offending, bill in its entirety.

Now I am no lawyer, my self respect being too high for that profession, but if I may be so bold as to state my vocabulary and reading comprehension have always been most highly regarded, that I think perhaps I may have the intent of this bill translated to the point where it can be rendered in common english.

Let us look at the first part, the ‘offensive’ part if you will.

Now, I’ll be honest with you all, as this is a most confusing sentence, and made all the more confusing because that which it intends to protect does not seem to need protecting, at least not at this time. How I read this is that at no point should the Supreme Court be allowed to rule if a person is fit or unfit for duty/office due to their belief in god. Yes what this says, is that you are allowed to believe in God without fear of government interference. Now on the surface this seems a bit silly to me, after all do we not have freedom of religion? But perhaps the writers here have a bit of future vision where the secular nature of the land is such that belief in god is considered a negative thing, and something which makes one unfit. I would assume that such a law would be able to protect a Wiccan as much as a Christian. I think at worst such a law may allow a city perhaps to place the 10 commandments on the lawn of a courthouse, which as some of you may recall, caused a bit of a ruckus not too long ago, but even that would not be guaranteed.

Now this my friends, is far more reaching than the first part of this bill. While you may fret about the former, I do not see it being a threat to this land, in all fairness such a concern would not have been a concern until our more recent history. This on the other hand cuts to a bigger problem. You will have to forgive me for I do not recall the case, but not long ago members of the Supreme Court of the United States of America used foreign European law as precedence for deciding US law. I assure you I was as shocked as you upon learning this. When the court uses foreign law to decide if US law is just it is no longer a court, it is the legislative, executive, and judicial branch combined. It is not for the court to decide if it LIKES a law only that the law is just under the excising fame work. It is up to our elected officials to decide on that framework, and to change laws accordingly to the public desires, to allow the courts to write and enforce the laws is despotism.

The rest of the bill is but standard issue filler. No lower courts are allowed to rule either, and judges must abide by the new law or face removal, which is just common sense.

Now it’s a shame that the two provisions are linked as the second is far more important than the first. While the first is a reaction to what could only be described as ‘militant secularism’ where those of faith are attacked because they have faith, its implications are minor. The second provision is what is far more important to pass, to remind judges they are there to look at US law framed by the constitution. They are not there to make the laws ‘better’ based on their own whims. It is elected officials that write law, not judges.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.