[CLUE-Talk] HR.3799 -- Can Anyone Interpret

[Jed S. Baer]

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:46:57 -0700
"David L. Willson" <DLWillson at TheGeek.NU> wrote:

> I thought 'legalese' was the first real-world implementation of one-way
> encryption,  but I'll take a swing at it.

Yes, hence the use of the term "hash" to describe the output of the
legislature.

> The supreme court will not hear cases where someone is attempting to sue
> a government [official] for acknowledging God as sovereign.
> 
> That is the least lossy translation I can offer.

Putting a stop to, for example, prosecution (or other actions) against
Judge Roy Moore for displaying the 10 Commandments in his court?

Or ending challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance based on "under God"?

I hadn't seen it that way, but I think you have the gist.

jed

>  On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 11:10, Jed S. Baer wrote:
> > Legalese here, anyone want to take a crack at a layman's English?
> > 
> > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3799:
> > 
> > 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 acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law,
> > liberty, or government.

-- 
http://s88369986.onlinehome.us/freedomsight/

... it is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday
facilitate a police state. -- Bruce Schneier