Representing Whom?

I am disturbed. Virgil Goode, my Representative in the House, has co-sponsored the following bill (found on Thomas [http://thomas.loc.gov]):

HR 1070 IH

"Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable

`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 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.'."

The way I read that section is that the Supreme Court is not allowed to review or accept any appeal to that court on any matters of separation of Church and State in which a branch of government (e.g., public schools teaching creationism instead of evolution, courts like Moore's in AL which post the 10 commandments, public bodies like Chesterfield Cty. which are sued for prayer discrimination, etc.) is the named defendant.

Does this man have no sense? He represents one of the geographically largest regions in the state and he is sponsoring an unconstitutional law? Has he nothing better that he can do for his constituency? I can think of a number of things he should be putting his time and energy into that have nothing to do with violating the Constution in the name of "restoring" it. Fortunately this law, like all others, will also have to come under review and it will get struck down, even if House, Senate, and Bush all pass it. BTW, there's a similar bill that was introduced in the Senate (S.520), but which is not, fortunately, co-sponsored by John Warner or George Allen. They are obviously much smarter than Virgil Goode, even if they are also Republicans.