Then why didn't he do that as the Governor of Arkansas?
Our Courts would strike it down as unconstitutional so don't worry about anyone trying to run the country as a theocracy.
Oh he tried.
Governor Won t Sign an Acts of God Bill - NYTimes.com
Governor Won't Sign an 'Acts of God' Bill
Published: March 21, 1997
"LITTLE ROCK, Ark., March 20— The Arkansas Legislature scrambled today to rewrite a bill intended to protect storm victims after Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, objected to language describing such natural phenomena as tornadoes and floods as ''acts of God.''
Mr. Huckabee said that signing the legislation ''would be violating my own conscience'' inasmuch as it described ''a destructive and deadly force as being 'an act of God.' '' The Governor, a Republican, said the legislation was an otherwise worthy bill with objectives he shared...."
Long story short, he's a religious nut.
Nice to see you admit again that religious practices CAN be unconstitutional.
He followed the Constitution and wanted them to change acts of God to natural disasters.
If he wanted a theocracy he would have signed the bill saying acts of God to begin with.
You have it backwards.
'Act of God' is a legal term. As in the law. You've heard of the law?
Yes and if he wanted a theocracy he would have signed the bill with the words acts of God.
That was the point.
Goddam you are the dumbest poster on this board.
You always do that when you are losing the argument, every time anyone makes a logical valid point.
So sorry that you are the one who can't see it.