Constitutional Restoration?

So, have any of you checked out the proposed Constitutional Restoration Act (S. 520, H.R. 1070)? It provides that the federal courts, including the Supremes, do not have jurisdiction to hear cases seeking relief against any official concerning that official's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law. But it gets even better. After stripping federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction, it states that state judges are no longer bound by Supreme Court precedents. Then, it states that federal judges who exercise jurisdiction, in violation of the Act, are subject to impeachment (in other words, doing so is not "good Behaviour").

Extra bonus: The Act also makes reliance on foreign law in interpreting the U.S. Constitution illegal.

OK. Now, some of you may agree, at least in part, with this Act. And I don't want to argue with the clearly un-constitutional parts of the Act. (Can you really make Supreme Court precedent non-binding, by statute? But enough.)

My query: Exactly what Constitution is this Act restoring? Help me out, People. Really.

I mean, if you want to bring the Stuarts back, with the divine right of kings, and all that, then just call it the Restoration Act.

Paging Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson. Come in, Jefferson . . . .