South Carolina anti-foreign law bill justified by court cases

The US Report ^ | June 27, 2011 | Chris Carter

[Crush]

The South Carolina state legislature is considering a bill that would bar foreign laws – such as Islamic sharia law – from conflicting with U.S. and state laws. Opponents of the legislation claimed that such a bill is unnecessary as sharia law would never be used in violation of American laws and argued that such a law would be unconstitutional. They are wrong on both counts.

In a previous article at TUSR, we exposed attempts to label the bill unconstitutional as obfuscation. After all, how can a bill that clearly states that it will protect “constitutionally guaranteed” rights be unconstitutional?

Senate Bill 444 reads (emphasis mine):

A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States.

It does not preclude Muslims from all sharia activities – such as praying – as the bill's opponents want us to believe, it simply prevents sharia from overriding constitutionally-guaranteed rights when the legal systems conflict.

Now, a new study released by the Center for Security Policy, a non-partisan national security organization, finds that sharia law was in fact utilized in numerous states, including one relevant case in South Carolina.

Research was limited to published trial and appellate court documents on the Google Scholar website, so there are possibly many more cases involving sharia than those detailed in the study.

After releasing the study results, SCP said in a statement, “The study evaluates 50 appellate court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law. The analysis finds that Shariah has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy.”

Opponents of the South...

[Steely Tom]

Opponents of the legislation claimed that such a bill is unnecessary as sharia law would never be used in violation of American laws and argued that such a law would be unconstitutional.

I remember when, back in the late 70s and into the 80s, people in the media scoffed at, and dismissed as fear-mongering, concerns that some day homosexuals would demand same-sex marriage as a civil right.

[GeronL]

same strategy