Posted on 11/05/2010 7:27:50 AM PDT by bsaunders
Once again, here in Oklahoma, we get to hear the cacophony of righteous indignation from the usual suspects who cry, “Islamophobia”, at the drop of a hat, or the passing of a common sense referendum on the ballot this past Tuesday. It was listed as “State Question No. 755” and “Legislative Referendum No. 355.” The descriptive Subject was, “Courts to rely on federal and state laws when deciding cases forbidding courts from looking at international law or Sharia Law.” And finally, the comprehensive descriptive content stated, “This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law. International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons. The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties. Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.”
For the record, this item passed easily receiving 695,568 in favor versus 296,903 against. This was almost 70% for and 30% against, a major landslide, which was obviously garnering bipartisan support from all factions in Oklahoma. It is extremely rare to find any political subject that would receive such support. Despite this limitation placed upon adjudication restricting judges to implementing solely United States Federal Laws and Oklahoma State Laws thus protecting the residents of Oklahoma from foreign laws no matter the originating country as well as international laws created by the United Nations, European Union, NGO’s, the World Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, or any other legislative or adjudicating body. Despite the stated complaint by many Islamic organizations, this was not a law intended to deny Muslims from practicing their religion, nor did it derive support from Islamophobia. This was driven by the people of Oklahoma desiring to limit the courts to applying only those laws over which the citizens of Oklahoma have the ability to influence through legal and legislative avenues available to them as Americans. This initiative had the simple intent to deny the influence of laws decided by means of which the people of Oklahoma have no avenue of redress to affect change should they disagree with the content of said laws. Sharia Law was not the single target, it was simply one of the more recognizable systems of laws that could be used and receive universal recognition. The people who spoke in favor of this referendum initiative before the election stressed with equal, if not superior, representation laws made by the United Nations and the numerous other bodies who influence international laws usually referred to as the “Laws of Nations.”
As a citizen of Oklahoma, I can tell you why I supported this initiative. Yes, it disallowing the application of Sharia Law was one of many reasons behind my support, but it was not the primary reason. My primary reason for supporting this referendum was to make sure that at no time in the future would the United Nations efforts to make private individual firearm ownership illegal. I also wanted to remove any chance that laws of the European Union or many of the European countries could even find their way into our courts as the laws in Europe concerning libel, slander, self-defense, freedom of speech, and numerous other freedoms held dear to me as an American are as foreign as is Sharia Law. My reasons for supporting this referendum was solely due to the fact that I already fear much of the direction laws have taken here in America, I sure do not wish to open the flood gates to even harsher laws of oppression that exist elsewhere throughout the globe.
Oklahoma is fast becoming a state all others should strive to emulate. Kudos from a neighbor state.
Right On, Okie!
What do you think of the CAIR representative who has filed a suit against Oklahoma to fight this law?
I won’t be surprised if the ACLU joins them.
CAIR and Islam need to be exterminated from the face of the earth.
Now the Federal Constitution needs to have some similar provisions included. Even if the Constitutional amendment isn’t adopted, the mere fact that the movement would gain momentum would make the courts leery of trying to incorporate foreign law or precedents into court proceedings. It should be made abundantly clear that we are not surrendering our sovereignty to a bunch of black robes overseas.
Excellent description of the law and the reasons for supporting the law.
Thank you Oklahoma and also the writer of this blog.
Liberal and/or Muslim running wailing and crying to the courts is to be accepted when you do the right, logical, and correct thing.
Ah, my birth State once again pwns all other States.
Do the courts in Saudi Arabia recognize US laws?
I agree with the premise that we need to prevent foreign law, including Shariah, from displacing American law and the liberties it protects. But as Greta V. pointed out last night, there are problems with the way this amendment was worded. In particular, if a judge cannot even “consider” international or foreign law, what would the result be when the case is about a citizen interacting with that foreign law, such as a custody dispute between an OK parent and a Brazilian parent? It would literally be impossible to conduct the case without at least looking at the interaction between the two sets of law. What might have been a better way to say this is that while foreign law may be discussed and reviewed as evidence when necessary, there shall be an irrebuttable presumption that where any conflict of laws between foreign (or Shariah) law and American law exists, the conflict shall always resolve in favor of American law.
“Do the courts in Saudi Arabia recognize US laws?”....
Good one!.....About as far as they can throw it!
The bill above also forbade the courts from using United Nations' rulings/laws from being used. Though a member of the UN, I doubt you could find evidence that Saudi Arabia respects UN rulings anymore than it does US law. Goes for all the members, IMHO.
Ping for later
Kudos from a neighbor state.
I second the motion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.