Posted on 11/08/2010 11:15:25 AM PST by Islaminaction
While this is just the first hearing, Islam has scored another victory in America. At least for now. Judge blocks Okla. amendment banning court use of Islamic law
A federal district judge has issued a temporary restraining order to block an amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution that would prohibit state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases.
The amendment was approved by 70% of voters last Tuesday.
The order today by Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange will remain in effect until a Nov. 22 hearing, the Associated Press reports.
(Excerpt) Read more at loganswarning.com ...
Something must be done about all these rogue leftist judges. In order for the Republic to be restored, it must include judicial reform.
Someone want to explain to me how it is a Judge can block what the people have voted for..time and again? How is it we have granted those powers to 'A'...repeat..'A single' Judge? Further what will the hearing result in?
While this is just the first hearing, Islam has scored another victory in America. At least for now.
Judge blocks Okla. amendment banning court use of Islamic law
A federal district judge has issued a temporary restraining order to block an amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution that would prohibit state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases.
The amendment was approved by 70% of voters last Tuesday.
The order today by Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange will remain in effect until a Nov. 22 hearing, the Associated Press reports.
The order was sought in a lawsuit by Muneer Awad, an Oklahoma Muslim and executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, who argues that the amendment against sharia law “demonizes” his religion.
Islam terrorizes the world, but that does not seem to matter.
“Either way, we’re a long way from having such a surplus of people who realize how serious this war is that we can afford to fracture or allow fifth columnists to join.”
As of now, we are not even close to winning this. Muslims are slowly taking over the West within our laws. If they were smart they would not fire another shot.
CAIR = Saudi Arabia
Hey I am all for ‘Loganswarning entire site’ being posted here..oh yea! Although I understand that can’t be... it is one of the best sources for keeping abreast of what the Islamic push is doing...he’s on the ball and offers many interesting and informative articles/reports. It’s like we have our own investigative reporter...oh yea!
Isn’t that a woman in black robe?
Sure it can.
Somebody is just pimping for blog hits.
If the message were the important thing, it would be posted in full.
The blogpimp just wants hits, hence the excerpt.
What will the 9th circuit do?
Oh I don’t know - maybe if a few more “fools” had voted for Ross Perot, you’d see a representative Republic in these parts now, rather than a bankrupt socialist welfare state.
I dunno. I occasionally post excerpts when I feel like my content is too long. I doubt that’s the same issue here.
Maybe the Oklahoma judge banned full posts on Free Republic?
Gender aside, my thought exactly. I think the State of Oklahoma should simply say, "Come enforce your ruling, judge", and carry on with business.
That federal judge can go pound sand! The rest of us Okies are gonna ignore her and do as we damn well please anyway....red
We need to purge the legal system of these progressive judges and stop Islam from further damaging America...the last stand on earth!
very, very good point
I believe at formation all states but Louisiana received the English common law as their basis for law in so far as not inconsistent with their own constitutions and the Constitution of the United States. These are called “reception statutes.” Sharia law would have the same status as canon (ecclesiastical) law and does not override our civil or criminal law in application by the courts. (Louisiana originally accepted the Roman Civil Law as their basis of law.)
For instance, in 1850, California adopted the common law of England (Ca. Stats., pg. 219,), so far as not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States or laws of the State, as the rule of decision in all the courts of the State.
The colonists claimed the rights of Englishmen. Justice Story comments that: “In the charters, under which all these colonies were settled, with a single exception, [That of Pennsylvania, 1 Grahame’s Hist. 41, note; 1 Chalm. Annals, 14,15, 639, 640,658; 2 Wilson’s Law Lect. 48, 49.] there is, as has been already seen, an express declaration, that all subjects and their children inhabiting therein shall be deemed natural born subjects, and shall enjoy all the privileges and immunities thereof; and that the laws of England, so far as they are applicable, shall be in force there; and no laws shall be made, which are repugnant to, but as near as may be conveniently, shall conform to the laws of England.”
...”It is not, therefore, without strong reason, that it has been said, that ‘the colonists, continuing as much subjects in the new establishment, where they had freely placed themselves, [with the consent of the crown,] as they had been in the old, carried with them their birthright, the laws of their country; because the customs of a free people are a part of their liberty’; and that ‘the jurisprudence of England became that of the colonies, so far as it was applicable to the situation, at which they had newly arrived, because they were Englishmen residing within a distant territory of the empire.’”
“And so has been the uniform doctrine in America ever since the settlement of the colonies. The universal principle (and the practice has conformed to it) has been that the common law is our birthright and inheritance and that our ancestors brought hither with them Upon their emigration all of it, which was applicable to their situation. The whole Structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law...”
“How differently did the Congress of 1774 think? They unanimously resolved, ‘That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.’ They further resolved, ‘that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have by experience respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.’ They also resolved, that their ancestors at the time of their emigration were ‘entitled’ (not to the rights of men, of expatriated men, but) ‘to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural born subjects within the realm of England.” [Journal of Congress, Declaration of Rights of the Colonies, Oct. 14, 1774, p. 27 to 31.]”
Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange
Never trust a hyphenated name.
bttt
bttt
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.