“You can’t allow some without accepting all, & under no circumstances would we allow the stoning to death of adulterers & or the chopping off of hands of thieves. The totality of Sharia is anathema to our constitution. Reject it as a package deal.The totality of Sharia is anathema to our constitution. Reject it as a package deal.”
As far as I know the constitution has nothing in it regarding what is criminally unlawful. The provisions that it does have regarding people that are accused of a crime, are procedural in nature and protective of the rights of the accuser.
What is considered a crime is defined mostly at the state level (there are some federal laws as well, but not the constitution).
Basically, what the constitution does is create a very basic framework for a government, AND forbids that government from infringing upon certain freedoms (abilities) that humans naturally have - such as speaking, and thinking. The constitution gives almost unlimited freedom to speak and think.
People also have the ability to act, but that is not as broadly protected by the constitution as speaking and thinking. In fact it only protects a few specific acts - possessing arms, having a house that is your “castle”, and perhaps a couple more.
It makes all the common sense in the world to not forbid the government from restricting how a person can act. You definitely don’t want to live in a society where anyone can do whatever the hell they please without limits. So they codified the old saying: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”.
In other words, you can think and say whatever you want, just don’t cause others physical harm.
So far so good, but they had a bit of an oversight when they stuck in the first amendment, the free EXERCISE of religion. (they probably weren’t thinking of Islam or other similar retrograde religions). Exercise means action, so basically they opened up “freedom of action” if it’s done in the name of religion. This could include actions that cause physical harm to others in the name of a religion. (like stoning).
I think we could fight islam much more effectively if the first amendment was changed to limit the exercise of religion to only acts that do not cause physical harm or damage to private property. This would immediately make Sharia law unconstitutional.
I’d say it’s already there. You cannot limit my practice of my religion in exercising your religion. Specifically, enacting a legal system, Sharia, violates my religious rights. Sharia by Muslim practice covers believers and non believers.