Posted on 12/14/2016 7:54:20 AM PST by SeekAndFind
With the massive influx of Muslims immigrating to the United States, more and more state and local courts face the introduction of principles of Sharia law in their courtroom, with the result that some states are taking action to ensure that the Constitution continues to be the law of the land.
Alabama has become the most recent state to prohibit consideration of foreign or religious law that might violate the constitutional rights of its citizens.
The states have addressed the issue using various methods including ballot measure, constitutional amendment or legislation. In November, Alabama voters passed The American and Alabama Laws for Alabama Courts Amendment for inclusion in the state Constitution by an overwhelming margin of 72 percent to 28 percent.
Alabama joined six other states with similar foreign law bans, including Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee.
Such grassroot bans have drawn severe criticism from Muslim groups, specifically the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), claiming they are discriminatory and Islamophobic.
According to its drafter, Birmingham attorney Eric Johnston, the Alabama amendment does not create any new law nor undermine the religious rights of Muslims, but rather requires judges to consider the religious freedom amendment that has long been a part of existing Alabama law.
No ones constitutional rights are affected by it. Its a reminder to the judges that we need to stick to Alabama laws and public policy.
A previous ballot measure specifically prohibiting judges from relying on Islamic Sharia law failed in 2012. The new measure carefully avoided using the words Islamic and Sharia.
Oklahoma voters approved a similar ban using the word Sharia in 2010, which was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and found unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.
A similar Missouri law was vetoed by Gov. Jay Nixon citing concerns of a possible impact on foreign adoptions, opening the way for a revised bill to appear on the Missouri ballot in the near future.
Other states considering similar bans include Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming. Legislation reintroducing the bans with reworded language excluding the use of the word Sharia may be forthcoming in Missouri and Oklahoma.
A ban on sharia law is legislation that would ban the application or implementation of Islamic law (sharia) in courts in any jurisdiction. In the United States, as of 2014 seven states have "banned Sharia law", or passed some kind of ballot measure that "prohibits the states courts from considering foreign, international or religious law."
Outside of the US, sharia has become a political issue in several non-Muslim majority countries, with a petition to ban Sharia councils circulated in the United Kingdom.
That’ll show ‘em.
- Roll Tide -
Yes. More. Faster.
Who gives a f#ck what CAIR thinks? Just DO it.
Why is this even necessary? A law or ruling either follows the constitution, or doesn’t, in which case it is invalid.
They should add ‘tribal law’ to the legislation.
I heard that’s how sharia seeped into Canadian law, as tribal law.
Every state needs to ban Sharia, it is completely incompatible with our laws and customs.
Islam is here to supplant our laws and customs.
Islam has always been a war plan for world domination.
They are commanded by their prophet to implement sharia and subject everyone to it, by any means necessary.
How could sharia law ever come up, or be applied in any official setting when it hasn't been passed by the legislature, signed by the governor and codified?
You have to be careful of their true intentions with these, too.
One of their tactics is to “repeal to a new position”.
You start with a current law, A. You WANT TO go to C but you know the people would never vote for it...
So you pass law B. B is the OPPOSITE of C.
Then they file suit against B that goes to a judge for interpretation.
Liberal judge says B is ‘unconstitutional’, so the OPPOSITE of B must be true, or C.
Notice they didn't ‘repeal’ the law and go BACK TO A. They ‘repealed to a new position’ C, which is what they wanted all along.
They went from A to C via the court, not the legislature.
They did this with Gays in the Military. They instituted “Don't Ask Don't Tell” (which some might argue was the policy all along) and then took DADT to court and ‘repealed’ it- to go to a whole new position: Open Gays in the military.
They did the same thing with Gay Marriage. They passed a poorly written law banning it, then repealed that - so the opposite became law: Gay Marriage must now be allowed in every State.
WATCH FOR THEM TO TRY THIS WITH SHARIA LAW!
They pass a law saying it is illegal, declare that law ‘unconstitutional and ‘repeal’ it to say Sharia must be legal.
guess this means the Amish can’t “shun” anymore. /s
Why not all 50?
It really isn't but it looks good to the voters.
Ban Sharia law and Islam.
The United States Constitution already bans sharia law.
Needs to happen now sooner rather than later.
This is rediculous, let’s say I make up a law unto myself that says I can rob banks and then I do and get caught. The laws I created don’t mean squat. We don’t have to ban a foreing legal system. I think by banning it they will infact legitimize it.
No additional law is needed. The laws of the state and country are in effect. shitaria laws contradict those laws, and are therefore invalid.
Anyone who comes here promoting shitaria is not eligible to be a citizen or to stay, since shitaria promotes the violent overthrow of our government.
Exactly right. That seems to me to be a core question.
Although it would seem appropriate for a court to recognize Sharia law if such is an express term in a contract between private parties, such term has no bearing on other parties. To allow a religious law to somehow gain a foothold as a "common commercial practice" and thus applicable to all is, at the least, an affront to the local legislature.
Why is this even necessary? A law or ruling either follows the constitution, or doesnt, in which case it is invalid.
****************
Because we have rats in the Supreme Court that entertain foreign law in their decisions. They should be impeached.
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.