Last I heard, she wasn't doing so well.
Posted on 10/09/2007 1:35:40 PM PDT by camerakid400
Would anti-Sharia legislation be unconstitutional? A constitutent of Congressman Mel Watt (D-NC) sent him this message on July 26, 2007:
To the Honorable Representative of the State of North Carolina: In order to assure the protection of the American People and the preservation of our Constitution, I think at this point in American history it would be a good idea to introduce legislation like the following:
"In no instance shall the practice of Islamic Sharia law be established or permitted within any state or territory under the jurisdiction of the United States of America."
Thank you.
Watt sent back this response, dated September 14, 2007:
Thank you for your email about the establishment and practice of Islamic Sharia law in the United States. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religious principles. Therefore, I believe that the language proposed in your email would be unconstitutional and I would not support it.
I appreciate your input on this issue. If I or my staff can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, Melvin L. Watt
1. Several elements of Sharia clearly would violate Constitutional principles, including the denial of the freedom of conscience and the imposition of dhimmi status on non-Muslims would infringe upon the free exercise of religion. Of course, I'm sure Watt has no idea that those things are elements of Sharia, but they do point up a contradiction: can the imposition of Sharia not be resisted because it is religious, even though it would infringe upon the religious freedom of others?
2. The outlawing of polygamy, in the context of a restriction of Mormon practice, establishes a precedent indicating that Constitutional religious freedom is not absolute, and perhaps providing a framework by which the aspects of Sharia that do contradict Constitutional principles could be outlawed.
3. The question was about the establishing of Islamic Sharia law in any state or territory of the U.S. Watt is now on record as believing that it cannot be opposed. Is he then willing to see the stoning of adulterers and the amputation of thieves' hands in Islamic enclaves in the U.S., in the name of freedom of religion?
I suppose this genius hasn’t figured out that our Constitution would be REPLACED with Sharia Law.
Liberalism is a mental disorder. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, Congressman!!
IMO, there needs to be a campaign to expose and to vote these traitors and dangerous morons out of the Congress. These human debris have our founding fathers turning in their graves.
I'm making a bit of a stretch, but the Weimar Constitution contained Article 48 which stated that the constitution would be suspended if the head of state declared an emergency. Well, Hitler became German Chancellor through legal (though unsavory) electoral means. He then declared an emergency, suspended the constitution and became a dictator.
If our First Amendment means we must be prepared to accept Sharia Law, then it seems that we have our own Article 48. Needless to say, my interpretation of the matter differs from the Democratic congressman from North Carolina.
Then I think that he can’t represent US citizens in Congress thus should resign and head to Sharia land.
Dear Congressman, I am a Catholic. Can I pray in school?
Dear Catholic. F*@K NO! You Communion wafer breathed bigots trample the Constitution!
Mel Watt is an absolute dingbat. He probably has no idea what “Sharia law” means.
During the debate on the Marriage Amendment in MA. The Senate President offered this gem; “we can’t allow the Catholic Church to act like a Theocracy.”
“The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religious principles.”
Right. And Sharia law makes it illegal to practice any religion but Islam.
Who elected this idiot?
Love that 1st Amendment.
And it’s use to get fellow-travelers, useful idiots and even outright
traitors to speak “on the record”. And even reveal they are perfidious
serpents disguised as American humanoids.
Now Watt is on the record.
I only hope he eventually rues the day he was exposed as an ally of
The Islamics.
And that he’s made to pay.
By his constiuents, not by Jihadis In America under their
triumphant banner of The American Caliphate.
Mel’s response: Yes I do, its like Megan’s law or something. Who is Sharia? Is she fine?
I would call your congressional representative an idiot, but that would be polite.
What is it that he does not understand about the word "law" in the term "Sharia law".
You need to write back to him and when you do:
1. Carefully quote his statement that I quoted above.
2. Then remind him that: "Sharia law" is a system of Islamic jurisprudence, with its own terms and structure, just as our legal system is a system of jurisprudence with its own structure.
3. Ask him if, based on his understanding of the purpose of our "freedom of religion": does he believe that fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews have a right to separate themselves from our system of jurisprudence or to impose a strictly "Christian" or "Jewish" form of jurisprudence anywhere in America?
Wait for his answer. If he answers that neither a Christian fundamentalist nor an Orthodox Jewish system of jurisprudence (law) would be permissible in the U.S., even with our "freedom of religion", then write him again to ask : "why is he opposed to making it clear, constitutionally, that the term "religious freedom" does NOT support Islamic Sharia law as a form of jurisprudence in the United States?"
This 12th District was cut out and follows an interstate to give the idiots a seat.
Check out the map of this one, NC #12th
http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/pdf/congdist/NC12_110.pdf
Gerrymandering +
It seems to me to be a stupid question and a moot point. Your Constitution precludes the practise of Sharia law, for the reasons you have already pointed out.
For the Sharia law to be in place, your Constitution would have to be displaced. Your Second Amendment makes that unlikely to happen peaceably.
So asking one of your gormless Congressmen to pass a law that achieves nothing more than your Constitution already provides for seems like a silly waste of his time. And his answer was perfectly correct: passing a law prohibiting Sharia law *would* cross an unacceptable line of the State meddling in religious affairs.
*DieHard*
LOL!
Have you sent it to any Republicans? What was their reply?
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.