Presumably by the incorporation doctrine, applied to Amendment I, first clause.
Look, banning Islam is going to require a Federal constitutional amendment. That is true without question.
Work on it, by all means, but don't waste time on state or Federal legislation, because it's not going to work.
Nobody tried to “ban Islam”, rather they banned a theocratic legal and political system (Sharia law). How in the world could that conflict with the first amendment?
Please explain. This is not a free speach issue - it is about what constitutes the “law” that judges are interpreting.
This doesn't ban Islam. It bans the use of Sharia in court, which could be used to harm non-Muslims and women, which would violate the US Constitution's currently guaranteed equal protection.
But even if it were an amendment to the US Constitution, somehow a liberal judge would find a way to throw it out as unconstitutional. If you're putting it in the Constitution, that would mean it's unconstitutional right now, so the act of trying to put it into the Constitution is unconstitutional. Nice catch-22.
Where did you get that idea?
That's not what was happening though, was it?
They were banning the using of Sharia Law in the State, not Islam.
Or am I missing something?
So how did the Federal Government deal with the Mormons then, blocking Utah from becoming a state?
As I recall, no constitutional amendment was required in that instance.
Sharia is flat-out in violation of our Constitution as Sharia discriminates against non-Muslims. Only Muslim males have rights under Islamic law.
That judge should be smacked down, hard!
But they’re not banning Islam; they’re forbidding international or sharia laws from being considered [as precedent].