Posted on 06/23/2011 7:59:13 AM PDT by LSUfan
Texas courts would be prohibited from applying foreign laws – such as Islamic Sharia law – when they conflict with the rights guaranteed by the U.S. and Texas constitutions, if Reps. Leo Berman (R-Tyler) and Harvey Hilderbran (R-Kerrville) have their way.
Islamic Sharia law governs both societal matters such as marriage, divorce, and business relations and matters that US law considers personal such as hygiene and diet.
The bill only blocks foreign law when it violates a law or the constitution of this state. Specifically his amendment states:
”… A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a civil right or a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution or a statute of this state…
(Excerpt) Read more at lonestarreport.org ...
Texas does it right!
It needs to go further—no foreign law of any kind is to be considered for any purpose when deciding legal matters in the US.
I’m so proud to be a naturalized Texan!
Our communists black Muslim will see that in Texas is overturned. Never underestimate a communists Muslim.
This is the purity test for Perry if the legislature passes this.
I think our state, Madiganistan, with its capitol city of Rahmabad, will soon be embracing Shari’a Law. As long as there are faithful followers of the Holy Combine, it is darned-near like living under Shari’a Law and a group of errant Imams.
It’s certainly one of the purity tests. He can make sure it gets voted on.
Sure, that's brilliant. That's exactly what we should be doing in an era of double-digit unemployment, a cratering dollar and anemic economic growth - erecting even more barriers to international trade.
Do I need the sarcasm tag?
You and me both. Talked to a fellow California refugee yesterday, and it was amazing the number of similar observations we'd both made, which led us to flee to Texas.
So you defected from the left coast? I defected from the other left coast - from the People’s republic of Connecticut back in 1990. I guess we can’t run for President of Texas (unless we use the same COLB manufacturer zippy uses LOL!!)
Heh....well, my G-G-Grandfather was born here, just prior to Texas statehood, so maybe I can make a Natural Born claim.
Hell, it would be as good as the one Bozo's made ;-)
Good for you. Yeehaw.
Our government is ignoring all its other laws.
Why would I expect them to treat this one any differently?
“..well, my G-G-Grandfather was born here, just prior to Texas statehood,”
1848 GGF +~30 (1878 GF) + ~30 (1908 F) + ~30 (1938 YOU). My guess is you are at least 73 years old. My GGGF arrived in TX in 1850 from Germany. It’s one of your descendents’ fault that you weren’t here at birth so in my official capacity as fifth generation native Texan, I will bestow upon you honorary NATIVE TEXAN. How’s that?
Heh...no. I'm 58. My genealogy looks something like this...
Me 1953
Dad 1930
Granddad 1906
G-Granddad 1880
G-G-Granddad 1844
It’s one of your descendents’ fault that you weren’t here at birth...
Well, G-G-Grandma and the kids had to scoot to Mississippi for some reason, right around 1845 or so. Her husband was a soldier who was being kept on the move by the Army at that time.
so in my official capacity as fifth generation native Texan, I will bestow upon you honorary NATIVE TEXAN. How’s that?
Why, thank you! We actually have a certificate from Texas First Families, indicating that we're descended from someone "Who Resided in Texas or Served The Republic of Texas before February 19, 1846 when the Republic of Texas Officially Became The State of Texas."
My dad sent it to me right after we moved here in 2006. Discovering that connection to the state helped me to feel that I sort of belonged here. I will say, that it didn't take me long to feel right at home.
. . .no foreign law of any kind is to be considered for any purpose when deciding legal matters in the US.
Really, not common law, which pre-existed the American republic, and was taken for granted by the Founders, so that concepts from it like writs of habeas corpus are mentioned in the Constitution, but could be argued to be British?
How about foreign laws that bear on contractual agreements that have force both in the U.S. and another country?
In cases where disputes within churches with established canon law traditions come before the courts, U.S. courts have traditionally shown deference to canon law to some degree. Do you think this is wrong? Doing otherwise would arguably violate the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment.
And, I suppose you think the several states should not ever adopt laws that permit parties to a dispute to select a mutually agreeable binding arbiter, unless those laws forbid the arbiter from applying some broad class of standards that could be construed as foreign law (e.g. rabbinic law, Orthodox or Latin canon law, . . .).
There should be no "if".
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.