Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Oklahoma ban on Sharia law ruled unconstitutional
AP via Claremore Daily Progress ^ | 1/10/2012 | AP

Posted on 01/10/2012 12:45:10 PM PST by Qbert

OKLAHOMA CITY — An amendment that would ban Oklahoma courts from considering international or Islamic law discriminates against religions and a Muslim community leader has the right to challenge its constitutionality, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.

The court in Denver upheld U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange’s order blocking implementation of the amendment shortly after it was approved by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters in November 2010.

Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, sued to block the law from taking effect, arguing that the Save Our State Amendment violated his First Amendment rights.

The amendment read, in part: “The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.”

(Excerpt) Read more at claremoreprogress.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: bansharia; donttreadonme; islam; islamofascism; judicialtyranny; kalbislam; nosharialaw; ruleoflaw; sharia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last

"An amendment that would ban Oklahoma courts from considering international or Islamic law discriminates against religions..."

Should make for some interesting cases when judges look to Sharia to help decide US law, and declare that stoning women is acceptable...

1 posted on 01/10/2012 12:45:15 PM PST by Qbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Qbert
So, there's a "jack" Moslem who complains that stopping use of Sharia would violate his First-Amendment rights.

What a doufous. Sharia law itself does not recognize First-Amendment rights!

2 posted on 01/10/2012 12:49:25 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

Clinton appointee. What a shock.


3 posted on 01/10/2012 12:51:04 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

So say a polygamy law could override the constitution and let them have 9 wives.
Or islam says men can have 4 wives, will all of this be legal I mean after all two turd pokers can have their sham marriage in certain states

so another law is not unconstitutional even though it threatens to override the constitution.

OK GOT IT

ARF

Votes or there lack of have consequences and letting certain people decide on who gets that judges seat brings us these idiotic decisions.


4 posted on 01/10/2012 12:52:56 PM PST by manc (Marriage is between one man and one woman.Trolls get a life, I HATE OUR BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicki_Miles-LaGrange

Miles-LaGrange was nominated by President William J. Clinton on September 22, 1994, to a seat on the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma vacated by Lee Roy West. She was confirmed by the United States Senate on October 7, 1994, and received her commission on November 28, 1994. She began her service as chief judge in 2008. Judge Miles-LaGrange’s preliminary ruling [4] enjoining amendment of the Oklahoma Constitution to prohibit the state’s courts from either “considering or using” international law or Islamic Sharia law has attracted considerable attention and has prompted one Oklahoma state legislator to urge Congress to impeach her [5].


5 posted on 01/10/2012 12:53:40 PM PST by Eccl 10:2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

Bizarro world. Just a few years ago, King Abdulla of Jordan sparked outrage by decreeing that men couldn’t kill their wives and daughters.


6 posted on 01/10/2012 12:54:31 PM PST by cripplecreek (Stand with courage or shut up and do as you're told.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

That is ironic.

Sharia law doesn’t recognize freedom of religion.

So, the freedom of religion clause will be used to enact a set of laws that forbid freedom of religion?

As has been pointed out so many times: the Constitution is not a suicide pact.


7 posted on 01/10/2012 12:55:31 PM PST by Brookhaven (Mitt Romney has been consistent since he changed his mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

Don’t elect Democrats.


8 posted on 01/10/2012 12:56:37 PM PST by Politics4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

You think American’s are free? Just try a passing referendum the elitists don’t like. Just try!


9 posted on 01/10/2012 12:56:58 PM PST by ransacked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
OKLAHOMA CITY — An amendment that would ban Oklahoma courts from considering international or Islamic law discriminates against religions and a Muslim community leader has the right to challenge its constitutionality, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.

Fine. Pass a law against considering any laws or rules other than Oklahoma or United States Federal laws in Oklahoma courts. It's probably a better set of standards anyways, and it accomplishes the same purpose.

10 posted on 01/10/2012 12:57:59 PM PST by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
An amendment that would ban Oklahoma courts from considering international or Islamic law discriminates against religions and a Muslim community leader has the right to challenge its constitutionality, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.

We have many folks working to purge US law of the Ten Commandments, with others trying to replace the Ten Commandments with Sharia Law. I thought that religious laws were illegal.

We are already discriminating against our own Ten Commandments and "In God We Trust." Now we welcome Sharia Law?

11 posted on 01/10/2012 12:59:31 PM PST by olezip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

I am curious what gyrations these “judges” will go through to avoid giving equal treatment to the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, the Latin church’s modern canon law, or the Talmud now that they’ve ruled that Muslim religious law can be considered.

After all, we know that “liberals” “tolerance” is actually hatred of the Gospel (and to a lesser extent the Torah), so they don’t really mean that courts should be allowed to consider religious law.


12 posted on 01/10/2012 12:59:31 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven

"So, the freedom of religion clause will be used to enact a set of laws that forbid freedom of religion?"

Shameful. There is no precedent for this sort of thing (and yet I bet they could get five votes in SCOTUS on this).

13 posted on 01/10/2012 1:00:09 PM PST by Qbert ("The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry" - William F. Buckley, Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Source

It's right there, by making a law prohibiting a religous law, they have "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The court did it's job. I don't like it; but they made the correct decision.

14 posted on 01/10/2012 1:01:39 PM PST by Hodar ( Who needs laws; when this FEELS so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Politics4US

It’s just that simple. SHEESH!


15 posted on 01/10/2012 1:03:09 PM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

” In declining states the leadership intuitively chose the most harmful course of action..”- A Great Historian 1888


16 posted on 01/10/2012 1:04:17 PM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
As an example, if two persons wish to enter into a contract where one is borrowing money from an other. It could be stipulated in the contract that no pigs or dogs will be allowed in “X” business and you man not charge interest. That would be a legal contract.

If the person lending the money demands you stop allowing pigs or dogs in building “X” and the probation isn't in the contract and is legal in the State, Community then the Mussie who loaned you the money can't make an additional demand.

17 posted on 01/10/2012 1:06:16 PM PST by WellyP (REAL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
The Constitution trumps Sharia Law.

If someone tries to impose an aspect of Sharia law that contradicts the Constitution, the Constitution wins via the Supremacy clause.

-PJ

18 posted on 01/10/2012 1:07:20 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
LazamaLaw states that I may brutally kill any liberal I see.

If they attempt to stop me from following my own law, they are violating my 1st Amendment rights.

19 posted on 01/10/2012 1:07:51 PM PST by Lazamataz (Every single decision Obama makes is to harm America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
No actually: the court's ruling was in respect of an establishment of religion, and even worse putting Shari'a over the Constitution.

Back when the Constitution was written though, the word "religion" did not include Mohammedanism; when Washington said that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to the newly-founded US government, and when John Adams said the US Constitution was meant "only for a moral and religious people", guess what they were talking about?
20 posted on 01/10/2012 1:09:38 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson