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 ...
"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."
It's a tad bit more complex than that.
Islam has to do with the delivery of the Koran to Allah's prophet ~ named Mohammad.
The First amendment deals with SPEECH and with RELIGIOUS SPEECH both.
There's a reason for that. It is because they can be different.
The Shariah Law does not recognize the validity of another law system. The First amendment is part of an alien law system.
So, you want to run back through that one with me ~ this case involved Shariah, not Islam.
Yep, time to invoke that Tenth Amendment.
I am sick of the federal government shoving its nose into the state’s business.
We’ve got to win in November, folks.
A great deal of life's insults and bothers are delegated to individuals in any system that uses Shariah. Murder is privatized. Family discipline is privatized. Your beliefs regarding the right of your neighbor's young daughters to walk the streets are strictly private and you may murder them to help your neighbor observe proper decorum in the family.
Does this mean that the courts can look to the laws of most nations that existed when the Constitution was written. Most of them specify that a child inherits his FATHER’S nationality ...
(1) 1st Amendment: "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion....", and
(2) 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
PERIOD. NO Federal court has jurisdiction over OK on this matter.
Thankfully, in parts of the country that the libs frown upon, if a muzzie offs his wife for some idiotic islamic reason, there’ll be boys waiting for him in their pickup trucks (you know...those trucks with the rifles hung over the back window).
It’ll be muzzie trophy time.
And know what? I want to be there to watch when those boys get their game.
Sorry but I think you are mistaken, but this was an Amendment, not a congressional passed law. Big difference. It was a State law. Your quote states, “Congress shall make no law”.
Need to remember something in all of this, This Constitution is is the framework whereby the People of the United States, through elected representatives, have established the delegated powers and limitations of the United States government with respect to the citizens, the states, and all those within the United States.
Hmmm...seems to me that 70% of Oklahoma people said this should be a change...not sure where a Denver judge gets off telling them they can’t.
The courts are using their ‘powers’ given to them by the people, to overrule the people...a confrontation is looming I fear.
If you consider Islam a religion, this is a debatable issue in the courts.
Islam, however, is a system of government and NOT a religion.
Currently, Islam infringes on religious and political freedom because our society and courts look at Islam as EXCLUSIVELY a religion.
Islam is a system of government, first and foremost, and it should be considered as such FIRST, and then as a religion second.
There is nothing in the Constitution that provides for Sharia law. Nothing.
This ruling is an end run around an Amendment.
We simply refuse to learn ANYTHING from history when it pertains to Islam. They are either at your throat, or under your heel. Never are they at the table with you.
Clinton appointee.
Google her.
Sharia Law calls for theocratic government.
The First Amendment calls for separation of church and state.
Ergo, this idiot judge’s opinion is unconstitutional.
We need to revolt against this kind of nonesense. This cries out for Civil Disobedience by individuals and the State of Oklahoma.
This individual needs to be removed from the bench. She attended undergraduate school overseas which may mean she is not American by birth. Only natural born Americans are fit to sit in judgment on Constitutionality issues.
His arse and those like need to be booted out now...I better stop there
disgusting...
Oklahoma may teach the political oligarchy, including the judiciary, what “Of the people, by the people, and for the people” means. This decision will bring to the fore the problem the courts are avoiding, that Sharia is inextricably part of a doctrine including religion, law, and government. No believer can honestly swear allegiance to our Constitution. That forces recognition of what it means to be a citizen. How the judiciary will unravel this will be interesting, and important, because citizens always have the power to remove judges. Seventy percent of our citizens cannot be denied. I'm guessing that Oklahoma is not an outlier on this issue.
Your mention of natural born Americans is at the core of the very legitimate eligibility issue so it is important to keep clear that our common-law, as cited in The Venus, 12 US 253 by Chief Justice Marshall, and the positive law, cited in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 leaves no doubt that a natural born citizen is “born on the soil of citizen parents.” That definition has never been amended and admits no other definition. A “born citizen of the US, the term used in Wong Kim Ark, can be born of alien parents, but on our soil, like Barack Obama. Wong Kim Ark was made a citizen, and not a natural born citizen. Justice Gray who wrote WKA cited the Minor holding for the definition of natural born citizenship. Article II specifies that the president be a “natural born citizen.” Neither Obama, McCain, Rubio, Jindal, nor Chester Arthur were natural born citizens.
Attending undergraduate school overseas doesn't mean the judge wasn't born here to citizen parents, but, I see your point; it raises the question. It is also true that someone born oversears or born and raised overseas, and even born to alien parents, after naturalization and residency, can become a judge - even a supreme court justice. The only position in our society requiring a natural born citizen is the presidency. Part of our law, Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), noted that a young girl, Marie Elg, born in New York to just-naturalized Swedish parents, removed to Sweden as a toddler, raised there, who chose to return to the U.S. at majority, after 14 years residance and reaching the age of 35, was elibible to the presidency. The reasoning is that being made a citizen by nature cannot be abrogated by law. Once a natural born citizen always a natural born citizen. But native-born citizens who live somewhere else for a designatied period, lose their citizenship, and must apply for naturalization should they wish to return.
There are only two classes of citizens, natural born and naturalized. The majority of our citizenry consists of natural born citizens. The U.S. is uniquely liberal in that requirement. England, for example, does not admit naturalized citizens to the parliament. Monarchs need the right blood.
The US Constitution provides for this, however we also have "Article Six of the United States Constitution" (also known as the Supremecy Clause) which states:
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States
This is the Constitution we have all swore to defend (to the death) to uphold. Or, do you think we get to cherry-pick only those sections we "like"? Again, all powers not relagated to the Federal Gov't are given to the states. However, no state is free to circumvent the US Constitution. Otherwise, we could have slavery in some states, gun bans in other states and only certain religions would be tolerated in other states.
I disagree: they have now said that religious law can in fact be used to determine US or state law. Its the same as saying that the Talmud can be used to decide laws. Or that a payday loan rate is too high because it violates sharia.
No....they did not get it right: there is nothing in the law that prevents the plaintiff from excercising or practicng sharia in his own circumstance. Now, however, anyone and everyone can be judged in light of sharia. Let ‘em try.
I agree that Islam is the enemy - in fact a lot of those points you gave are in a post I made not that long ago.
However, we are not free to circumvent the US Constitution when ‘it suits our needs’; for when we do, that same circumvention can be used against us. I’m unwilling to relinquish the ability to follow the law - as written.
I know full well that under Islam, you and I are both Dhimmi, will be forced to pay the Jizya, will be forbidden from worshipping in public, repairing or building our churches - and be abused.
However, the best way to weaken and pervert a society, is by flexing the rules of that society. A law that is flexed to suit a particular whim, is a law that can be flexed to oppress us at a later time.
This same Ammendment, if kept inflexible; prevents Sharia from taking over our lives, tomorrow.
You might just want to take a look at the Supremacy Clause.
Every state in the US, is covered by the US Constitution. This means that every state MUST abide by the US Constitution in all laws, treaties and contracts. For example, no state can say they do not allow free speech, or ban guns from private ownership.
Sources please.
While I agree a state can’t circumvent the US Constitution, the federal government cannot read stuff into the constitution that is not there!
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Clearly the intent of this amendment was to mitigate any design the federal government had on enlarging its powers through the “supremacy clause.” If the power was not enumerated in the Constitution and the States were not prohibited by the Constitution from exercising said power, then that power was reserved to the States.
Further, there is no basis for calling the OK law in this case unconstitutional. What part does it violate? It makes it clear that foreign or religious law (both of which are unconstitutional) are not to be used as a basis of legal decisions.
Am I missing something?
Well aware of it. OK is not violating the Constitution with this Amendment, any more than they would if they displayed a ten commandments plaque.
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.