Posted on 01/10/2012 1:07:30 PM PST by AtlasStalled
Sometimes voters get behind an idea, and we think to ourselves, why? Why are they even bothering when that idea, were it to become law, would be struck down as unconstitutional faster than we can utter temporary restraining order?
We smugly revisited that thought on Tuesday upon hearing that the Denver-based 10th Circuit had upheld a lower-court ruling keeping an amendment to the Oklahoma constitution from becoming law.
The amendment, overwhelmingly approved by Oklahoma voters last year, prevents judges from basing rulings on international law and specifically mentions Islamic law, often known as Shariah law.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
What was the justfication?
I’m sorry, but I’m having trouble figuring this out. Courts can declare laws unconstitutional, i.e. the constitution says A and perhaps the law says !A (not-A), so the constitution takes precedence.
Now, a constitutional amendment is an addition to the constitution, yes? It becomes a literal PART of the constitution?
How can a court declare something that is literally a part of the constitution unconstitutional?
OK should become a non-sharia “sanctuary” state.
Why not? The Constitution says judges may remain as long as they remain on good behavior. I've long said that "good behavior" means preserving, protecting, and defending the U. S. Constitution and if any federal judge is found to have clearly and repeatedly ignored or wrested the text or best original good-faith understanding of the Constitution, he is NOT on good behavior and may be impeached.
SCOTUS judges are appointed as long as they are on “good behavior.” As far as I and many others are concerned, repeatedly ignoring or changing the Constitution from the bench is NOT good behavior and should subject the justice/judge to impeachment
The brazenness and idiocy aside, you may be correct. Plus, to date, there have been no instances in OK which could have caused this suit. OK was correct, imho, but probably premature. They were asking the court to rule on a hypothetical.
We must remain on alert, however. The CAIR types are looking for a tent, under which they can slip their camel's nose....under the guise of political correctness, victimhood, religious persecution, blah, blah, blah.... They're exploiting the wonderful features of our constitution and using them against us and it pisses me off !
Right, except here, the U.S. Constitution is written down and can be changed by SCOTUS on a whim.
If I tried to impose the “laws” of the Holy Christian Bible, the 10th Circuit would run me out of town on a rail.
Or how about I join a group and we pass a law that we are exempt from State & Federal taxation? That would go over well with the 10th circuit.
Sorry Muslim bozos, but you are bound by the laws of the land. We are a nation of laws and as long as you are under US jurisdiction, you are bound by those laws. A state has every right to ban the laws of one man as interpreted by the general public who have no legal authority to self-governing outside of their state & local laws.
The free exercise of Islam simply does not allow Muslims to superceded federal, state, County, Parish, City, and Township laws with made up laws of their own.
Someone please explain to me how America can have two separate laws, two separate ideologies and they’ll never clash nor conflict? Please discuss, this is lame. Shar’ia law should never even be taken into consideration, ever.
The 10th circuit just made itself legally null and void on this issue.
OK, now think about it in practical terms. How does this actually happen.
I am as frustrated as you when activist judges make up law. But we are not talking here about a Roe v. Wade or Miranda. We are talking about throwing over our legal system based on the Constitution and English Common Law for a completely different legal system. Not gonna happen.
It’s called “under rule” (as opposed to “overrule”). The state and its Supreme Court “under-rules” the federal courts essentially nullifying its decision and continue with the amendment as state law.
No, but the Leftists ("progressives") have learned to bide their time and chip away slowly. Not all at once. But if some major & catastrophic political/cultural were to occur, we might be looking at a different story there too.
“How is this not tyranny?”
Because it IS tyranny.
Here's yer burka. Now get back in line.
I seek the same answer. Prayer helps.
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.