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 ...
As does the President who thinks HE can suspend (or ignore) any law he doesn’t approve of or agree with. I trust that will be communicated to him this November.
“These judges who think they can suspend anything they don’t like need to be told to go pound sand.”
No, you’re not an idiot. The article was very confusing and the headline was even more misleading. I don’t know what they teach the kids in J-School now, but it sure isn’t how to write an article!
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.None of the judges involved had any legal basis for making any such ruling, and should be removed from the bench.
>I do have one question - using my analogy to the Presbyterian Church (USA); the PC-USA has a written constitution, consisting of the Book of Order and the Book of Confessions. Where is Sharia law written down? To the best of my knowledge, there is no definitive compilation of Sharia law, which would make for difficulties if disputes are taken to the US legal system.<
I don’t know of a “code” book for sharia.
How can the 10th circuit lend any credibility to people who want to impose this BS system on the rest of the world?
Also, the last time I looked, the Presbyterian Church wasn’t trying to force its will on the rest of the world and neither are Christians, Jews or Catholics.
Christians and Jews are vilified while rock worshippers gain more legal protection by the day.
This is unbelievable.
>> So is the Tenth Circuit now saying its okay to stone women to death who are victims of rape?
No it’s not, but that’s a potential interpretation by opportunists and idiots.
This effort to ban Sharia was a patently stupid idea.
Uphold the Constitution with passion, and there’s no Sharia problem.
If you want to live by Sharia~~~you will allow to happen!
Since when does the American spirit allow this to happen??
We are a country based on rugged Individualism!!!
Remember~wake UP!! No Sharia~~~we are AMERICANS!!!
If you want to live by Sharia~~~you will allow to happen!
Since when does the American spirit allow this to happen??
We are a country based on rugged Individualism!!!
Remember~wake UP!! No Sharia~~~we are AMERICANS!!!
Bingo, we have a winner.
This is a very good indicator of what has gone wrong in this country. The only right the Federal Government has to tell a state what to do is if it pertains to defense of the country. The states should simply tell the feds that they don't recognize their authority according to the constitution and ignore them.
Democrats could care less about obeying laws.
Democrats/Obama violate laws routinely.
So why should anyone obey their rulings/laws?
I do believe it is property laws and trust law and other civil law that will be the subject of the court’s jurisdiction not the religious teachings of the Presbyterian Church. How those questions of civil law are decided usually does hinge on the internal heirarchal structure of the church. Which can be very confusing to many judges if the recent TEC cases are any indication.
“No... the law prevents OTHER laws — religious or otherwise — that conflict with the U.S. Constitution from being given consideration.”
You don’t need to pass a law to do that. The Constitution is already “the supreme law of the land.”
Here’s what the Court said (from the article):
The court ruled that, for starters, the law discriminated on the basis of religion. Furthermore, the state failed to articulate any sort of plausible justification for the law. Wrote Matheson:
Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma.
The plaintiff in the case, Muneer Awad, the executive director for the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, sued over the law, arguing that the law denies him rights that are available to people of other religions. For instance, according to the Denver Post, Awad said his will instructs a judge to look to Islamic precepts in situations where Awad’s wishes aren’t clear. The initiative, Awad said, would prevent a judge from doing that, even though the judge could do that for people who are Christian or Jewish.”
Seems quite a sensible ruling when you understand their thinking.
There is a need of new system to allow voters to elect judges, and recall those that does not represent the views of the majority.
“There is a need of new system to allow voters to elect judges, and recall those that does not represent the views of the majority.”
We elect local judges here in Florida. The trouble with this is that there is zero information on the judges or their background. They’ve managed to keep their records out of the picture and won’t make position statements.
It provides a mechanism to replace judges so it beats the lifetime appointment, but its not perfect.
time for OK to take it to the Supreme Court.
You are correct - property is at the heart of the civil cases. However, the “rules and regulations” of the Presbyterian Church (USA) will need to be considered by the civil courts when rendering the decisions.
My point is that Sharia law has no set corpus of law. It is based on the Koran and on the Hadith (sayings and teachings of Mohammed). Certainly, there is no general agreement on the Hadith.
If we cannot agree on what the law is and what needs to be applied to the case under dispute, then the US Court system will be unable to adjudicate the case.
If Disputant A claims that (unwritten) Sharia law says X, and Disputant B claimes that (unwritten) Sharia law says Y and that X is not genuine, and both parties produce scholars supportihg their positions, then the US Court system cannot render a verdict.
And if they passed an amendment banning canon law would THAT be ok?
‘Cause Americans are the good guys who obey the law! LOL!
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.