thank you!
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 ...
Europe is a different matter. The English Constitution isn't written down and can be changed by Parliament. That can't happen here.
This really is a big to-do over nothing.
It’s a legislative/executive loophole of the courts
gone haywire. Courts should interprete individual
cases or send back what they do not like for
reevaluation. They should not be general like this and vague.
A major corruption case of judges and cops should
warrant a call up of the militia or a volunteer counter
law enforcement volunteer corp seceding from obedience to such rulings.
Keep these judges in power but away from effectiveness.
It’s a legislative/executive loophole of the courts
gone haywire. Courts should interprete individual
cases or send back what they do not like for
reevaluation. They should not be general like this and vague.
A major corruption case of judges and cops should
warrant a call up of the militia or a volunteer counter
law enforcement volunteer corp seceding from obedience to such rulings.
Keep these judges in power but away from effectiveness.
I remember when supreme court Brewer said the courts should not just look at the Constitution but at international laws as well and everyone got upset as they should only look at the Constitution - Scalia (sp) noted should we look at muslim laws for gay rights?
We all said the courts should only look at the Constitution.
Either this article is poorly written on what happened or I don’t see the problem.
“This really is a big to-do over nothing.”
Okay. What about civil law? Contract law determines its own parameters on how civil courts rule - such law is constantly in flux. I read recently that a plaintiff wanted to settle his contract dispute via Sharia law. Didn’t see any follow-up, but that is a definite camel-humper nose in the tent.
With due respect, folks like you often can’t see the slow insidious movements that our Republic can’t recognize until it’s too late to turn the tide. Think liberalism/socialism encroachment and how long they have been inching along to this point. If you need further proof, look at Europe and their extreme political correctness towards all things Islam, not mention bankrupt well-fare states that could possibly make 2008 look like a boom market.
Just stand by...we may not have the camel nose as yet, but definitely smelling the breath...
“It’s time the judiciary and lawmakers started reading the constitution again.”
And when exactly will that happen? I am so disgusted with the path we are on that at the age of 64 it doesn’t much matter if I see 65. God forbide me, but we are so screwed.
OK, sorry, I didn’t see that. It happens to all of us at one time or another. FRegards!
OK, sorry, I didn’t see that. It happens to all of us at one time or another. FRegards!
Oklahomans, or the people of any state, should now draft new amending language mandating the incorporation of some sort of ecclesiastic court adjudication, sighting this very ruling -- right in the bill itself! This would absolutely force a court, through the evaluation of the law AS WRITTEN, to either deny the previous ruling or else accept a Christian alternative.
As usual, the argument is the thing.
I don’t understand the court’s reasoning. They say the law violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
Leaving aside the not-insignificant fact that this law was not made by the Congress, but rather by the OK legislature, exactly which religion is established by the law? Christianity? Judaism? Hinduism? Buddhism? Obviously no religion is established by this law.
So maybe the court’s problem is really with the Free Exercise clause:
“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
If so, then they are equating the practice of sharia with the free exercise of Islam. And that would be a real can of worms to open.
That said, judges can't just change it willy-nilly. The Colorado Constitution says our common law is as it existed in England at the time of the settlement of America and as it subsequently developed in America. Judges are very careful to apply the concepts of contract law consistently and fairly because trillions of dollars in transactions and the stability of the economy depend on them. The appellate courts enforce the rules when a trial judge gets it wrong. The idea of a judge adopting Sharia, say, the prohibition on charging interest, is absurd.
That said, we do have freedom of contract. If two people want their contract to be government by certain tenets of Sharia, they are free to do so as long as what they are doing doesn't violate a law or public policy of the state. I've seen contracts where people agree to have any dispute settled by certain Christian tenets.
Also, the extent to which Muslims govern their religious affairs by Sharia is their own business, again so long as no law or policy is violated. The Catholics govern themselves by their canon law. Many Protestant denominations have their own laws and even courts.
People get very exercised about this, but there is no danger of America being governed by Sharia law.
No problem.
LOL, not your fault that I’m the idiot :-)
And you seriously think that’s a possibility?
I know. He is pandering. It’s a nonstarter and will never happen. Take a look at the history of federal judicial impeachment.
I haven't even read it yet, but I'm quite sure you can't get that from it.
10th Circuit: Amendment Banning Sharia Law is Not OK
_______________________________________
Banishment works for me...
Should be OK with everyone else
Blackstone is rolling over in his grave
along with Madison and Co...
Sharia is not a “specific group or people”; it is a codified set of religious laws. The Constitution very specifically allows and demands that it not be instituted.
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.