Well.... here's a photo of a party just prior to the Dem Convention, in a basement at PMSNBC. Apparently their only crime was that Chris Matthews ID'd them as Martians.
Posted on 09/06/2012 12:13:04 PM PDT by Impala64ssa
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) blasted Republicans for including a plank in their convention platform targeting Shariah law in an interview with Mother Jones Wednesday, blasting the language as "an expression of bigotry."
"There has never been any legislation offered to establish Shariah law — not at the federal level, not at the state level. There's not been a municipal ordinance opposing this, there's not been anything," said Ellison, the nation's first Muslim member of Congress.
The Republican platform included language demanding "no use of foreign law by U.S. courts in interpreting our Constitution and laws."
"Nor should foreign sources of law be used in State courts; adjudication of criminal or civil matters," the platform continues in a section championed by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who has been outspoken in his concern that the moral code of Islam could be playing a greater role in the American justice system.
Ellison blasted Republicans as "the party of hate" for having "demonstrated hatred towards Muslims" in adopting the language.
"I'm sad that they have decided to go into this dark, ugly place where they see the whole world as their enemy," Ellison said. "And this is the thing: I don't mind debating taxes and spending; we probably should. But they're the party that is basically a bigoted party and they have now officially declared themselves against a whole segment of the American population, because if we said we were going to put a plank opposing Jewish law, or Catholic canon, it would be an outrage. This is also an outrage. But you know, it'll pass."
Platform language has taken an increasingly prominent role at the conventions, with both political parties accusing the other side of adopting inappropriate language.
Democrats amended their party platform Wednesday afternoon to reinsert language supporting Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, with multiple reports saying the president personally intervened to have the language reinstated after criticism from Republicans. But the floor vote was contentious, with Convention Chairman and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa needing three tries at a voice-vote before declaring in favor of the changes.
Republicans also ripped Democrats from excluding mention of God from their political platform; that language was also reinserted during the floor vote.
Well.... here's a photo of a party just prior to the Dem Convention, in a basement at PMSNBC. Apparently their only crime was that Chris Matthews ID'd them as Martians.
There is something of a legal paradox here.
To start with, the US along with other western nations has long recognized the authority of ecclesiastical courts over their followers who both accept, without coercion, the authority of those courts, *and* whose ruling are not in conflict with secular law. Likewise, secular courts reserve the right to take appeals from ecclesiastical courts when any party before those courts objects to the outcome as unjust.
That is, they are wholly voluntary from beginning to end.
However, this being said, the most serious threat being considered by this law is not religious, but the secular law of other nations.
No fewer than two justices of the Supreme Court of the United States have come out to say that the federal judiciary *should* feel free to consult foreign legal cases before decided US law, *as long* as their decision can be justified with US legal precedent.
Now wait a damn minute!
This is the *real* reason the Republicans included in their platform: “No use of foreign law by U.S. courts in interpreting our Constitution and laws.” As far as they are concerned, if there is no judicial precedent in the US for a judge to reach their decision, they either have to use their own logic to develop it, or state that it is outside of their authority.
Importantly, this puts a lot of efforts at internationalism to the blocks. There will be NO “gray area” between US and international law. It will either be one or the other.
Now this being said, what about Sharia law?
It fails in several of the tests applied to other ecclesiastical laws.
1) It is not free of coercion.
2) Its rulings are *mostly* in conflict with secular law.
3) It veils its activities in secrecy, often with whimsical decisions, and maintains no orderly record that could be used in an appeal to a secular court. It is not objective in any way, nor is there equality before the law.
4) It uses repugnant axioms to reach judgments, axioms that no secular court would agree to.
As such, it fails as a legal system.
Yes, but there is always a silver lining.
For instance: There were a lot of happy 9 year old boys who could finally sleep at night, after Muhammmmmmm....mmmmmmm....ed married the little girl.
So says an Islamic supremacist.
“There has never been any legislation offered to establish Shariah law — not at the federal level, not at the state level. There’s not been a municipal ordinance opposing this, there’s not been anything,”
Of course Keith can’t say the same thing for all of the countries in Europe that have a higher Muslim population than we do, since Shariah law has been proposed in ALL of those countries. He just wants us stupid infidels to think that it won’t happen here.
Blacks join Islam because it provides a cover for their own racism.
Islam is the religion of hate and every black man who joins is filled with hate for the white man.
Ellison is himself eaten up with racism and hate, for a bigot like him to call republicans hateful would normally be humorous, but coming from this idiot it is the height of idiocy.
By the way Ellison and other Black Islamics are not Islamic just a pack of hateful racist a-holes usinf Islam for their own purposes.They don’t really believe in that Allah BS they spout.
He lies, how do I know? he’s a Muslim radical.
Article VI:
“This Constitution . . . Laws, . . . Treaties . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby . . . “
‘Nuff said.
Blacks are more racist than Whites
~ Larry Elder, "The Ten Things You Can't Say In America"
This explaination makes a lot of sense. Thanx!
Keith Ellison is a Muslim (he took his congressional oath with his hand on the Koran) and a rabid leftist. His predictably terming opposition to any use of ‘foreign law’ stated in the Republican platform as ‘hate’ is the usual leftist hot air. The guy is a race-obsessed loon.
A Fluken raghead just called me a bigot! Awesome! I’m so honored that a raghead hates me because the feeling is mutual. I’m one of those who hasn’t forgotten about 9-11-01 and has gone back to being obsessed with, “What’s in it for me?”.
Democrats are evil morons. Look no further for proof than idiots like Ellis.
Mexican's are just as bad they're just not as vocal about it.
The United States was founded on that principle:
Others, again, more rationally, define a republic to signify only a government, in which all men, rich and poor, magistrates and subjects, officers and people, masters and servants, the first citizen and the last, are equally subject to the laws. This, indeed, appears to be the true and only true definition of a republic. - John Adams
The idea that the Muslims would have their own laws, the Christians, their own, the Jews their own, etc. is anti-republican.
Yes, but the schemer justices were very precise that their decisions would only be based on US law and precedent. But in reaching those decisions, they would examine foreign legal decisions.
Yes, it’s underhanded. But remember that these justices can only be removed by impeachment and conviction. So if they can muster 5 votes to undermine the constitution (like Roe v. Wade), they can.
But they can be checked by congress ahead of time, since they have the constitutional authority to determine how the judiciary conduct their business.
So if congress passes a law forbidding federal judges from doing this, it can to a great extent forbid them from acting like weasels in this case.
“Rep. Ellison: GOP ‘basically a bigoted party’”
If being anti-Islam makes me a “bigot”, so be it.
Islam is incompatible with Western freedom and with all other bona fide religions in the world (I do NOT consider Islam to be a “bona fide” religion).
No respect is shown for the concepts of Western freedom in the Islamic world.
It borders on suicidal insanity for Westerners to tolerate or accept Islam in The West.
Congressmen Ellison, you don’t belong in my country.
Rep. Ellison, why don’t YOU take the stage at the DNC and speak on what YOUR religion teaches about homosexuality?
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.