The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: JC5123 on January 11, 2012, 11:34:47 AM
-
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."
Backers argued that the amendment intended to ban all religious laws, that Islamic law was merely named as an example and that it wasn't meant as a specific attack on Muslims. The court disagreed.
"That argument conflicts with the amendment's plain language, which mentions Sharia law in two places," the appeals court opinion said.
The court also noted that the backers of the amendment admitted they did not know of any instance when an Oklahoma court applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other countries.
Awad argued that the ban on Islamic law would likely affect every aspect of his life as well as the execution of his will after his death. The appeals court pointed out that Awad made a "strong showing" of potential harm.
"When the law that voters wish to enact is likely unconstitutional, their interests do not outweigh Mr. Awad's in having his constitutional rights protected," the court said.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/11/court-oklahoma-ban-on-islamic-law-unconstitutional/#ixzz1jAjYjsms
-
This was not a Supreme Court ruling was it, only the Appeals court, right?
-
This was not a Supreme Court ruling was it, only the Appeals court, right?
Yup, was reading another SCOTUS Case, and transposed info. Good Catch. And fixed.
-
Yup, was reading another SCOTUS Case, and transposed info. Good Catch. And fixed.
;)
-
Will be interesting to see where it goes as it heads up the Courts.
Read today that the Supreme Court has ruled that judges can not get involved in church-employee issues.
http://www.startribune.com/nation/137091608.html (http://www.startribune.com/nation/137091608.html)
It will be interesting to see how this ruling and the Oklahoma case match when it hits the Supreme Court.
-
Will be interesting to see where it goes as it heads up the Courts.
Read today that the Supreme Court has ruled that judges can not get involved in church-employee issues.
http://www.startribune.com/nation/137091608.html (http://www.startribune.com/nation/137091608.html)
It will be interesting to see how this ruling and the Oklahoma case match when it hits the Supreme Court.
Hopefully it never will. This was one of those stupid laws that legislators came up with to score political points by taking a stand against a straw man. I mean, is Oklahoma in danger of having Sharia imposed on it? ::) The fact is, that had they dropped the word Sharia, it might have passed court muster, but they didn't, because that would have defeated the whole purpose of the thing which was to stir up anti-muslim sentiment for political advantage. Lets take a step back and look at this. A lot of folks engage in private contracts that use a non-judicial source to arbitrate disputes. I'm not really a fan of Sharia or Jewish Beit Dins or or other religious bodies dealing with divorce or inheritance or the like. But, if all parties to the contract agree, are we in violation of the 1A's free exercise clause if we interfer with them, but not secular means of private arbitration? I'm not defending sharia here, I just think that the court was not wrong to say that there are larger issues of religious freedom at stake. Issues that the politicians who pushed this thing didn't care jack about as it boosted their poll numbers. I would hope the Court gives this one a pass and waits until a serious issue involving these principles comes before it.
FQ13
-
Actually many places in the country are at risk of Sharia law. Oklahoma was just taking a proactive approach to the problem. Here is another problem with the ruling. They also site that international law cannot be used. Islam is not simply a religion, but a way of life, controlling cultural, religious, and political aspects of the society that it rules. It allows (in fact demands) things like honor killings, forcing women to marry their rapists, and makes killing non muslims an obligation rather than a crime. What is sad is that our courts are so rampant with liberal activist judges that a state would even have to consider a law like this necessary. Personally I think that is why this law was struck down. Judges don't want to be forced to use the state and federal constitution in making their decisions. It's much harder to justify activism when you can't site some "international standard".
-
Actually many places in the country are at risk of Sharia law. Oklahoma was just taking a proactive approach to the problem. Here is another problem with the ruling. They also site that international law cannot be used. Islam is not simply a religion, but a way of life, controlling cultural, religious, and political aspects of the society that it rules. It allows (in fact demands) things like honor killings, forcing women to marry their rapists, and makes killing non muslims an obligation rather than a crime. What is sad is that our courts are so rampant with liberal activist judges that a state would even have to consider a law like this necessary. Personally I think that is why this law was struck down. Judges don't want to be forced to use the state and federal constitution in making their decisions. It's much harder to justify activism when you can't site some "international standard".
And again with the strawmen. I don't think that Ok. or any other state is going to authorize any of the parade of horribles you've just cited.
FQ13
-
C'mon only 70% of the OK citizens were blown off, ignored,....
Geez, it's only mercy killings of teenage girls for family honor....and stuff....
Lighten' up,. only Liberal assclown Judges,...tearing this country down....Nothing to see here...
>:(
-
I think what this law was intended to do is to prevent what happened in the UK with their 'Muslim Arbitration Tribunal'. obviously a bit controversial because a man can kill wife, daughter, whatever for 'honor' according to thier law. I remember a few years back when something similar happened and the man was tried under Sharia law instead of the great honest court we all know and love. (sarcasm). I don't remember the outcome of the case, but do remember the outrage of the people. the Euro-weenies have bent over backwords for these people and it is biting them in the arse. I sincerely hope that we do not acept this as it is another way of governing as well as strict in it's treatment of the family, especially for women.
deepwater
-
Agreed. I just think that there is a finer point that the court is making. That is, if we allow non-judicial secular arbitration, can we ban sectarian arbitration without running afoul of the 1A? This question has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, and everything to do with the Free Exercise clause. Any comment about honor killings is BS, as no one is talking about amending murder statutes or the like. Real life is about family law. As I said in my OP, I don't like religious law of whatever flavor, be it muslim or jewish substituting for civil courts, as it disadvantages women. BUT...at what point can the state say you can't enter into a contract with a third paryt arbitrator just because that arbitrator is going to rule on religious grounds? Spare me the muslim bashing and address this key question.
FQ13
-
This is not about a woman going to a beit din to get a get (religious divorce), or a Muslim "court" deciding whether or not something constitutes interest that is disallowed by sharia, or any other civil matter. This is about cases that go to a US court for adjudication.
More precisely, this is about a sitting US judge at any level referencing Jewish, Muslim, Vatican or even Scottish civil law to decide an American case. The judges swore an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution and the laws under their jurisdiction. I would be as pissed about a judge referring to sharia (as has already happened in this country) as I am about Justice Ginsberg of the SCOTUS referencing foreign law as a basis for deciding cases (as she has done). It is wrong, it is illegal and it is another reason why the legal system is broken.
I have no problem with this law, and if they were to remove the word "sharia" and simply say that US judges must abide by their oaths and not use any non-US law or directly reference any religious source material in determining their cases, I would like to see it passed.
FQ, once again you are showing your true colors. If a judge routinely quoted the Bible in his or her rulings, you would be among those calling for their head. Why then would it ever be OK for a judge to reference the koran?
-
I kind of agree with Pathfinder, but I have to point out that when SCOTUS was debating the Heller case one of the documents referenced was the Magna Carta.
Which was obviously not US law.
-
I kind of agree with Pathfinder, but I have to point out that when SCOTUS was debating the Heller case one of the documents referenced was the Magna Carta.
Which was obviously not US law.
But the Magna Carta is a used by and as US law as I was taught. Apparently, if there is nothing in our Constitution or precedent having been set on a matter it is possible to go back through English law as far back as the Magna Carta to settle a case. Difference would be in a state which has their law codified, such as Louisiana.
OK. Do we have any lawyers here that can say yea or nay on this?
-
But the Magna Carta is a used by and as US law as I was taught. Apparently, if there is nothing in our Constitution or precedent having been set on a matter it is possible to go back through English law as far back as the Magna Carta to settle a case. Difference would be in a state which has their law codified, such as Louisiana.
OK. Do we have any lawyers here that can say yea or nay on this?
You have a Con law prof who can say kinda. By that I mean this. In the early years of the Republic, up until the Civil War, it was routine for the Court to refer to International Law to resolve disputes, particularly among states. Probably the most famous case was Scott v. Sanford (Dredd Scott), where the English case of The Slave Grace was relied on by the dissent and dismissed by the majority. Still, it was held as binding precedent. Even today, international law is referred to. The principle is known as comity, keeping in line, more or less, with other "civilised" nations, though unfortunately we don't use that word or that distinction anymore. It was a factor in the Court's decisions to forbid the execution of minors and the mentally retarded.
FQ13
-
I try to use my words precisely. I said if the judge used any other law to decide a case. Referencing the other laws to establish precedent as in the case of the Magna Carta in Heller is different, but if the decision is based predominantly or solely on the foreign law, then there is a problem.
Comity be damned - we as a country were founded on thumbing our noses at foreign powers and their beliefs in Imperial powers and rule of man over the rule of law. Mexico tried to pull that comity crap when Texas executed a Mexican national who had murdered a number of American citizens.
I stand by my assertion that judges are not to be allowed to use anything other than US Constitutions and laws to decide their cases. If they do, they should be removed from office by whatever means are available.