... thing. I've been withholding comment, waiting to see the exact wording that the affirmative vote on State Question 755 (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_%22Sharia_Law_Amendment%22,_State_Question_755_(2010)) will cause to be added to the Oklahoma constitution. But, I'm surprised no one on here has commented on or celebrated the situation.

And yes, a legal challenge has already been filed, by CAIR (http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/argument.pdf).

More (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-resident-plans-to-challenge-measure-on-sharia-law/article/3510963?custom_click=lead_story_title).

Hey! Anyone interested in the new Oklahoma idea of preventing something that the law, properly understood, already prevents?

:popcorn:

Hey! Anyone interested in the new Oklahoma idea of preventing something that the law, properly understood, already prevents?

:popcorn:

:lol: Yeah, I don't quite get the point of the amendment myself. That's why I'd like to see its exact wording.

But, it seems like the kind of thing that mainstream media would be all over - part of it decrying the unfair persecution of Islam and part of it celebrating the triumph of traditional American values over political correctness.

:lol: Yeah, I don't quite get the point of the amendment myself. That's why I'd like to see its exact wording.

But, it seems like the kind of thing that mainstream media would be all over - part of it decrying the unfair persecution of Islam and part of it celebrating the triumph of traditional American values over political correctness.

I'm not seeing the triumph of traditional values over political correctness.

I am seeing a law passed to decry that we have too many laws and, sadly, I DO see that as keeping in the modern American tradition. The only thing I see missing that is keeping this from being a total fiasco, at this point, is a commity being commisioned to study the potential impact of non American law being used to apply American law.

... thing. I've been withholding comment, waiting to see the exact wording that the affirmative vote on State Question 755 (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_%22Sharia_Law_Amendment%22,_State_Question_755_(2010)) will cause to be added to the Oklahoma constitution. But, I'm surprised no one on here has commented on or celebrated the situation.

And yes, a legal challenge has already been filed, by CAIR (http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/argument.pdf).

More (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-resident-plans-to-challenge-measure-on-sharia-law/article/3510963?custom_click=lead_story_title).



Yesterday one of the many blonde lawyers on FoxNEWS said (1) CAIR has no standing and the suit will probably be thrown out (2) international law cannot totally be ignored when dealing with international issues so that part of the amendment is moot (3) any lawsuit before someone is harmed by the amendment is meaningless (but then, so was Arizona's "We will enforce the law even if the Feds won't" issue.

I'm not seeing the triumph of traditional values over political correctness.

I don't see that either, I was just searching for an abstract description of how pundits might frame it.

Yesterday one of the many blonde lawyers on FoxNEWS said (1) CAIR has no standing and the suit will probably be thrown out (2) international law cannot totally be ignored when dealing with international issues so that part of the amendment is moot (3) any lawsuit before someone is harmed by the amendment is meaningless (but then, so was Arizona's "We will enforce the law even if the Feds won't" issue.

They do like their brainy babes over there. :lol:

I remember hearing about a ruling (in the last 5 yrs) where the judge made reference to case law or laws passed in Europe when coming to a decision over an American Issue


A Danger of Using Foreign Law to Interpret US Law: (http://volokh.com/posts/1195418449.shtml)



and I found this involving Shari'a Law:

Court Reverses Decision by U.S. Judge Who Applied Sharia Law to Domestic Violence Case (http://lhla.org/breaking_news/?p=5274)



By Susan Brinkmann, OCDS
Staff Journalist

A New Jersey appellate court has overturned the decision by a judge who ruled that a Muslim man who committed sexual assault against his wife was not guilty because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs.

According to Jihad Watch, the ruling reversed an earlier decision by a judge who refused to charge a Moroccan man with the repeated sexual assault of his teenaged bride.

“This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did,” the judge ruled. “The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”

and this:

EU judges want Sharia law applied in British courts (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1173779/EU-judges-want-Sharia-law-applied-British-courts.html)

Judges could be forced to bow to Sharia law in some divorce cases heard in Britain.

An EU plan calls for family courts across Europe to hear cases using the laws of whichever country the couple involved have close links to.

That could mean a court in England handling a case within the French legal framework, or even applying the laws of Saudi Arabia to a husband and wife living in Britain.




it is not surprising folks will start waking up and pass laws to keep the Camel's nose out of the tent in their jurisdiction


:evil:



I am not sure how CAIR can claim this is Unconstitutional .... after all we have Separation of Mosque and State in this country .... this would seem like a prime example of upholding the separation ........



:buddies:



Shari'a Law does not provide "Equal Protection" Under the Law .... in fact a woman is 2/5s a Man's Equal .... NON Muslims are sub class citizens

I don't see that either, I was just searching for an abstract description of how pundits might frame it.

Well, let's see...

How about "...a triumph of the modern legal/industrial complex where no matter what the suit is about, the lawyers win..."


How'd that be?

This page (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_International_Law_Amendment_(2010),_Constitutional_changes) purports to show what the Oklahoma constitution would be amended to read.

Yesterday one of the many blonde lawyers on FoxNEWS said (1) CAIR has no standing and the suit will probably be thrown out (2) international law cannot totally be ignored when dealing with international issues so that part of the amendment is moot (3) any lawsuit before someone is harmed by the amendment is meaningless (but then, so was Arizona's "We will enforce the law even if the Feds won't" issue.

This particular plea (i.e. for a TRO and preliminary injunction) may very well be denied - if I had to guess one way or the other, I'd guess that it will be. And, I'd agree that the argument put forth in it to demonstrate standing is a bit of a stretch and it may well fail on those grounds. However, I suspect this amendment will eventually be struck down as unConstitutional - under existing Establishment Clause jurisprudence, it pretty clearly is.

To point (3), that's simply not true - harm having already taken place is not the standard with regard to establishing standing. If it were, most of the PPACA challenges would be dead in the water.

As to the Arizona reference - what issue is that? I'm guessing you're referring to the SB 1070 issue, however, that characterization - common in essence though it may be - is inaccurate and used for rhetorical purposes to obfuscate reality. If that's all SB 1070 did - if it just said something like 'it shall be the policy of all government agencies in this state to enforce federal immigration laws to whatever extent they are allowed to' - there wouldn't be much of an issue. However, SB1070 creates new laws - it doesn't just seek to enforce existing federal laws.

I am not sure how CAIR can claim this is Unconstitutional ....

Exactly, US Constitution, Amendments (Bill of Rights)
First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance.

I cam clearly see how they could challenge the law on constitutional grounds, but the sword cuts both ways. Sharia law cannot be used as a defense for violating secular laws. We have precident that secular law trumps religious law (see Mormon church and polygamy).

forgot the 2nd part .......



I guess they could petition from relief, since Muslims will not be able to beat and rape there wives when they want to .... according to Shari'a LAW

:razz:

####'em and feed'em Beans ....... Moslems can go back where the #### they came from and beat there wives there :buttkick:

The amendment would be unConstitutional because it favors (or, rather, disfavors) a particular religion.

One of 2 things is true:

(1) The provisions of the amendment referencing sharia law are meaningless because the courts are only free to consider the U.S. and Oklahoma Constitutions, U.S., state, and local statutes and regulations, and established common law, anyway; or

(2) The provisions of the amendment referencing Sharia law mean that the courts remain free to consider the tenets and laws of various religions, excepting Sharia law.

If (2) is the case, the amendment is likely unConstitutional as it plays favorites with regard to particular religions. If (1) is the case, well, then those provisions of the amendment are meaningless - they have no effect except symbolic effect. If that's the case, there's a good chance they're still unConstitutional, as they wouldn't be able to pass a rational basis test - the only point of them would be to send the message that sharia law is somehow inferior too, or more dangerous than, the laws or tenets of other religions. Think what you may about the propriety of sending such a message, sending it, for its own sake, wouldn't withstand a challenge based on modern First Amendment jurisprudence.

The amendment would be unConstitutional because it favors (or, rather, disfavors) a particular religion.

One of 2 things is true:

(1) The provisions of the amendment referencing sharia law are meaningless because the courts are only free to consider the U.S. and Oklahoma Constitutions, U.S., state, and local statutes and regulations, and established common law, anyway;



I realize this was over turned but .............


Court Reverses Decision by U.S. Judge Who Applied Sharia Law to Domestic Violence Case (http://lhla.org/breaking_news/?p=5274)



By Susan Brinkmann, OCDS
Staff Journalist

A New Jersey appellate court has overturned the decision by a judge who ruled that a Muslim man who committed sexual assault against his wife was not guilty because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs.

According to Jihad Watch, the ruling reversed an earlier decision by a judge who refused to charge a Moroccan man with the repeated sexual assault of his teenaged bride.

“This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did,” the judge ruled. “The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”


it is already started ..........



:cheers:



thanks for the insightful analysis as usual ...

The Associated Press: Court order blocks Okla. amendment on Islamic law (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iNEZyNjN2Snd8cR-GXTT9mt8aRsw?docId=e7d54cbf23664d82b50f2f5fb689d630)

Here is Judge Miles-LaGrange's temporary restraining order (http://ia700202.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.okwd.78637/gov.uscourts.okwd.78637.7.0.pdf).

Real simple, if muslims want sharia law, move to a country that upholds that law. Get the hell out of the US.

A unanimous Tenth Circuit panel has affirmed (http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6273.pdf) the district court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction preventing this amendment to the Oklahoma constitution from going into effect.

Tilted

is that really a surprise ?

The amendment would be unConstitutional because it favors (or, rather, disfavors) a particular religion.

One of 2 things is true:

(1) The provisions of the amendment referencing sharia law are meaningless because the courts are only free to consider the U.S. and Oklahoma Constitutions, U.S., state, and local statutes and regulations, and established common law, anyway;



I am going to circle back around and call :bs:

frankly, because I heard around the time this came up some court considered 'international' law ... and of course 2 yrs later my remimbery is a little fuzzy

ISLAMIC LAW AND AMERICAN COURTS (http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?page_id=560)

ABED AWAD:

American judges should not be prevented from considering shariah or any foreign law, for that matter, in deciding their cases. That has been the law of the land for the last hundred years. Since the Supreme Court decision in Hilton versus Guyot, US courts have been considering foreign law on a regular basis. We live in a global environment, we’ve become global village. Marriages and commercial transactions are crossing borders. So courts are regularly required to take this into account. As it pertains to this movement, so-called movement, anti-shariah movement, adopting legislation around the country, seeking to prevent judges from considering foreign law or shariah, that is, on its face, unconstitutional. It violates the supremacy clause, it violates and implicates the freedom of religion and exercise of Muslim-Americans and is inconsistent with a hundred years of jurisprudence. Now the main point is that how does shariah actually come into play in an American court setting? I mean, the—it only comes into play in two way—in two circumstances. Either it comes into play as a foreign law, which would mean that shariah is either a source or primary source of law in this foreign country, or it’s going to come into play as extrinsic evidence to help explain something to a judge.



In other words, to explain an ambiguity. To clarify a mistake. To place a context on the expectations of the parties at the time of executing a document. Or their understanding of the circumstances surrounding a contract. So it only comes into play in those two limited circumstances. And the jurisprudence is so clear throughout the United States, is that we only would recognize a foreign judgment from a foreign country or consider foreign law in a US court only if it comports with our due process and our public policy. In other words, if the decision that was rendered in a foreign country did not provide due process, that did not have an impartial tribunal, that the parties were not able to participate freely in the litigation, and that the court did not have jurisdiction, or that anything the court did would violate our public policy, of course the US court would not recognize that. And you’ll see case after case throughout the United States where these cases are fact specific. The facts determine the outcome of the case. If the judge finds it did not violate public policy, he will recognize it. If he finds that it violated public policy, he would set it aside. So this is the circumstances that the jurisprudence is clear that our constitutional protections are already in place. So these additional legislations around the country do not provide any added level of protection for Americans. In fact, they get in the way of—implicate constitutional issues such as freedom of religion and the right to contract. So this is really the crux of what the law is.


:popcorn:

:whistle:





Appeals court won't stop Hillsborough judge from considering Islamic law (http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/appeals-court-wont-stop-hillsborough-judge-from-considering-islamic-law/1198321)

By William R. Levesque, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Tuesday, October 25, 2011


TAMPA — A Florida appeals court appears to have cleared the way for a Hillsborough judge to use Islamic law to decide a key issue in a lawsuit involving a local mosque.

In a case that has attracted national attention, the 2nd District Court of Appeal on Friday denied without comment a petition to prevent Judge Richard Nielsen from invoking Islamic law.

The petition, filed by the Islamic Education Center of Tampa, contested a March ruling by Nielsen announcing his intent to use "ecclesiastical Islamic law" in the case.

Nielsen limited his use of Islamic law to deciding whether arbitration by an Islamic scholar mediating a dispute between the mosque and ousted trustees followed the teachings of the Koran.

The arbitration itself is in dispute, with mosque officials saying it never took place.

The arbitrator ruled in favor of several men ousted as mosque trustees, a decision that, if upheld, could wrest control of $2.2 million in mosque coffers.

Like everything else in the litigation, the meaning of the appeals court ruling is in dispute.

Attorney Paul Thanasides, representing the mosque, said an appeals court decision without a written opinion means the court wasn't addressing the merits of the case.

Thanasides said the U.S. Constitution and Florida law prevent Nielsen from following Islamic law. On Monday, he filed a motion with the judge asking him to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

"Florida law is clear that courts may not decide corporate governance disputes involving religious organizations," the motion said.

Lee Segal, a lawyer representing four ousted trustees, said the appeals court ruling was a "big-time" win for his clients and vindication for Nielsen, who does not comment on pending cases.

"This basically puts the case back in front of Nielsen, who has a good handle of what the issues are," Segal said.

He noted the judge could still rule against his clients if he determines that Islamic law was not, in fact, followed.

"There's still lots of barriers for us to cross," Segal said.

The case touched off a storm of criticism against Nielsen earlier this year.

Web commentators have misidentified the judge as a liberal trying to subvert U.S. law. Nielsen is, in fact, a conservative Republican appointed to the bench by former Gov. Jeb Bush.

At the time of Nielsen's original decision, the political atmosphere was already charged with debate that Islamic law had gained a toehold in U.S. courts.

Even before Nielsen's ruling, two Florida lawmakers, Sen. Alan Hays and Rep. Larry Metz, announced legislation to prevent the use of any foreign legal code being applied in state courts.

The legislation was not adopted by Florida lawmakers.

In May, the Center for Security Policy released a study that evaluated 50 appellate court cases in 23 states involving issues related to Islamic law.

The study noted Islamic law has been "formally recognized" in state courts.

The cases involved mostly Muslim women and children "who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process," said the center's president, Frank J. Gaffney Jr.

"When our courts then apply sharia law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded," he said.

To others, Nielsen's decision has been widely misunderstood. Markus Wagner, a professor of international law at the University of Miami School of Law, said courts often refer to religious codes in arbitration cases.

If two sides in an arbitration, for example, agree to use Jewish law, then a judge could properly use the Talmud in deciding a case, Wagner said.

"On the legal side, it's just not all that unusual," he said.

William R. Levesque can be reached at levesque@sptimes.com.

... thing. I've been withholding comment, waiting to see the exact wording that the affirmative vote on State Question 755 (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_%22Sharia_Law_Amendment%22,_State_Question_755_(2010)) will cause to be added to the Oklahoma constitution. But, I'm surprised no one on here has commented on or celebrated the situation.
And yes, a legal challenge has already been filed, by CAIR (http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/argument.pdf).

More (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-resident-plans-to-challenge-measure-on-sharia-law/article/3510963?custom_click=lead_story_title).

You also like setting small bugs on fire, too, don't you? I bet you grinned as you posted this...