View Full Version : Oklahoma lawmakers have seen the light...
Oklahoma lawmakers have seen the light, hopefully NC will follow suit... :munchin
Sharia law, courts likely on 2010 ballot
Mark Schlachtenhaufen
EDMOND — State lawmakers say it’s a pre-emptive strike against Sharia law, needed to prevent here what has happened in the United Kingdom.
An Islamic leader says it’s another example of a rising tide of anti-Islamic bigotry in America.
State Question 755, which likely will be on the ballot in November, would make in-state courts rely on federal and state laws when deciding cases and forbid courts from using international law or Sharia law when making rulings.
The proposal, which has an Edmond connection, would amend Article 7, Section 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution, and stems from House Joint Resolution 1056, dubbed the “Save Our State” amendment, passed during the just-finished legislative session.
State Rep. Lewis Moore, R-Edmond, a co-author of HJR 1056, said he wanted to express his support very early for the legislation, which is needed because of the “onslaught” coming Oklahoma’s way.
“I don’t think we should accept or encourage Sharia law in any way, shape or form,” Moore said.
State Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs, primary author of HJR 1056, said Oklahoma is the first state to pass such legislation and he hopes other states will follow.
Duncan, an attorney who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, said the amendment is needed because judges in other states and on the federal bench have increasingly cited international law in their decisions. He said he feels that action is inappropriate in a sovereign state.
Duncan said Sharia law is entrenched in the United Kingdom.
“It is a cancer upon the survivability of the UK,” Duncan said. “SQ 755 will constitute a pre-emptive strike against Sharia law coming to Oklahoma.”
State Sen. Anthony Sykes, R-Moore, a co-author of HJR 1056, said American courts are being more frequently challenged that international law should trump U.S. law.
“Sharia law coming to the U.S. is a scary concept,” Sykes said. “Hopefully the passage of this constitutional amendment will prevent it in Oklahoma.”
Council on American-Islamic Relations spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said he has been working on Muslim civil rights issues for several decades and anti-Islam rhetoric is approaching “Nazi-like” levels.
“This is just the flip side of the anti-Semitic coin,” Hooper said.
Hooper said Duncan is voicing a misconception of Sharia, which is based on the Quran, the traditions of Muhammad and interpretation of scripture, that it is comparable to laws related to other religions.
Regarding unintended consequences, Hooper wondered aloud what the amendment would mean for Muslims who want to wear a scarf in a driver’s license photo, for Muslims who want to pray in the workplace, if Muslims attending Oklahoma’s public schools will be forced to eat pork.
Saad Mohammed, director of Islamic information for the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, said 80 percent of the U.S. Constitution is compatible with Sharia, which leads to justice and equality for all. Mohammed said extremists have distorted Sharia.
“Sharia is more of a protection than something used to oppress,” Mohammed said.
Razi Hashmi, of Edmond, executive director of CAIR-Oklahoma, said the Sharia law proposal is a distraction from more urgent issues facing the state such as the economy, job creation and immigration.
Hashmi said the proposal is a way of promoting division and bigotry instead of promoting unity and understanding of other faiths and cultures.
The wording in SQ 755 is being altered. In a letter dated June 2, addressed to the secretary of state and legislative leaders, the Attorney General’s Office concluded the present wording does not comply with applicable laws because it does no adequately define either Sharia law or international law.
The AG’s office stated that it will within 10 business days prepare a preliminary ballot title that complies with the law.
Paul Ziriax, secretary of the Oklahoma State Election Board, said once the AG’s office is done with the proposal, the governor will issue a proclamation formally setting the election date. An issue such as this must be on the ballot in November unless it is disqualified for some reason, Ziriax said.
SHARIA LAW 101
Hooper said just as the Mosaic books offer guidance in life, Sharia, or Islamic law, offers guidance for Muslims.
Sharia, which means a way or path, refers to the divine guidance and laws primarily derived from the Quran and the Sunnah, Muhammad’s sayings, deeds and approvals, according to Mashreq Al Islami, the Islamic banking division of the Mashreq, responsible for the development of Islamic banking products for distribution to customers who require Islamic banking products or services.
Fatwas related to Sharia should not be confused with Islamic-based death warrants, Hooper said. A fatwa is an authoritative legal opinion based on Islamic law, issued by a qualified person or body with authoritative knowledge.
An example of how Sharia works is Islamic banking, which prohibits interest, ambiguity and unfairness in conducting business transactions, according to Mashreq Al Islami. Islamic banking must comply with Sharia principles and avoid prohibited unethical business activities such as gambling and alcohol.
OKLAHOMANS WILL DECIDE ISSUE
The legislation behind SQ 755 was inspired by the realization, through media observation, that Islam is spreading into America at an alarming rate, and that activist judges are beginning to give credence to “international law,” Duncan said.
Duncan said reaction to the proposal has been entirely positive, and he believes as Oklahomans become aware of the measure they will support it overwhelmingly.
Hooper said he hopes Oklahomans will educate themselves and use common sense when making a decision about how they will vote on the proposal. Mohammed urged Oklahomans to visit mainstream Islamic sites like sitesun.cair.com (CAIR) or isgoc.com (Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City).
Islam is one of the fastest-growing religions in the United States and in the world, according to CAIR. About seven million Muslims residing in America attend about 2,000 mosques, Islamic schools and Islamic centers.
marks@edmondsun.com | 341-2121, ext. 108
Source > http://www.edmondsun.com/local/x1996914371/Sharia-law-courts-likely-on-2010-ballot
Coldsteel24
06-10-2010, 13:53
Damn I love my state!
Ret10Echo
06-11-2010, 04:37
“Sharia is more of a protection than something used to oppress,” Mohammed said.
Seriously???? Was that the same attitude of the Nazi guards?
Muslims who want to wear a scarf in a driver’s license photo,
You shouldn't be able to. It is an identification card, not a glamor-shot photo. People can't wear sunglasses or wrestling masks either...
if Muslims attending Oklahoma’s public schools will be forced to eat pork.
Like the Jewish students are today?
An example of how Sharia works is Islamic banking, which prohibits interest...
Are there any such banks out there? :confused: I want to refinance my house with them.
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
You shouldn't be able to. It is an identification card, not a glamor-shot photo. People can't wear sunglasses or wrestling masks either...
They can wear sunglasses in Oklahoma. When I sold guns at a Wal-Mart near Tulsa, we called the cops when a guy tried to buy a gun with a drivers license wearing sunglasses in the photo. Turns out, it can be done here. Its a very stupid policy.
They can wear sunglasses in Oklahoma. When I sold guns at a Wal-Mart near Tulsa, we called the cops when a guy tried to buy a gun with a drivers license wearing sunglasses in the photo. Turns out, it can be done here. Its a very stupid policy.
Really? Interesting. I was told to take my hat off before I even got over to the camera (I was intending to anyway as soon as I sat down).
Green Light
06-11-2010, 17:13
“This is just the flip side of the anti-Semitic coin,” Hooper said.
Yep. All of those Hasidic Jews flying jets into buildings and cutting people's heads off. Gotta be stopped.[/sarcasm]
Oh please.
I don't understand why some Muslims would consider suing over this measure. Unless of course, contrary to their exhortations, their goal is to supplant the US constitution with sharia law.
Voters ban judges from using international law
Associated Press - November 2, 2010 9:15 PM ET
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - Oklahoma voters have approved a measure that would forbid judges from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.
Republican Rex Duncan, the sponsor of the measure, called it a "pre-emptive strike" designed to close the door on activist judges "legislating from the bench or using international law or Sharia law."
Members of the Muslim community called the question an attack on Islam and some of them said they are prepared to file a lawsuit challenging the measure.
Link (http://www.koamtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13433018)
Now we need the new congress to instigate a similar prohibition..
:munchin
Now we need the new congress to instigate a similar prohibition..
:munchin
Perhaps Allen West can lead the effort. Congratulations Sir!
...In South Florida's District 22, incumbent Democrat Ron Klein lost to Republican Allen West, a retired Army officer who was booted from his command in Iraq after firing a gun near a prisoner's head. West will become the first black Republican to represent Florida in Congress since the 1870s...
Link (http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20101103/POLITICS/101103009/-1/tech?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
Personally, I think this mandate shows more an unfounded lack of confidence in the existing system of government by those who should and often claim to know better - legislators.
This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.
https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/questions/755.pdf
Mandating that a jurist is forbidden to even consider international, Sharia (or, as can be logically extended to include any other laws, sources of moral codes, or accepted societal norms) when formulating a judicial decision is IMO the antithesis of an honest legal system - especially within a society as purportedly free as ours claims itself to be (and one in which extenuating and mitigating circumstances are an integral part of the process) and as a nation in which so many of our individual states (Oklahoma included) are involved in on-going and expanding international trade relationships.
To me, considering is one thing - actually using is another.
Richard
COLOR="lime"]Mandating that a jurist is forbidden to even consider international, Sharia (or, as can be logically extended to include any other laws, sources of moral codes, or accepted societal norms) when formulating a judicial decision is IMO the antithesis of an honest legal system - especially within a society as purportedly free as ours claims itself to be (and one in which extenuating and mitigating circumstances are an integral part of the process) and as a nation in which so many of our individual states (Oklahoma included) are involved in on-going and expanding international trade relationships.
To me, considering is one thing - actually using is another.
Richard
I was a jurist once. We were instructed to base our decisions on the law. Considering we're in the US, it would never occur to me to consider international law, Sharia or anything else. Nor would I be offended to be told I couldn't consider any of those to base my decision.
However...everyone is not me (and some folks would thank their God for that :D ) so it seems that this is one way to insure considerations or decisions are based on US laws only, not some other country's idea of "law". Those international laws, Sharia etc have no place in our court system.
I was a jurist once.
Jurist - One who has thorough knowledge and experience of law, especially an eminent judge, lawyer, or legal scholar. Also called jurisprudent.
I have also served on juries...but...that does not make me a jurist.
Richard :munchin
Agreed. I "misread"...
But I disagree that in the United States international law, Sharia etc should be allowed to be considered. Or used.
I disagree with the drift of your idea Richard.
Our legal rulings should be based on our laws - as written.
Not by some Judge who feels the need to get in touch with their inner self and channel French law.
Law should be based on a firm foundation - not the sifting sands of feelings.
More than one lefty Judge in this country has stated that we should consider other countries laws.
If that's the case then write it up and submit it to a vote.
The law of the relevant jurisdiction is the only law one need consider in a matter. If it is a United States case dealing with United States laws, no other law law should be considered. Sharia and international laws do not have any bearing on any state in our union nor should they ever have any bearing.
If one is dealing with an international business deal, that may be another matter. If we start considering Sharia and international laws in our own country, what effect will that have on our ability to negotiate SOFA's that protect our troops from draconian laws in other countries?
BoyScout
11-03-2010, 18:11
Damn I love my state!
Me too. I was the first question I looked for. I will admit that Sharia Law was not my main intent, the international law was (I probably naively lump Sharia into international law) and for reasons mentioned by Pete.
After considering the arguments being made, the wording of Oklahoma's SQ755, my albeit limited understanding of the basis for our codified system of laws, their enactment, and enforcement, combined with my personal experiences in international and treaty law as a Host Nation Support Plans Officer for the 21st TAACOM, I stand by my original thoughts on the subject and cannot help but wonder just how any case concerning International Law or a Muslim citing Sharia as a defense in an Oklahoma Court would not have to be (by definition) considered by a jurist – even if to but ponder the matter and then reject it as being irrelevant or inapplicable under American case law.
Richard's $.02
After considering the arguments being made, the wording of Oklahoma's SQ755, my albeit limited understanding of the basis for our codified system of laws, their enactment, and enforcement, combined with my personal experiences in international and treaty law as a Host Nation Support Plans Officer for the 21st TAACOM, I stand by my original thoughts on the subject and cannot help but wonder just how any case concerning International Law or a Muslim citing Sharia as a defense in an Oklahoma Court would not have to be (by definition) considered by a jurist – even if to but ponder the matter and then reject it as being irrelevant or inapplicable under American case law.
Richard's $.02
So, by your definition, if a case cites Klingon law, then it should be considered. Rather encompassing.
Since Sharia law is part of a totalitarian and evil ideology, I am glad to see Oklahoma take a stand.
BigJimCalhoun
11-03-2010, 20:28
Evidently, a lawsuit is expected
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/muslims-plan-to-challenge-ban-on-sharia-law-in-oklahoma/
How much money and time did the state of Oklahoma spend to pass a law in response to events in the United Kingdom?
What are the long term implications regarding the independence of the judiciary if the legislative branch can reduce matters of law to what amounts to a popularity contest? (A lot of time and energy is spent talking about "original meanings" and the intent of the founding fathers. Did they not take steps to isolate the judicial branch from popular opinion? <<LINK (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm)>>)
Finally, in the run up to yesterday's midterms, the president's critics effectively argued that the man is out of touch with the interests and concerns of his fellow Americans. Based opinion polls focusing on what Americans see as the most important issues <<LINK2 (http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm)>>, does this piece of legislation demonstrate that Republicans are more in touch with those same interests and concerns?
...does this piece of legislation demonstrate that Republicans are more in touch with those same interests and concerns?
Considering this:
Upon their return to the apartment, defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her this is according to our religion.
You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.
While recognizing that defendant had engaged in sexual relations with plaintiff against her expressed wishes in November 2008 and on the night of January 15 to 16, 2009, the judge did not find sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct to have been proven. He stated:
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 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.
http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a6107-08.opn.html
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/sharia-in-new-jersey-muslim-husband-rapes-wife-judge-sees-no-sexual-assault-because-husbands-religio.html
http://volokh.com/2010/07/23/cultural-defense-accepted-as-to-nonconsensual-sex-in-new-jersey-trial-court-rejected-on-appeal/
And this:
I tell them that the Muslim approach to law and justice begins with religious language because secular movements have failed to deliver what Muslims want – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If that sounds suspiciously like the Declaration of Independence, that's because – contrary to what many people in the West believe – Islamic law and American democratic principles have many things in common.
"All the law that a Muslim needs is in the Qur'an and the Hadith, sayings of the Prophet Muhammad"
~Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf~
http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=25141&lan=en&sid=1&sp=0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qxjocm5fCc
YES!!!
:munchin
...if a case cites Klingon law, then it should be considered.
If an attorney in a court of law chose to cite something (either in written or oral argument) in the defense or prosecution of a person - even if it is something as ludicrous as a nonexistant law for a nonexistant fairy tale civilization such as that of the Klingons or a matter of serious religious conviction - how could it not have to be considered by the court in formulating an appropriate response to the argument presented? :confused:
http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a6107-08.opn.html
In reading about the NJ case, it would seem the process worked in that the original presiding judge's ruling (which failed to correctly adhere to existant NJ law) was reversed on appeal and the plaintiff (although a non-citizen) was granted the restraining order she sought against her abusive husband (also a non-citizen).
Are pundits now attempting to make an argument that such errors of judgment as shown by the original judge can and will only happen when the case involves a Muslim couple? :confused:
Richard
Are pundits now attempting to make an argument that such errors of judgment as shown by the original judge can and will only happen when the case involves a Muslim couple?
No, considering Muslims are establishing tax exempt communities with the blessing of the IRS for the purpose of defining geographical boundaries, clear sets of moral norms and values, based on Islamic Sharia, pundits are simply telling judges to interpret our laws on our Constitution, not on Islamic Sharia like the first Judge did.
IMO, Oklahoma simply recognizes, and preempts the Islamic incremental push for accomodations and concessions, and have chosen to halt Sharia's creep.
ETA
Are there any such banks out there?
> http://www.universityislamicfinancial.com/
If the people of Oklahoma had gotten burned first hand by this dynamic, I'd be less skeptical about SQ 755 and HJR 1056. As things stand, this strikes me as political theater of the worst sort.
As for the bashing of international law, that position does not exactly square with the "what would the founding fathers do" sensibility that is currently in vogue. The Second Anglo-American War (the War of 1812) began in no small part because Americans were rather quite tired of Britain's continued disregard for international law.
In his war message to congress, President James Madison put it succinctly.British cruisers have been in the continued practice of violating the American flag on the great highway of nations, and of seizing and carrying off persons sailing under it, not in the exercise of a belligerent right founded on the law of nations against an enemy, but of a municipal prerogative over British subjects. British jurisdiction is thus extended to neutral vessels in a situation where no laws can operate but the law of nations and the laws of the country to which the vessels belong, and a self-redress is assumed which, if British subjects were wrongfully detained and alone concerned, is that substitution of force for a resort to the responsible sovereign which falls within the definition of war. Could the seizure of British subjects in such cases be regarded as within the exercise of a belligerent right, the acknowledged laws of war, which forbid an article of captured property to be adjudged without a regular investigation before a competent tribunal, would imperiously demand the fairest trial where the sacred rights of persons were at issue. In place of such a trial these rights are subjected to the will of every petty commander.*
______________________________
* James Madison, war message to congress, 1 June 1812, available here (http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/historicspeeches/madison/warmessage.print.html).
"......As for the bashing of international law, that position does not exactly square with the "what would the founding fathers do" sensibility that is currently in vogue. The Second Anglo-American War (the War of 1812) began in no small part because Americans were rather quite tired of Britain's continued disregard for international law........."
Sigaba, I usually find your posts that include a bit of our history to be quite thought provoking. But I think you missed with this arrow.
If this, at the time, was an internal British issue (on that big island) I don't think the Americans would have been that upset. But even by that time the international sea lanes were under laws and treaties. The Brit's were violating those agreements, so the Americans said, against American shipping.
So that was a case of two countries on the high seas, some just off our coast, each claiming their laws were correct.
I think your example would be better illustrated by a British ship pulling into Boston and it's press gang rounding up anyone who sounded British. All while claiming they were just following British law.
So a living law Judge would say - "Hey, I got no problem with it, they are just following their laws."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/04/muslim-sues-oklahoma-anti-shariah-ballot-measure/?test=latestnews
Either way, this will be the issue to watch in the near future. Richard, in a way, I see your point. It is like telling a jury to disregard testimony they have heard when preparing for a decision. It sounds good, but once you have heard something, it is difficult to completely disregard it. On the other hand, I think it is a good preemptive move on the part of Oklahoma. We have chosen to recognize a certain societal norm for our country. What would be considered good in other countries is not necessarily so here.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/04/muslim-sues-oklahoma-anti-shariah-ballot-measure/?test=latestnews
Since CAIR has come out in favor of Sharia, and CAIR openly declares that anti-Sharia is anti-Islam, maybe folks will see Sharia for what it is, Sharia = Islam.
Either way, this will be the issue to watch in the near future.
IMO, CAIR is putting forth a Separation of Mosque and State legal challenge, when SQ755 is just a confirmation of the Establishment Clause, by banning the judiciary from using a religion as basis for rendering judgments in legal cases.
It appears Islam has no equivalent to "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's"
Awad said the measure violates his First Amendment right to freedom of religion...
Does the first Amendment protect Awad's religious legal right in dealing with a rebellious wife?
m10.12 when a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his wife.......He may hit her whether she is rebellious only once or whether more than once...
(Reliance of the Traveller - pgs 540 - 542 http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Islamic-Al-Salik/dp/0915957728 )
:munchin
As a resident of Oklahoma it was my pleasure to vote in favor of this issue. I am not qualified to debate international law and only know what little I know about Sharia from reading Reliance of the Traveller.
However, my estimate of this law was that it was intended to let our enemies know that we are aware of their presence and are watching them.
The finer legal points of this law will no doubt provide much food for discussion, but I was happy to poke a sharp stick in the side of Islam.
If the people of Oklahoma had gotten burned first hand by this dynamic, I'd be less skeptical about SQ 755 and HJR 1056.
I voted for it in a "learning from the mistakes of others" way.
As one of the finest PoliSci Professors I ever had - Dr Jim Cristoph - used to say, "Successful politicians are experts at convincing their constituents that there are potential dangers of which they, the voters, are patently unaware and that they, the politicians, are and will prevent if their constituents will only keep re-electing them and paying their taxes so there will be enough money to throw at the problem which, in reality, may or may not exist."
To that end...I'll wait and see...
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
As one of the finest PoliSci Professors I ever had - Dr Jim Cristoph - used to say, "Successful politicians are experts at convincing their constituents that there are potential dangers of which they, the voters, are patently unaware and that they, the politicians, are and will prevent if their constituents will only keep re-electing them and paying their taxes so there will be enough money to throw at the problem which, in reality, may or may not exist."
To that end...I'll wait and see...
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Did you quote that from memory? :eek: ;)
Pat
Did you quote that from memory? :eek: ;)
The quotes are my memory - the actual words are my paraphrasing of his oft cited position. ;)
Richard :munchin
The quotes are my memory - the actual words are my paraphrasing of his oft cited position. ;)
Richard :munchin
You had me worried. I can't quote my SSN, but I can paraphrase it! :D
Pat
You had me worried. I can't quote my SSN, but I can paraphrase it! :D
Now that (my SSAN) I can quote - and my wife's, too. :D
Richard
Just the fact that this had to come up for a vote in the U.S. Tells me they are winning.
BoyScout
11-06-2010, 08:17
If the people of Oklahoma had gotten burned first hand by this dynamic, I'd be less skeptical about SQ 755 and HJR 1056. As things stand, this strikes me as political theater of the worst sort.
Sharia hasn't burned us, there has been a couple of times tribal law has left a bitter taste in our mouths, a custody case that resulted in a child's death comes to mind, but it could be a case of learning from NJ as for our lawmaker's parts.
If an attorney in a court of law chose to cite something (either in written or oral argument) in the defense or prosecution of a person - even if it is something as ludicrous as a nonexistant law for a nonexistant fairy tale civilization such as that of the Klingons *or a matter of serious religious conviction - how could it not have to be considered by the court in formulating an appropriate response to the argument presented?
Quick answer...because it is not US case law. Of course it would be considered, because the judge would have to "consider" how inept a lawyer would be to bring Klingon (or Jedi) "law" into the courtroom.
*And according to our liberal brethren, God and religion have absolutely no place in government institutions...like the judicial branch. :cool:
bost1751
11-07-2010, 14:42
Love it, CAIR in OK has already filed a suit in federal court about it. I know the federal judges here and they will really like this one.
In related news, Oklahoma also passed ballot measures requiring voters to provide proof of id and making English the official language. Looks like we got the hat trick, because they're all being challenged in court.
greenberetTFS
11-07-2010, 16:04
As a resident of Oklahoma it was my pleasure to vote in favor of this issue. I am not qualified to debate international law and only know what little I know about Sharia from reading Reliance of the Traveller.
However, my estimate of this law was that it was intended to let our enemies know that we are aware of their presence and are watching them.
The finer legal points of this law will no doubt provide much food for discussion, but I was happy to poke a sharp stick in the side of Islam.
I pretty much have to agree with 1982fxr..........;)
Big Teddy :munchin
Sharia hasn't burned us, there has been a couple of times tribal law has left a bitter taste in our mouths, a custody case that resulted in a child's death comes to mind, but it could be a case of learning from NJ as for our lawmaker's parts.
Dealing with tribal law is different. Treaties have been signed and broken with various tribes since the white man came to the shores of our current nation. Over the course of 500 years of Anglo colonization and spread, Native Americans have wound up with the ablilty to administer justice on their designated lands with minimal federal influence or interference. Oklahoma became the home of several tribes, including Kiowa, Cherokee and Comanche. There is a strong Native American influence there. There would have to be consideration for tribal law in many areas.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/library/research/guides/united_states/tribal_law.html
BoyScout
11-07-2010, 20:22
Dealing with tribal law is different. Treaties have been signed and broken with various tribes since the white man came to the shores of our current nation. Over the course of 500 years of Anglo colonization and spread, Native Americans have wound up with the ablilty to administer justice on their designated lands with minimal federal influence or interference. Oklahoma became the home of several tribes, including Kiowa, Cherokee and Comanche. There is a strong Native American influence there. There would have to be consideration for tribal law in many areas.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/library/research/guides/united_states/tribal_law.htmlI do realize that, the last time I know of where a treaty came up was when the Cherokee Nation sued OK to recognize the Gay Marriages within the tribe. It's not a good comparison but a lot of us feel as I had said. If it were an issue it would have been nowhere near as much of a stink as what could be made if we did not allow tribal languages to be used in state business (and a stink was made to put that provision into the law). This was more of a lessons learned from another state than anything else. We would had a lot more conservative legislation passed if not for Gov. Brad Henry's vetoing himself into a lame duck. How it affects the various Nations here in OK has not been a worry for me.
bost1751
11-07-2010, 20:27
Yes, there were the 5 civilized tribes and several others. There are also Indian Nations in OK. A lot of Indians find their way into federal court for al kinds of crap. Generally, you wonder a person on murder charges in federal court, but it does pop up here in federal court. Tribal law only goes so far before the feds step in. Another problem with tribal law is many of the tribes do not know their tribal law but think they do. then it is the question of how to administer it. the Inidans wanted autonomy and got it. It is still a guestion if they know how to deal with it.
:munchin
"...If no anti-Sharia law is needed, then why is Hamas-linked CAIR bothering to go to the trouble and expense of suing to block the law?
After all, a law against a non-existent threat may be silly, but if there is no need for the law in the first place, there is no need to sue to overturn it.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/in-wake-of-oklahoma-anti-sharia-vote-muslims-having-a-hard-time-getting-their-story-straight.html
And there it is...........:munchin
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101108/ap_on_re_us/us_islamic_law_lawsuit
By TIM TALLEY, Associated Press Tim Talley, Associated Press – Mon Nov 8, 4:49 pm ET
OKLAHOMA CITY – A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Monday to block a new amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that would prohibit state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases.
U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange handed down the order after an Oklahoma man filed a lawsuit claiming the amendment stigmatized his religion and would invalidate his will, which he said is partially based on Islamic Law, also known as Sharia Law.
"My constitutional rights are being violated through the condemnation of my faith," said Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. "Islam was the target of this amendment. This amendment does not have a secular purpose."
The measure, State Question 755, was approved with 70 percent of the vote in the Nov. 2 general election. The judge's order prevents the state Election Board from certifying the results of that vote, which it had planned to do Tuesday afternoon.
The order will remain in effect until a Nov. 22 hearing on a preliminary injunction.
Awad, a law school graduate who has not been admitted to practice in Oklahoma, was congratulated by Muslims and other supporters following Miles-Lagrange's ruling. Between 20,000 and 30,000 Muslims live in the state.
"We're confident in the case. We're confident in the claims we are making," said Awad, who filed the lawsuit Thursday. "Today's ruling is a reminder of the strength of our nation's legal system and the protections it grants to religious minorities."
The measure's author, Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs, attended the brief court hearing and said afterward he was surprised by Miles-Lagrange's decision.
"It thwarts the will of the people," said Duncan, an attorney who was elected district attorney in the northern Oklahoma counties of Osage and Pawnee in the general election.
Duncan has said the constitutional amendment was not intended as an attack on Muslims but an effort to prevent activist judges from relying on international law or Islamic law when ruling on legal cases.
In 2007, Duncan rejected a Quran as a gift from a council created by Gov. Brad Henry, explaining that "most Oklahomans do not endorse the idea of killing innocent women and children in the name of ideology."
The constitutional amendment was one of several on Oklahoma's ballot that critics said pandered to conservatives and would move the state further to the right.
Among other things, Awad's lawsuit alleges the measure transforms Oklahoma's Constitution into "an enduring condemnation" of Islam by singling it out and barring courts from referring to Islamic law. It also alleges it violates the First Amendment's prohibition against laws regarding the establishment of religion.
Legal experts also have questioned the measure. Joseph Thai, a professor at the University of Oklahoma's College of Law, said the ballot measure is "an answer in search of a problem" and that there is no danger of international law or Sharia law overtaking the American legal system.
U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange handed down the order after an Oklahoma man filed a lawsuit claiming the amendment stigmatized his religion and would invalidate his will, which he said is partially based on Islamic Law, also known as Sharia Law.
What if Awad's will, based on Islamic Law, is to have 4 wives, or to have his daughters circumcised - will his first amendment rights be violated?
Would they be violated if he can't beat his wives?
If there is no need for an anti-sharia law, why is Awad and CAIR suing to block the law?
IMO, since it is forbidden and a basic precept of Sharia to prevent criticisim of Muhammad, Islam, and Islamic legal practices, U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange handed down a concession and accomodation to Islamic Law which is in of itself, the establishment of sharia.....isn't the Judge blatantly advancing a religion, which happens to be a violation of the Establishment Clause?
Since when is forbidding the criticism of any religion a precept of Western civilization?
:munchin
"......As for the bashing of international law, that position does not exactly square with the "what would the founding fathers do" sensibility that is currently in vogue. The Second Anglo-American War (the War of 1812) began in no small part because Americans were rather quite tired of Britain's continued disregard for international law........."
Sigaba, I usually find your posts that include a bit of our history to be quite thought provoking. But I think you missed with this arrow.
If this, at the time, was an internal British issue (on that big island) I don't think the Americans would have been that upset. But even by that time the international sea lanes were under laws and treaties. The Brit's were violating those agreements, so the Americans said, against American shipping.
So that was a case of two countries on the high seas, some just off our coast, each claiming their laws were correct.
I think your example would be better illustrated by a British ship pulling into Boston and it's press gang rounding up anyone who sounded British. All while claiming they were just following British law.
So a living law Judge would say - "Hey, I got no problem with it, they are just following their laws."QP Pete--
My point is that the founding fathers understood the new nation's tenuous position in a hostile world and used international law to advance their own political, personal, and economic interests. If we are going to rely on their wisdom when we address today's problems, should we disqualify ourselves from using the same tools?
In regards to impressment and its role as a cause of America's most unpopular war, one might well ask how important the issue was. Before the war, U.S. officials at the federal and state level made a mockery of the 1802 Naturalization Act by issuing dubious, and often counterfeit, documents to sailors willing to pay for them. And to end the war, the 1814 Treaty of Ghent made no mention whatsoever of impressment or other issues of belligerents' rights in wartime.*
__________________________________________________
* Jon Latimer, 1812: War with America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 16-18, 419, and 401.
:munchin
David Yerushalmi: The Legal Battle Against Shariah
Today on Secure Freedom Radio, Frank Gaffney hosts Shariah Law expert David Yerushalmi to break down a new Pew research study that shows that the “vast majority of the Muslim world wants strict Al-Qaeda-like Shariah” to be the law of the land.
Yerushalmi also debunks the myth that the fundamental precepts of Shariah vary significantly across the Muslim world, discusses his legal action against the government takeover of the largest promoter and holder of Shariah financing (AIG), and highlights local and state activism across the United States to bar consideration of Shariah Law from our courts. Make sure to check out SecureFreedomRadio.org to hear the entirety of today’s show.
David Yerushalmi is a regular contributor to Big Peace.
Listen here: http://bigpeace.com/sfr/2010/12/10/david-yerushalmi-the-legal-battle-against-shariah/
Source: http://bigpeace.com/sfr/2010/12/10/david-yerushalmi-the-legal-battle-against-shariah/
Religion does three things quite effectively: divides people, controls people, deludes people.
- Carlespie McKinney
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I began to understand the rationale behind Islamic leadership back when the illustrious Jimmy "Cottontail" Carter was POTUS; the all-important, all-knowing head honcho Ayatollah Khomeini wrapped up the entire shebang with one crystal-clear statement:
"One pebble shall suffice to wipe the anus."
Religion does three things quite effectively: divides people, controls people, deludes people.
- Carlespie McKinney
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I suspect most atheists, like Carlespie Mary Alice McKinney, feel this way about religion.
I suspect most atheists, like Carlespie Mary Alice McKinney, feel this way about religion.
Reason would posit that there are many who are not atheists who might feel this way, too.
Richard :munchin
The Reaper
12-12-2010, 10:07
Reason would posit that there are many who are not atheists who might feel this way, too.
Richard :munchin
Wouldn't that contradict the faith required to be a follower of a religious order?
TR
Wouldn't that contradict the faith required to be a follower of a religious order?
Religious order...but not of a spiritual belief.
Richard
CAIR fought the law and...., CAIR won.... Score one for Shariah.... :(
...A federal judge sided with the [terror-linked] group in November of last year, issuing a preliminary injunction that kept it from becoming law....
...The measure banning Sharia law in Oklahoma courts passed by Oklahoma voters in 2010 was shot down by a senate committee Thursday....
Source> http://patdollard.com/2012/04/bill-banning-sharia-law-in-oklahoma-killed-in-committee/
North Carolina becomes 7th state to ban Muslim Sharia law...
"North Carolina has become the seventh state to prohibit state judges from considering Islamic law in family cases, joining what critics say is a national anti-Muslim campaign...."
> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865585340/North-Carolina-becomes-7th-state-to-ban-Muslim-Sharia-law.html?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fibloga.blogspot.com%2F