Oklahoma Bans Shari'a Law, Muslim Sues

[carpro]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lawsuit-filed-against-oklahoma-s-voter-a

Lawsuit Filed Against Oklahoma’s Voter-Approved Ban on Islamic Shari’a Law
Friday, November 05, 2010
By Tim Talley, Associated Press

Oklahoma City (AP) - An Oklahoma Muslim filed a federal lawsuit on Thursday to block a state constitutional amendment overwhelmingly approved by voters that would prohibit state courts from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.

The measure, which got 70 percent of the vote in Tuesday's election...

 

[StefanM]

I don't see any reason for this amendment to be struck down. I think the amendment is mostly symbolic for reasons mentioned in the article, but I don't see anything strictly unconstitutional (in a federal sense) in it.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

I don't see any reason for this amendment to be struck down. I think the amendment is mostly symbolic for reasons mentioned in the article, but I don't see anything strictly unconstitutional (in a federal sense) in it.

I agree. It's kind of a pointless law, but I don't see a basis for a constitutional challenge.

 

[billwald]

"The measure also states “Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed",” http://www.edmondsun.com/local/x1364884942/Anti-sharia-measure-faces-legal-challenge

Say the amendment is affirmed. Will you all who claim that US law is based on the Bible change your tune?

 

[carpro]

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Period.

This measure will help keep it so.

 

[Alcott]

This is an interesting creation. A constitutional amendment is passed which would prohibit something that both state and federal law already prohibits, so now a muslim seeks to throw out the amendment, giving the impression he want to prohibit the prohibition of sharia law.

 

[Don]

...Awad said a value he cherishes is that Americans are endowed by their creator with certain “unalienable rights,” a value cherished by Americans and Oklahomans.

SQ 755, authored by state Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs, takes away unalienable rights of a minority community in Oklahoma, Awad said. He estimated 20,000-30,000 Muslims live in the state.

“When we heard about this proposed amendment, I realized that I, as a Muslim, was being told that I don’t have the same rights as a Christian, or a Jew or any other person of any other faith,” he said.

The amendment would affect his ability to marry in accordance with his faith, to give to charity, to will his property, to enter into a business contract, Awad said. This is why CAIR felt compelled to speak out as a community, as Oklahomans, as a civil rights advocate, he said.

What a crock.

You have the same rights as any other Christian, Jew, or any other person of faith under the United States Constitution.

You may marry in accordance with United States constitutional laws; you may give to charity in any fashion you wish (but don't expect to be able to claim it if it doesn't fall within IRS guidelines); you can will your property to anyone you want (but expect it to be challenged if it doesn't comply with U.S. legal guidelines); and you can enter into any business contract that complies with U.S. legal guidelines.

What it says is, Oklahoma judges must abide by the U.S. Constitution, and not another legal system that isn't recognized by the U.S. What it says is, if you're not within U.S. legal guidelines, you cannot fall back on sharia law to say that you're within a legal guideline.

Yeesh.

 

[billwald]

Where does the US Constitution forbid judges to consider local/national custom and social practice when interpreting the law?

The anti-federalists argued that an inclusion of a bill of rights would ultimately limit US rights to the list and that is exactly what has happened.

Our Constitutional rights are expressed as negatives. Hasn't the courts used Protestant Christian customs to interpret the law and isn't this what is argued against Roe v Wade? Christians want to interpret "human" life as existing from conception? God gives a human soul to a collection of undifferentiated cells?

 

[Melanie]

hey come on guys....if there was Sharia Law you could have up to 4 wives, beat them whenever the whim took you, and of course take a wife who was one year old upwards....oh yeah only if you are Muslim, but then if you were you could righteously slaughter the infidel.....that is everyone else.:tonofbricks:

 

[targus]

... so now a muslim seeks to throw out the amendment, giving the impression he want to prohibit the prohibition of sharia law.

That is a spot on interpretation of the intent of the suit.

 

[rbell]

Where does the US Constitution forbid judges to consider local/national custom and social practice when interpreting the law?

What's the point of a Constitution--a de facto supreme law of the land--if it isn't supreme?

The Constitution probably didn't explicitly forbid judges from using outside sources of law, simlpy because it made the assumption that judges would at the least act as if the US was a sovereign nation with its own body of law. They didn't anticipate judges as stupid as the ones we have.

Our Constitutional rights are expressed as negatives. Hasn't the courts used Protestant Christian customs to interpret the law and isn't this what is argued against Roe v Wade? Christians want to interpret "human" life as existing from conception? God gives a human soul to a collection of undifferentiated cells?

You might be the only person on the BB with a fouled-up enough theology and understanding of the Constitution to make such a stupid argument.

But then again--I'm not surprised that you have a problem with the Constitution's affirmation of a right to life--nor am I surprised that you can't even bring yourself to affirm the Christian viewpoint against the evil of abortion.

It's disgusting...it's disturbing...but it's not surprising.

 

[billwald]

>What's the point of a Constitution--a de facto supreme law of the land--if it isn't supreme?

It is and it gave the Supreme Court the final say. We are ruled by case law per the Constitution.

 

[Amy.G]

You might be the only person on the BB with a fouled-up enough theology and understanding of the Constitution to make such a stupid argument.

My question is....why is he even allowed on this board?? :BangHead: