Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Oklahoma Sharia Ban
The American Thinker ^ | November 20, 2010 | Todd Keister

Posted on 11/20/2010 1:35:02 AM PST by Scanian

A Federal District Court judge recently issued an order blocking the implementation of an amendment to the Oklahoma State Constitution. The amendment, approved by seventy percent of Oklahoma voters, would bar state court judges from considering either international or Islamic Sharia law when rendering legal decisions. This has naturally caused a firestorm of debate in the news media, all of which misses the central question, which is whether or not a federal court has the authority to arbitrarily interfere with the governance of a member state of our federal republic.

The ruling in Oklahoma comes, not surprisingly, from federal judge Vicki Miles-LeGrange, a Democrat and former Oklahoma state senator, appointed to the bench by President Clinton. Someone forgot to tell her that the federal courts have no authority whatsoever to enjoin a state government from amending its own constitution.

The problem in Oklahoma, as in Arizona, where the federal courts recently blocked implementation of state law dealing with illegal aliens, is that the states continue to play the feds' game; that is, they make their arguments from the false premise that the federal government has the authority to interfere in their internal affairs. It does not.

The Oklahoma amendment imperils no one's rights under the constitution of either Oklahoma or the United States. It says simply that Oklahoma judges will adhere to the laws of the state and of the United States and will not consider international or Sharia law when exercising their judicial authority. If, after Oklahoma enacts the amendment, a citizen feels that his rights as a United States citizen were somehow violated because the judge failed to consider the tenets of law in Libya, or misogynistic and backward Sharia law, that person could challenge the law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That amendment reiterates that all Americans are citizens of both their state and of the United States and prohibits the states from taking any action that would deny U.S. citizens their rights.

The challenge to the law was filed by Muneer Awad, director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. He, of course, has no legal standing whatsoever to do so, since he has not had any of his rights violated by the passage of the amendment. His preposterous argument to Judge Miles-LaGrange was that he would somehow suffer "irreparable harm" if the amendment were to become law because it has the "effect of condemning Plaintiff's faith and enshrining that condemnation in Oklahoma's constitution."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: cair; federaljudge; injunction; statesrights

1 posted on 11/20/2010 1:35:04 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Scanian

Just the kind of ruling one might expect from a hyphenated-Clinton-appointed judge. Hopefully, the citizens of the state of Oklahoma will fight back by telling her to keep her AA butt out of the state’s business.


2 posted on 11/20/2010 2:23:51 AM PST by ComputerGuy (HM2/USN M/3/3 Marines RVN 66-67)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
Well, we know the Obama administration stands foursquare behind the good people of Oklahoma and against Sharia...


3 posted on 11/20/2010 3:13:50 AM PST by SonOfDarkSkies (Raise taxes on the wealthy...kill the jobs they create!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

Although the ruling tells us a great deal about this judge, it’s not going to force any Oklahoma legal body to consider Shari’a. The people need to hold every family court judge’s, every city council member’s, and every college administrator’s feet to the fire ... especially if such people happen to be Moslem.


4 posted on 11/20/2010 3:27:10 AM PST by Tax-chick (Global Warming: the first faith preached exclusively by hypocrites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
We will not turn our country around until we elect enough conservatives to impeach, convict and remove such judges.

Impeachment for some reason has developed a bad rap. It is just as constitutional to remove a judge who abuses his/her power as it is to replace congressmen every two years. Contrary to popular belief, impeachment was not designed to be a procedure subsequent to a felony trial. Impeachment is for political abuses and must be used if we are to return to some semblance of constitutional government.

5 posted on 11/20/2010 3:28:42 AM PST by Jacquerie (We risk a new Constitution whenever a Federal Court is in session.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

We are in a war on many fronts. At least now the people are aware.


6 posted on 11/20/2010 4:12:04 AM PST by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Only to point it out in the Constitution, but the government (at least at the federal level) cannot pass a law to manage or challenge a religion. I kinda thought from the beginning of this Oklahoma effort...that it wouldn’t work when taken to the Supreme Court.


7 posted on 11/20/2010 4:28:54 AM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

“...especially if such people happen to be Moslem...”

I am glad to see that you used the correct word. Most people would have used the word “Muslim” which is currently the politically correct word being used today.

You, my friend, used the correct word.

According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, “Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word.” But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means “one who gives himself to God,” and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means “one who is evil and unjust” when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z.


8 posted on 11/20/2010 4:35:59 AM PST by DH (Once the tainted finger of government touches anything, it begins to rot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

ISLAM is NOT a religion-it remains primarily a complete system of theocratic civil government and military force under the guise of religion. Islam is and has always been incompatible with our own Republican form of Democracy-From the setting out by Columbus to the planting of a Latin Cross at Cape Henry—
from the Mayflower Compact and the related fundamental and Organic law Islam has always been an opposing and destructive force. the ignorant and the deceived can pretend it is a
religion and protected under our Constitution until they slay you, or bind you head and foot -and demand you submit to paying the poor rate until the war lay down its burden
but your dementia will not make it what you pretend it is.


9 posted on 11/20/2010 4:40:28 AM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DH

Very interesting! I did not know all those details. I have a personal rule about Anglicization of foreign words: if there’s a spelling that’s been in use a long time, such as “Moslem,” changing it probably involves PC sensitivity.

If we’re friendly and I feel like respecting the sensitivity, I might, for example, go along with calling Bombay “Mumbai,” dumb as that looks. However, if it’s our enemies, FReep ‘em. I’ll call them Moslems and their founder Mahomet.


10 posted on 11/20/2010 4:45:08 AM PST by Tax-chick (Global Warming: the first faith preached exclusively by hypocrites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk
ISLAM islam is NOT a religion...

This needs to be stated over and over again, people need to be woken up to this simple fact. The PC thought and speech process that try to distort this basic fact will led to the destruction of Western Civilization if allowed to remain unchallenged.

Thank you for helping to fight this PC suicide pact.

11 posted on 11/20/2010 4:52:19 AM PST by zzeeman (Existence exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

Our continuing compliance is a disaster in the making. The Tea Party must work around the clock in Oklahoma to unseat this usurper. Taking back a whole country is going to be hard work and if we are resting, we are losing ground. The death of our prayer life has made us unrecognizable as a nation of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. We have forgotten who we really are, er...were.


12 posted on 11/20/2010 5:10:43 AM PST by RitaOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zzeeman
islam is NOT a religion...

I think it would be more accurate to say that Islam is not JUST a religion. It includes a complete theocratic form of government that goes against our Constitution (not to mention God, who has just a tad more authority than our Constitution).

13 posted on 11/20/2010 5:15:01 AM PST by cizinec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cizinec

Yes, I agree with your description “a complete theocratic form of government” and add: “that uses a thin religious veneer used to both hide its true purpose and to abuse the West’s concept of religious freedom to afford it protection as it seeks to destroy from within.”


14 posted on 11/20/2010 5:24:25 AM PST by zzeeman (Existence exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice
Only to point it out in the Constitution, but the government (at least at the federal level) cannot pass a law to manage or challenge a religion. I kinda thought from the beginning of this Oklahoma effort...that it wouldn’t work when taken to the Supreme Court.

I'm not tracking. It does *not* single out one type of law. It says that Oklahoma judges cannot use *any* foreign legal rulings. I'm Eastern Orthodox. Should I demand that the courts use our canon law to determine the outcome of cases? That would already be unconstitutional. Yet that is precisely what Moslems want and what this amendment clarifies. They can be Moslems all they want, but their equivalent of canon law cannot be used in place of our Common Law.

In Louisiana that would be problematic, since no one else in the states uses Civil Law. They use French and Canadian rulings all the time, since they still use that legal tradition. The law in Oklahoma is based on Common Law, not Shari'a Law, Roman Catholic Canon Law, Russian Orthodox Canon Law, Lutheran Canon Law, Baptist . . . whatever Baptists have, etc.

15 posted on 11/20/2010 5:25:57 AM PST by cizinec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DH

I prefer “Mohammedan”. Both “Moslem” and “Muslim” provide the veneer of an actual legitimate belief system, when what we’re dealing with here is a made-up religion constructed by a delusional fanatic with a penchant for polygamy.


16 posted on 11/20/2010 5:26:08 AM PST by Stosh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

States to Feds: Pound sand.


17 posted on 11/20/2010 6:08:50 AM PST by Jabba the Nutt (Are they insane, stupid or just evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

The next step for states is to declare federal fascists persona non grata and harass them with state laws, including arrest and imprisonment.


18 posted on 11/20/2010 6:24:59 AM PST by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DH

” By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means “one who is evil and unjust”

Didn’t know that. I’ll start using the “Moslem” spelling when appropriate.


19 posted on 11/20/2010 6:27:49 AM PST by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice
Only to point it out in the Constitution, but the government (at least at the federal level) cannot pass a law to manage or challenge a religion.

There is no right to substitute our legal system with another, even if it is associated with a religion. As for managing Christianity, the basis of our country, it has been under assault since the 5-4 Everson v. Board of Education ruling. Klansman Hugo Black gave us the infamous "wall of separation" nonsense. If there is a wall of separation, how can the OK amendment be unconstitutional?

20 posted on 11/20/2010 7:05:41 AM PST by Jacquerie (We risk a new Constitution whenever a Federal Court is in session.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ComputerGuy

When are the states going to learn that a federal judge does not have jurisdiction over a sovereign state? Only the Supreme Court has that jurisdiction. The governor of Oklahoma needs to ignore the ruling of the federal judge just as Gov Brewer in Arizona should. If they want to sue then take it to SCOTUS. These federal judges are out of control.


21 posted on 11/20/2010 10:20:34 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
I don't think the good citizens of Oklahoma should simply ignore the ruling. I'd like to see them saying hell no while giving that AA 'judge' the middle finger.
22 posted on 11/20/2010 11:13:05 AM PST by ComputerGuy (HM2/USN M/3/3 Marines RVN 66-67)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

“When are the states going to learn that a federal judge does not have jurisdiction over a sovereign state? Only the Supreme Court has that jurisdiction.”

Sense when? If the U.S. Supreme court has jurisdiction over States then so does it’s inferior courts by delegations.

The flaw of the Constitution in place as apposes to the written Constitution authorized by the people(in their capacity as States) is the presumption that the actors defined and limited by that constitution have the final authority to judge the meaning of that constitution.

As Thomas Jefferson said such a power is the heights of madness rendering any such government who’s officers hold such power effectively lawless given that they are subject only to the limits of their own discretion not the limits of any written Constitutional law.

So to be frank, the constitution now in place is not a constitution at all.

In a Constitution the States being the ratifiers of the contract are the final Judge of their own written consent to be governed.

The plain English of the Constitution was written to make this judgment easy with respect to the limits of their capacity.

There should be no intrastate conflict with the Federal Government for the simple reason the Federal Government has almost no legitimate intRAstate powers to speak of.

IntERstate conflicts involve legitimate disputes between 2 or more states, in which case the Federal government has the power to arbitrate, and enforce its judgment by simply siding with one of the parties.


23 posted on 11/22/2010 8:14:51 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson