[nutmeg]

bookmark

[seton89]

Carolina Akbar!

[Lurking Libertarian]

A South Carolina proposal would prevent the state's courts from enforcing foreign law,

A ban on applying any "foreign law" is just nuts.

Example: a South Carolina company buys goods from a British company. The contract says that U.K. law governs. The South Carolina company doesn't pay, and the U.K. seller sues them in South Carolina. How can the court not apply the law selected in the contract?

Example 2: a South Carolina resident goes on vacation in Canada and gets into an auto accident. The injured Canadian driver sues the South Carolina driver in South Carolina court. How can the court not apply Canadian traffic laws in deciding which driver was at fault?

I could go on all day. The point being that, however well intentioned they are in trying to keep Sharia law out of the U.S. (certainly a good thing), drafting a ban on applying "any foreign law" is stupid.

[OldDeckHand]

Apparently, South Carolina no longer wishes to business with the rest of the world. Interesting economic strategy. Not prudent. But interesting.

[snippy_about_it]

Ping

[Jacquerie]

"The backers of these discriminatory proposals realize if they put specific references to Sharia or Muslims, it won't pass constitutional muster," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based Muslim rights advocacy group.

Only because Islam is mistaken for a religion.

Islam will advance as long as the 1st Amendment is used to restrict Christianity.

[hoosierham]

Notice how the media are equating the exploitation of women and children under sharia law as "ultrtaconservative"?

No true American conservatives any uses for such practices.

[The Pack Knight]

Alright, this bill at least isn't as insane as the Arizona bill from last year. The South Carolina bill only prohibits the enforcement of foreign law "if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States." That actually seems like a good idea unless I'm missing something - if nothing else, it should at least help fight "libel tourism".

The Arizona bill barred enforcement or even consideration of foreign law in Arizona courts, whether constitutional rights were implicated or not. Furthermore, it provided that reliance on foreign law by an Arizona judge was "grounds for impeachment and removal from office." Fortunately, it never made it out of committee.

[patriot preacher]

Perhaps the wording needs some work — we’ll let you brilliant lawyers help us out with that. Here’s what I do know:

1. In South Carolina — State Law is the priority EXCEPT in the SPECIFIC cases where the Constitution of the United States gives authority to the Federal Government — and ONLY in those enumerated cases.

2. In NO CASE should “foreign law” take precedence over State law in the lives of the citizens of South Carolina with regard to criminal behavior. Example: Shari’a law regarding MARRIAGE (men can marriage little girls, or up to 4 females) IS NOT ALLOWED! “Honor killing” is not ACCEPTABLE!”

3. In the case of Contract law, foreign trade, etc., that has FAR more to do with FEDERAL law, treaties, etc. than with State law.

It appears there are fewer conflicts than critics claim. In any event, the conflicts CAN be sorted out to protect our STATE (and our NATION) from the evil that is Shari’a Law! And for that matter, our citizens ought not to be subject to any other nations laws on their own soil. Period.