Skip to comments.Oklahoma ban on Sharia law ruled unconstitutional
Posted on 01/10/2012 12:45:10 PM PST by Qbert
OKLAHOMA CITY An amendment that would ban Oklahoma courts from considering international or Islamic law discriminates against religions and a Muslim community leader has the right to challenge its constitutionality, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.
The court in Denver upheld U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGranges order blocking implementation of the amendment shortly after it was approved by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters in November 2010.
Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, sued to block the law from taking effect, arguing that the Save Our State Amendment violated his First Amendment rights.
The amendment read, in part: The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.
(Excerpt) Read more at claremoreprogress.com ...
"An amendment that would ban Oklahoma courts from considering international or Islamic law discriminates against religions..."
Should make for some interesting cases when judges look to Sharia to help decide US law, and declare that stoning women is acceptable...
What a doufous. Sharia law itself does not recognize First-Amendment rights!
Clinton appointee. What a shock.
So say a polygamy law could override the constitution and let them have 9 wives.
Or islam says men can have 4 wives, will all of this be legal I mean after all two turd pokers can have their sham marriage in certain states
so another law is not unconstitutional even though it threatens to override the constitution.
OK GOT IT
Votes or there lack of have consequences and letting certain people decide on who gets that judges seat brings us these idiotic decisions.
ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.
Miles-LaGrange was nominated by President William J. Clinton on September 22, 1994, to a seat on the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma vacated by Lee Roy West. She was confirmed by the United States Senate on October 7, 1994, and received her commission on November 28, 1994. She began her service as chief judge in 2008. Judge Miles-LaGrange’s preliminary ruling  enjoining amendment of the Oklahoma Constitution to prohibit the state’s courts from either “considering or using” international law or Islamic Sharia law has attracted considerable attention and has prompted one Oklahoma state legislator to urge Congress to impeach her .
Bizarro world. Just a few years ago, King Abdulla of Jordan sparked outrage by decreeing that men couldn’t kill their wives and daughters.
That is ironic.
Sharia law doesn’t recognize freedom of religion.
So, the freedom of religion clause will be used to enact a set of laws that forbid freedom of religion?
As has been pointed out so many times: the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Don’t elect Democrats.
You think American’s are free? Just try a passing referendum the elitists don’t like. Just try!
Fine. Pass a law against considering any laws or rules other than Oklahoma or United States Federal laws in Oklahoma courts. It's probably a better set of standards anyways, and it accomplishes the same purpose.
We have many folks working to purge US law of the Ten Commandments, with others trying to replace the Ten Commandments with Sharia Law. I thought that religious laws were illegal.
We are already discriminating against our own Ten Commandments and "In God We Trust." Now we welcome Sharia Law?
I am curious what gyrations these “judges” will go through to avoid giving equal treatment to the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, the Latin church’s modern canon law, or the Talmud now that they’ve ruled that Muslim religious law can be considered.
After all, we know that “liberals” “tolerance” is actually hatred of the Gospel (and to a lesser extent the Torah), so they don’t really mean that courts should be allowed to consider religious law.
"So, the freedom of religion clause will be used to enact a set of laws that forbid freedom of religion?"
Shameful. There is no precedent for this sort of thing (and yet I bet they could get five votes in SCOTUS on this).
It's right there, by making a law prohibiting a religous law, they have "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The court did it's job. I don't like it; but they made the correct decision.
It’s just that simple. SHEESH!
” In declining states the leadership intuitively chose the most harmful course of action..”- A Great Historian 1888
If the person lending the money demands you stop allowing pigs or dogs in building “X” and the probation isn't in the contract and is legal in the State, Community then the Mussie who loaned you the money can't make an additional demand.
If someone tries to impose an aspect of Sharia law that contradicts the Constitution, the Constitution wins via the Supremacy clause.
If they attempt to stop me from following my own law, they are violating my 1st Amendment rights.
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.