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.
"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 a tad bit more complex than that.
Islam has to do with the delivery of the Koran to Allah's prophet ~ named Mohammad.
The First amendment deals with SPEECH and with RELIGIOUS SPEECH both.
There's a reason for that. It is because they can be different.
The Shariah Law does not recognize the validity of another law system. The First amendment is part of an alien law system.
So, you want to run back through that one with me ~ this case involved Shariah, not Islam.
Yep, time to invoke that Tenth Amendment.
I am sick of the federal government shoving its nose into the state’s business.
We’ve got to win in November, folks.
A great deal of life's insults and bothers are delegated to individuals in any system that uses Shariah. Murder is privatized. Family discipline is privatized. Your beliefs regarding the right of your neighbor's young daughters to walk the streets are strictly private and you may murder them to help your neighbor observe proper decorum in the family.
Does this mean that the courts can look to the laws of most nations that existed when the Constitution was written. Most of them specify that a child inherits his FATHER’S nationality ...
(1) 1st Amendment: "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion....", and
(2) 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
PERIOD. NO Federal court has jurisdiction over OK on this matter.
Thankfully, in parts of the country that the libs frown upon, if a muzzie offs his wife for some idiotic islamic reason, there’ll be boys waiting for him in their pickup trucks (you know...those trucks with the rifles hung over the back window).
It’ll be muzzie trophy time.
And know what? I want to be there to watch when those boys get their game.
Sorry but I think you are mistaken, but this was an Amendment, not a congressional passed law. Big difference. It was a State law. Your quote states, “Congress shall make no law”.
Need to remember something in all of this, This Constitution is is the framework whereby the People of the United States, through elected representatives, have established the delegated powers and limitations of the United States government with respect to the citizens, the states, and all those within the United States.
Hmmm...seems to me that 70% of Oklahoma people said this should be a change...not sure where a Denver judge gets off telling them they can’t.
The courts are using their ‘powers’ given to them by the people, to overrule the people...a confrontation is looming I fear.
If you consider Islam a religion, this is a debatable issue in the courts.
Islam, however, is a system of government and NOT a religion.
Currently, Islam infringes on religious and political freedom because our society and courts look at Islam as EXCLUSIVELY a religion.
Islam is a system of government, first and foremost, and it should be considered as such FIRST, and then as a religion second.
There is nothing in the Constitution that provides for Sharia law. Nothing.
This ruling is an end run around an Amendment.
We simply refuse to learn ANYTHING from history when it pertains to Islam. They are either at your throat, or under your heel. Never are they at the table with you.
Sharia Law calls for theocratic government.
The First Amendment calls for separation of church and state.
Ergo, this idiot judge’s opinion is unconstitutional.
We need to revolt against this kind of nonesense. This cries out for Civil Disobedience by individuals and the State of Oklahoma.
This individual needs to be removed from the bench. She attended undergraduate school overseas which may mean she is not American by birth. Only natural born Americans are fit to sit in judgment on Constitutionality issues.
His arse and those like need to be booted out now...I better stop there
Oklahoma may teach the political oligarchy, including the judiciary, what “Of the people, by the people, and for the people” means. This decision will bring to the fore the problem the courts are avoiding, that Sharia is inextricably part of a doctrine including religion, law, and government. No believer can honestly swear allegiance to our Constitution. That forces recognition of what it means to be a citizen. How the judiciary will unravel this will be interesting, and important, because citizens always have the power to remove judges. Seventy percent of our citizens cannot be denied. I'm guessing that Oklahoma is not an outlier on this issue.
Your mention of natural born Americans is at the core of the very legitimate eligibility issue so it is important to keep clear that our common-law, as cited in The Venus, 12 US 253 by Chief Justice Marshall, and the positive law, cited in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 leaves no doubt that a natural born citizen is “born on the soil of citizen parents.” That definition has never been amended and admits no other definition. A “born citizen of the US, the term used in Wong Kim Ark, can be born of alien parents, but on our soil, like Barack Obama. Wong Kim Ark was made a citizen, and not a natural born citizen. Justice Gray who wrote WKA cited the Minor holding for the definition of natural born citizenship. Article II specifies that the president be a “natural born citizen.” Neither Obama, McCain, Rubio, Jindal, nor Chester Arthur were natural born citizens.
Attending undergraduate school overseas doesn't mean the judge wasn't born here to citizen parents, but, I see your point; it raises the question. It is also true that someone born oversears or born and raised overseas, and even born to alien parents, after naturalization and residency, can become a judge - even a supreme court justice. The only position in our society requiring a natural born citizen is the presidency. Part of our law, Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), noted that a young girl, Marie Elg, born in New York to just-naturalized Swedish parents, removed to Sweden as a toddler, raised there, who chose to return to the U.S. at majority, after 14 years residance and reaching the age of 35, was elibible to the presidency. The reasoning is that being made a citizen by nature cannot be abrogated by law. Once a natural born citizen always a natural born citizen. But native-born citizens who live somewhere else for a designatied period, lose their citizenship, and must apply for naturalization should they wish to return.
There are only two classes of citizens, natural born and naturalized. The majority of our citizenry consists of natural born citizens. The U.S. is uniquely liberal in that requirement. England, for example, does not admit naturalized citizens to the parliament. Monarchs need the right blood.
The US Constitution provides for this, however we also have "Article Six of the United States Constitution" (also known as the Supremecy Clause) which states:
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States
This is the Constitution we have all swore to defend (to the death) to uphold. Or, do you think we get to cherry-pick only those sections we "like"? Again, all powers not relagated to the Federal Gov't are given to the states. However, no state is free to circumvent the US Constitution. Otherwise, we could have slavery in some states, gun bans in other states and only certain religions would be tolerated in other states.
I disagree: they have now said that religious law can in fact be used to determine US or state law. Its the same as saying that the Talmud can be used to decide laws. Or that a payday loan rate is too high because it violates sharia.
No....they did not get it right: there is nothing in the law that prevents the plaintiff from excercising or practicng sharia in his own circumstance. Now, however, anyone and everyone can be judged in light of sharia. Let ‘em try.
I agree that Islam is the enemy - in fact a lot of those points you gave are in a post I made not that long ago.
However, we are not free to circumvent the US Constitution when ‘it suits our needs’; for when we do, that same circumvention can be used against us. I’m unwilling to relinquish the ability to follow the law - as written.
I know full well that under Islam, you and I are both Dhimmi, will be forced to pay the Jizya, will be forbidden from worshipping in public, repairing or building our churches - and be abused.
However, the best way to weaken and pervert a society, is by flexing the rules of that society. A law that is flexed to suit a particular whim, is a law that can be flexed to oppress us at a later time.
This same Ammendment, if kept inflexible; prevents Sharia from taking over our lives, tomorrow.
You might just want to take a look at the Supremacy Clause.
Every state in the US, is covered by the US Constitution. This means that every state MUST abide by the US Constitution in all laws, treaties and contracts. For example, no state can say they do not allow free speech, or ban guns from private ownership.
While I agree a state can’t circumvent the US Constitution, the federal government cannot read stuff into the constitution that is not there!
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Clearly the intent of this amendment was to mitigate any design the federal government had on enlarging its powers through the “supremacy clause.” If the power was not enumerated in the Constitution and the States were not prohibited by the Constitution from exercising said power, then that power was reserved to the States.
Further, there is no basis for calling the OK law in this case unconstitutional. What part does it violate? It makes it clear that foreign or religious law (both of which are unconstitutional) are not to be used as a basis of legal decisions.
Am I missing something?
Well aware of it. OK is not violating the Constitution with this Amendment, any more than they would if they displayed a ten commandments plaque.
One big issue involving Sharia involves undue influence.
When the option exists to have a contract, divorce, or child custody be governed under Sharia law, any Muslim who rejects the option is, by that act, an apostate subject to being killed.
The problem here is with the test, and not with the Constitution.
What constitutes a religion under 1A. This needs to change if by religion, members of a sect (like Islam) are allowed to establish their own court system, and impose their own criminal and civil penalties.
This is especially important if Dhimmis could be considered parties to claims, or criminal defendants under such ‘shadow’ systems.
There are no criminal or civil courts under Canon Law, nor are there any under Wicca, Taoism, Hinduism, Christianity (any variant), Satanism, Atheism, etc.
Islam is the only ‘belief system’ that has within it a complete constitution that understands or respects any geographical classification you could call ‘jurisdiction’.
Indeed, under Sharia, you and I are subject to it right now. If either of us were to denigrate either the Koran, the name of Mohammed, his image, etc., a fatwa would be issued against us and we could be subject to the death penalty under Sharia.
The test of what a religion is MUST make the distinction between a system of beliefs, and an imposed criminal and civil code that respects no sovereign boundaries or treaties between nations.
Jefferson more effectively, if not jocularly, defined the intent of the 1A as follows:
“It neither BREAKS MY BACK, nor picks my pocket what another man believes.”
The implication here is that if anothers belief system indeed BREAKS ONE’S BACK (or beheads one’s body, or burns one’s body, etc.) then whatever your belief system is FAILS THE TEST.
You brought up Jizya. Is that not ‘picking one’s pocket?’
What Jefferson was SPECIFICALLY trying to prevent was the Vatican from coming over here and declaring ‘Papal Lands’ as had been done in Europe. In the UK, one tithed not because one chose to, but because it was something all royal subjects were required to do.
It was only recently that Germans were free to NOT tithe to the Lutheran church. I believe in the last 30 years or so.
The test of what constitutes a religion has not been properly applied here.
Muslims should feel free to worship in Mosque, but hold criminal and civil proceedings under a separate system of laws created without representation of the people subject to them is PRECISELY what 1A was built to prevent.
Islam breaks one’s back AND picks one’s pocket, and as such is a competing system of government within the sovereign boundaries of the US. It violates one’s rights to due process, security of persons and papers, etc.
As usual, the Circuits botched this. I don’t hold any hope that Scotus will get this right either.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Congress did not make the Oklahoma Law, so how is it unconstitutional?
Ban on Sharia law unconstitutional?
What’s wrong with these idiots?
Everything about sharia law is unconstitutional.
It goes against everything the U.S stands for.
Never in history has such a small group wielded such power.
If America does not wake up, we are doomed.
You can try here to start.
Thank you for that detailed and well-researched response and I agree with what you are saying.
This decision by the 10th Circuit as well as that of the lower court is very ALARMING.
Back in the fifties, the Federal Courts instituted two great social changes in America - one very good, the wholly evil. The good one was to eliminate segregation. The evil one was to effectively divorce the Judaeo-Christian concepts of morality and God upon which America was founded, from Public Life. This social revolution is still proceeding with horrific results I need not go into here.
The same liberal thinking men - and women - in black, appear to be embarking on another change of course in American Social life - open acceptance of Sharia Law.
This is such a serious and evil adventure that it MANDATES a vigorous response from all freedom-loving Americans, from active civil disobedience on the state, local and personal level to whatever is necessary to STOP these social engineers.
Islam does not belong in the west - at least not in its current form and is totally antithetical to everything America stands for.
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.