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

Skip to comments.

10th Circuit: Amendment Banning Sharia Law is Not OK
Wall Street Journal ^ | 01/10/12 | Ashby Jones

Posted on 01/10/2012 1:07:30 PM PST by AtlasStalled

Sometimes voters get behind an idea, and we think to ourselves, why? Why are they even bothering when that idea, were it to become law, would be struck down as unconstitutional faster than we can utter “temporary restraining order?”

We smugly revisited that thought on Tuesday upon hearing that the Denver-based 10th Circuit had upheld a lower-court ruling keeping an amendment to the Oklahoma constitution from becoming law.

The amendment, overwhelmingly approved by Oklahoma voters last year, prevents judges from basing rulings on international law — and specifically mentions Islamic law, often known as Shariah law.

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; bansharia; constitution; islam; sharia; stockpilesong; tenthamendment; thestockpilesong
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-158 next last
So is the Tenth Circuit now saying its okay to stone women to death who are victims of rape? The good people of Oklahoma should be applauded for rejecting that barbarity known as Sharia law, and shame on the Tenth Circuit for apparently accepting it as just another set of religious beliefs which must be accomodated by the courts.
1 posted on 01/10/2012 1:07:33 PM PST by AtlasStalled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

“overwhelmingly approved by Oklahoma voters last year, prevents judges from basing rulings on international law — and specifically mentions Islamic law, often known as Shariah law. “

Isn’t this a good thing as they must pass laws based on the Constitution - not other laws?


2 posted on 01/10/2012 1:09:49 PM PST by edcoil (It is not over until I win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

So another form of government is allowed to trump US law?

On our soil?

Let those judges offer up their daughters to honor killings and acid attacks or cutting off their fingers for wanting an education, then get back to me.


3 posted on 01/10/2012 1:10:54 PM PST by Cowgirl of Justice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

Gingrich was right.


4 posted on 01/10/2012 1:12:47 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

I think you misunderstood the ruling.


5 posted on 01/10/2012 1:12:47 PM PST by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

6 posted on 01/10/2012 1:13:23 PM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

bump


7 posted on 01/10/2012 1:16:36 PM PST by tutstar (Want pings to Aaron Klein articles and OWS nonsense?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

Sorry! I am the one who misunderstood this.


8 posted on 01/10/2012 1:17:15 PM PST by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

So... laws are no longer interpreted on the U.S. Constitution, opening the way for Sharia to become codified in America.

Pray for whatever is left of this dying country....


9 posted on 01/10/2012 1:18:28 PM PST by ScottinVA (Liberal logic: 0bamacare mandate is acceptable... but voter IDs are unconstitutional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

Gingrich says he’ll start yanking judges... the idea never sounded better.


10 posted on 01/10/2012 1:19:13 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

“Isn’t this a good thing as they must pass laws based on the Constitution - not other laws?”

The Tenth Circuit is ruling that Okalahoma cannot ban the use of Sharia law through an amendment to its state constitution.


11 posted on 01/10/2012 1:19:41 PM PST by AtlasStalled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jean S

It’s okay . . . sometimes these court decisions and legal articles are have so many double negatives in them it does get confusing!


12 posted on 01/10/2012 1:22:03 PM PST by AtlasStalled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

Through what means can a state ban Sharia then?


13 posted on 01/10/2012 1:22:03 PM PST by bigdirty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl of Justice
If the 10th circuit court is right, who gets to decide what law rules the people? Clearly not the people who approved the amendment. If the 10th circuit court decided Sharia or Scottish law, or International Law is suitable, what say do the people have? Apparently they cannot say no.
How is this not tyranny?
14 posted on 01/10/2012 1:22:40 PM PST by Old North State (Don't blame me, I voted for Pedro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled
The court ruled that, for starters, the law discriminated on the basis of religion

No... the law prevents OTHER laws -- religious or otherwise -- that conflict with the U.S. Constitution from being given consideration.

15 posted on 01/10/2012 1:24:04 PM PST by ScottinVA (Liberal logic: 0bamacare mandate is acceptable... but voter IDs are unconstitutional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

Thumb your nose, and ban it anyway.


16 posted on 01/10/2012 1:25:12 PM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: americanophile; Islaminaction; Kolokotronis; annalex; MahatmaGandu; NYer; La Lydia; AnalogReigns; ..
ISLAMIZATION PING LIST

"Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless
to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" - Quran 48:29

Infidels: freepmail me if you want on or off this list.

"The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets,
the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers."


17 posted on 01/10/2012 1:25:55 PM PST by americanophile ("this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives" - Ataturk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled
The Governor of OK can now announce she is ignoring the ruling, citing the following:

(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.

18 posted on 01/10/2012 1:27:46 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigdirty
Through what means can a state ban Sharia then?

Don't enact it in the first place.

19 posted on 01/10/2012 1:29:05 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bigdirty
Through what means can a state ban Sharia then?

Don't enact it in the first place.

20 posted on 01/10/2012 1:29:37 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

In related recent Sharia news...:

“In the last few days alone, Boko Haram has killed at least 44 people...
responsible for at least 510 killings last year alone... It has targeted churches in the past in its campaign to implement strict Shariah law across Nigeria...”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45909569


21 posted on 01/10/2012 1:29:58 PM PST by Qbert ("The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry" - William F. Buckley, Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

The way I understand it, you can’t single out one specific group (equal protection). So the law would have been ok, if they had not put in the extra step of naming sharia.


22 posted on 01/10/2012 1:35:16 PM PST by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

Hitler wanted Germany (and possibly the rest of Europe) to be Islamic. The Leftists in Europe are fulfilling his dream. With America continually becoming more and more and more Euro-peon-ized that may happen here.


23 posted on 01/10/2012 1:41:37 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; All
Gingrich was right.

Yes he was. (IMO The following link should be stickied at the top.)

"Newt Gingrich at Values Voter Summit - How to Fight Back Against Out-of-Control Judges":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu3K1wW-cNU

.

I find it amusing when people say "Gingrich is angry," and then turn around and say "we need a fighter to take down Obama." Which is it?

Personally, I don't see him as "angry, but rather frustrated that there are so many un/misinformed American voters and the MSM's (and some FReepers) obsession bashing him.

Do we want a fighter, or another wishy-washy Bob Dole like Santorum? (And I like Santorum a lot)?

24 posted on 01/10/2012 1:44:39 PM PST by Cobra64 (Common sense isn't common anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

Judge Terrence L. O’Brien (Bush Jr Nominee)

Senior Judge Monroe G. McKay (Carter Nominee)

Judge Scott M. Matheson, Jr. (Obama Nominee)


25 posted on 01/10/2012 1:44:59 PM PST by Califreak ("Burnt By The Sun")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813
The Governor of OK can now announce she is ignoring the ruling, citing the following:
(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

You have it exactly right.

This is similar to Montana and the FFA. The Firearms Freedom Act which originally was introduced and passed in Montana, the FFA declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states. The FFA is primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the commerce clause, with firearms as the object.

These judges who think they can suspend anything they don't like need to be told to go pound sand.


26 posted on 01/10/2012 1:45:44 PM PST by An American! (Proud To Be An American!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

So an American Court just ruled that stoning women to death because they “dishonored” the family is okay? That whipping people in the streets is okay?
What a bunch of MORONS............


27 posted on 01/10/2012 1:46:06 PM PST by SECURE AMERICA (Where can I sign up for the New American Revolution and the Crusades 2012?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
Hitler wanted Germany (and possibly the rest of Europe) to be Islamic.

Whaaaaat? Do you have any documentation on that other than some Muslim Brotherhood fantasy version of European history?

28 posted on 01/10/2012 1:46:47 PM PST by KarlInOhio (Herman Cain: possibly the escapee most dangerous to the Democrats since Frederick Douglass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

“prevents judges from basing rulings on international law”

I read what you say but the two posts reporting it - is different.


29 posted on 01/10/2012 1:48:15 PM PST by edcoil (It is not over until I win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
Gingrich says he’ll start yanking judges... the idea never sounded better.

How can he do that? He's not running to be the legislative branch.

30 posted on 01/10/2012 1:49:41 PM PST by GOP_Party_Animal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

Hmm!

Might the ten commandments be considered “international law”

Hmm!


31 posted on 01/10/2012 1:51:02 PM PST by George from New England (escaped CT in 2006, now living north of Tampa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: greeneyes
The way I understand it, you can’t single out one specific group (equal protection).

The way I understand it, then, when a liberal, Democratic judge approves the implementation of Sharia in certain communities, the local municipality cannot object because it is not specifically banned in the OK Constitution. My head hurts in fathoming this destructive, anti-State ruling that denies a concerned citizenry from exercising its constitutional prerogative in a totally legal manner. Sharia is a religious set of laws, not the ROP itself.

32 posted on 01/10/2012 1:52:01 PM PST by Thommas (The snout of the camel is in the tent..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled
So is the Tenth Circuit now saying its okay to stone women to death who are victims of rape?

Not exactly. I think the courts just want to be in the loop when it's time to start the stoning.

:^\

33 posted on 01/10/2012 1:53:29 PM PST by Cyber Liberty ("If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." --Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George from New England

If we aren’t even allowed to DISPLAY the ten commandments I don’t understand why banning sharia law is such a problem.


34 posted on 01/10/2012 1:54:09 PM PST by Califreak ("Burnt By The Sun")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

If eventually judges do consider shariah at all, and then rule against a muslim plaintiff then clearly the next step is this:

“The judge had no qualifications in the precepts of Islam —we need qualified people to do this...”

And then there will be a demonstrable need for Muslim judges. And they would loudly announce that these (at first) few would very rarely be using their special knowledge —that they would use it only in those few cases when it would actually be needed.

And then there would be more of them, and no way to demonstrate those cases in which they did use Shariah.

So the upshot is that there woudl be TWO parallel systems.


35 posted on 01/10/2012 1:54:20 PM PST by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

If eventually judges do consider shariah at all, and then rule against a muslim plaintiff then clearly the next step is this:

“The judge had no qualifications in the precepts of Islam —we need qualified people to do this...”

And then there will be a demonstrable need for Muslim judges. And they would loudly announce that these (at first) few would very rarely be using their special knowledge —that they would use it only in those few cases when it would actually be needed.

And then there would be more of them, and no way to demonstrate those cases in which they did use Shariah.

So the upshot is that there woudl be TWO parallel systems.


36 posted on 01/10/2012 1:54:38 PM PST by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gaijin

A slippery slope from hell.

I hate this!

And Zero could get 4 more years to appoint all kinds of nasty judges.


37 posted on 01/10/2012 1:56:38 PM PST by Califreak ("Burnt By The Sun")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: montag813

38 posted on 01/10/2012 1:56:47 PM PST by bayouranger (The 1st victim of islam is the person who practices the lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

What ever happened to the US being a Constitutional Republic where the states retain their sovereignty (and the Federal Government cannot trump that)?

Isn’t it amazing how a Constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional. Time for our traditional background on the judges making up the panel - who appointed them?


39 posted on 01/10/2012 1:58:12 PM PST by TheBattman (Isn't the lesser evil... still evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman

Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

Judge Terrence L. O’Brien (Bush Jr Nominee)

Senior Judge Monroe G. McKay (Carter Nominee)

Judge Scott M. Matheson, Jr. (Obama Nominee)


40 posted on 01/10/2012 2:00:09 PM PST by Califreak ("Burnt By The Sun")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Califreak
Heck in some places you can't even display the American flag because it might "offend" someone.

Yep, this country has gone to hell in a hand basket. Sad really.

41 posted on 01/10/2012 2:03:22 PM PST by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange nominated by Bill Clinton attended the University of Ghana and

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Vicki_Miles-LaGrange

Oklahoma Question 755 passed overwhelmingly on November 2, 2010. The vote supporting it would have prevented state courts from using international law–and Islamic Shariah law–when deciding on a case.

Before the vote, ads supporting SQ 755 referenced a New Jersey case where a Muslim woman divorced her husband and filed a restraining order after he raped her.

The man claimed his culture and religion allowed him to have sex with his wife whenever he wanted, regardless if his wife wanted sex or not. The court held up the custom over New Jersey law


42 posted on 01/10/2012 2:04:04 PM PST by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
Isn’t this a good thing as they must pass laws based on the Constitution - not other laws?

You are kidding, right?

43 posted on 01/10/2012 2:04:23 PM PST by itsahoot (You are no longer a person, you are a Unit when you need health care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64

“I find it amusing when people say “Gingrich is angry,” and then turn around and say “we need a fighter to take down Obama.” Which is it?

Personally, I don’t see him as “angry, but rather frustrated that there are so many un/misinformed American voters and the MSM’s (and some FReepers) obsession bashing him.

Do we want a fighter, or another wishy-washy Bob Dole like Santorum? (And I like Santorum a lot)? “

I like Santorum a lot too. But, I’m like you, I want a fighter, someone with a love for the constitution, and the balls to slap down these judges who legislate from the bench.

Heck, if Holder, Odombo, Bernache and all the rest refuse to follow the constitution, and make up their own rules, why the “XIEFSLK<>FM” shouldn’t we do what we da*##M” well please. If the people of a state determine what is best for them, by making a law, the Feds then have no power to make us feel like we’re breaking THEIR laws.

I am so tired of the FED telling me HOW I HAVE to live, when all my life I’ve taken care of myself, just fine, thank you so very much!! I’m a veteran, I’m eighth generation American, am law abiding, and pay my taxes. I am so SICK of watching we the people just muddle our way through THEIR UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS.

I will be a slave to NO ONE!! The people of Oklahoma have spoken and acted in a lawful manner. If Newt is willing to honor us, and kick out the sludge on the benches, then he’ll get my vote. So will Romney, and Santorum too. Who ever actually gets the primary.

I am so darn mad now.......

We OUTNUMBER THEM......

The current administration MUST GO!!!!!


44 posted on 01/10/2012 2:06:03 PM PST by yellowroses (A yankee in Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: An American!

“The Governor of OK can now announce she is ignoring the ruling, citing the following:
(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”

I agree totally with your statement. How do we stand up for ourselves?


45 posted on 01/10/2012 2:07:32 PM PST by yellowroses (A yankee in Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

Looks like America is slowly headed to the fate of Europe, Islamic “sanctuary cities” ran by barbaric Sharia law in the name of “multiculturalism”.

God help this country.


46 posted on 01/10/2012 2:07:47 PM PST by PAConservative1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Califreak

The Presbyterian Church (USA) has at least one dispute being heard by a civil court. At some level, questions regarding the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) have to be addressed in the lawsuit. I suspect that a similar argument holds here. If a dispute over some interpretation of Sharia law reaches the court system, then Sharia law will need be addressed by the courts.

Stoning and honor killings are already illegal under the criminal laws of every jurisdiction in the Republic. Sharia law does not overrule these laws.

I do have one question - using my analogy to the Presbyterian Church (USA); the PC-USA has a written constitution, consisting of the Book of Order and the Book of Confessions. Where is Sharia law written down? To the best of my knowledge, there is no definitive compilation of Sharia law, which would make for difficulties if disputes are taken to the US legal system.


47 posted on 01/10/2012 2:10:23 PM PST by bagman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled
The old pesky supreme law is going to get in the way of this. ( Article VI, para 2.) Congress can't pass any laws that infringe upon or do away with the Bill of Rights or any other law contained within the Constitution. That's the pursuancy test. Not pursuant? Sorry, Charlie. Go peddle that crap in some other country that welcomes maiming and beheading in the name of some bloodthirsty a-hole.

It's time the judiciary and lawmakers started reading the constitution again. Especially the retards that migrate to this country who expect to change our laws until they are pursuant to the dicatates of terrorists.

48 posted on 01/10/2012 2:11:26 PM PST by Eastbound ( 3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George from New England
Might the ten commandments be considered “international law”

Might you be considered stupid for asking?

49 posted on 01/10/2012 2:12:46 PM PST by itsahoot (You are no longer a person, you are a Unit when you need health care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

How? Judges don’t serve at the whim of the POTUS as they are appointed for life. Is he planning on impeachments?


50 posted on 01/10/2012 2:16:05 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-158 next last

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