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 previous 1-5051-100101-150151-158 next last
To: Cowgirl of Justice

These judges are swine.


51 posted on 01/10/2012 2:16:41 PM PST by rcofdayton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

[ Gingrich was right. ]

Despite his recent shenanigans, I agree with you and think i may support Gingrich over Romney for his position on Judges.


52 posted on 01/10/2012 2:16:52 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bagman
If a dispute over some interpretation of Sharia law reaches the court system, then Sharia law will need be addressed by the courts.

Sharia Courts are a reality even here, England is over run with them.

Texas: 200 imams taught how to run sharia courts

53 posted on 01/10/2012 2:22:37 PM PST by itsahoot (You are no longer a person, you are a Unit when you need health care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

I was watching a History Channel documentary or one of the other really good documentaries on Hitler and WW2 and they mentioned this in passing.

I have read in the past that one of Hitler’s goals was to build airplanes large enough to cross the Atlantic Ocean and kamikaze them into the skyscrapers of Manhattan because that is where Jews were concentrated. And who ran airliners into the WTC buildings?

I have also just recently heard that his book, “Mein Kampf” was based on Islamic teachings. I’ll have to do some research on that. I do know that the yellow star of David that Jews had to wear did come from Islam when Muzzies did that to Jews a long time ago. I don’t know how much of Islam Hitler studied but obviously he was influenced and inspired by it.

If you read the history of the Muslim Brotherhood and its connections with the Nazis and Hitler
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11146

it doesn’t surprise me how much Hitler was influenced by it, used it, and wanted all of Germany to to adopt it. Considering he was a Leftist who was “down with the kampf/struggle/jihad” and how similar Leftism and Islam are is it any surprise to see how Islam is spreading all over the Middle East, Europe, America and other parts of the world with the help of the Left?


54 posted on 01/10/2012 2:23:20 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 28 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
as they are appointed for life.

Ever actually read the Constitution? They are not appointed for life in the Constitution, any more than separation of church and state is in the Constitution.

55 posted on 01/10/2012 2:26:18 PM PST by itsahoot (You are no longer a person, you are a Unit when you need health care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

When I first read the headline, I assumed there was an error and the decision was handed down from the 9th District Court of Appeals.

Apparently there must be a contest among Circuit Courts to find which one can destroy our Constitution first.

EODGUY


56 posted on 01/10/2012 2:27:02 PM PST by EODGUY (Hold on to your copies of the Consititution of the United States. It is going to be re-written.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

“So is the Tenth Circuit now saying its okay to stone women to death who are victims of rape?” No it is not.

You won’t find anyone less admiring of Islam than me but even the Koran does not call for stoning rape victims. Though early Jewish law allowed stoning for adulterers.


57 posted on 01/10/2012 2:27:20 PM PST by arrogantsob (Obama must Go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
Federal judges shouldn't be allowed to make sh*t up, either.

I do not know the specifics, but I'm sure the founders provided a process whereby a lifetime-appointed judge going off the rails can be removed, and if the president wants to head up such an effort, that fine with me.

And these guys are going off the rails.

58 posted on 01/10/2012 2:35:00 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

You obviously don’t know much about the Koran. It is explicit that a woman’s testimony is worth only one-half of a man’s testimony, thus it would take the testimony of two to three women to win against a man in a Sharia court. Therefore a woman who is raped must have a number of eyewitnesses to the act, otherwise she is simply ruled an adulterer and is subject to being stoned to death. I lived in Jordan for two years (1975 to 1977) and I know this to be true.


59 posted on 01/10/2012 2:39:56 PM PST by RightWingConspirator (Obamanation--the most corrupt regime since Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

[ “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? ]

In this PC environment they should have just put in “Internationally Recognized Religious Law Systems” or some other such language that would cover Sharia but not mention it directly. That way the SCUM lawyers would look like fools trying to go against it.


60 posted on 01/10/2012 2:40:07 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

They are appointed and “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior”. Can you imagine the chaos if each new POTUS could fire the Federal Judiciary at whim?


61 posted on 01/10/2012 2:42:35 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RightWingConspirator

Your reply doesn’t make sense. I know a lot about the Koran, including what you posted. I was commenting on removing federal judges.


62 posted on 01/10/2012 2:44:50 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

First issue is the way the article is written.


63 posted on 01/10/2012 2:45:06 PM PST by Williams (Honey Badger Don't Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

I guess lawyers never read the Constitution: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,”

Nothing about foreign law or child-molester’s law anywhere.


64 posted on 01/10/2012 2:47:07 PM PST by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled
"overwhelmingly approved by Oklahoma voters last year" ..

VOTING in this country means NOTHING.

65 posted on 01/10/2012 2:52:49 PM PST by red-dawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

What...the...FRACK????


66 posted on 01/10/2012 2:52:59 PM PST by NoPrisoners ("When in the course of human events...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

IMPEACH the buggers!!! GO NEWT!!!!!

67 posted on 01/10/2012 2:54:49 PM PST by NoPrisoners ("When in the course of human events...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

Since when are the courts in the business of accommodating religious beliefs? Will they regard an honor killing as anything other than murder just because it has a “religious belief” involved? The 10th Circus is unconstitutional.


68 posted on 01/10/2012 2:55:45 PM PST by Eleutheria5 (Diplomacy is war by other means.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
What ever happened to the US being a Constitutional Republic where the states retain their sovereignty

"Honest Abe" sort of dispatched that concept.

ML/NJ

69 posted on 01/10/2012 2:55:52 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Jean S

Exactly how did the poster misunderstand the ruling?

It’s the court that misunderstood. The court said that the amendment violated the First Amendment (no establishment of religion) because it delcared that Islamic (religious) law violated American law, which the court assumed to be based on Judeo-Christian law.

The problem is that Islam is a theocracy, and therefore Islamic religious and civil law are one and the same. Christianity is not a theocratic system; at times churches (think of Calvin) have tried to impose their canon law as secular law, at times churches have been dragged into this by the lack of secular law in a given place, but essentially Christianity does not dictate civil law. Islam does.

So the court is essentially saying there is no recourse against Islam because it claims to be a religion. This was one of the Devil’s greatest gifts to Mad Mohammed: Satan told him to cloak his project of conquest in religion, which Satan knew, back in the 7th century as now, would protect it from scrutiny.


70 posted on 01/10/2012 2:56:22 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

I see little difference in the practice of Sharia Law, and Vigilante “justice”, or even the “justice” on carried out by the KKK.


71 posted on 01/10/2012 2:57:43 PM PST by FrankR (What you resist...PERSISTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

Sorry about that, my reply should have been to post 57, not post 50. I really don’t know how that happened.


72 posted on 01/10/2012 2:58:26 PM PST by RightWingConspirator (Obamanation--the most corrupt regime since Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: livius

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2831166/posts?page=8#8


73 posted on 01/10/2012 2:59:05 PM PST by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

Some years ago, History Channel had an excellent show on the Grand Mufti’s enthusiastic support of and cooperation with Hitler. They formed an entire SS division of Islamists (some 15,000 or so) to exterminate the Jews of Croatia. The Grand Mufti was Yasser Arafat’s uncle — a very telling, yet rarely mentioned, fact.


74 posted on 01/10/2012 3:06:23 PM PST by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

Perhaps there is a problem with the wording that would have prohibited Sharia for civil matters within a community.


75 posted on 01/10/2012 3:13:24 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

The judge should be impeached.....Right Reason-—means using reason and logic in positing ALL law——it must be based on the original intent of our Constitution and in line with the “Laws of Nature” and God’s Laws-—meaning not allah’s laws. This fundamental denial of God’s Laws and trying to insert allah’s laws is unconstitutional by any standard.

The judge needs to go. NOW. He is breaking his oath. Congress of OK has to hold him accountable for trying to force chaos in the legal code and remove him immediately.


76 posted on 01/10/2012 3:13:36 PM PST by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

Let me correct myself.

When Jews and Christians lived in Muslim lands long ago the Muzzies would marginalize Jews and Christians, because they were of dhimmis status, by forcing them to wear distinctive pieces of clothing that were colored yellow especially hats. Hitler took this and ran with it in the for of the yellow star of David.

On a topic related to Hitler and the Jews. Just a few years ago (2006) historians finally found out why Hitler sent his army to North Africa and SE into the Balkans and Greece. His goal was to reach Palestine and bring about a holocaust of the Jews living there at the time.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/hitlers-holocaust-plan-for-jews-in-palestine-stopped-by-desert-rats-474080.html

Here’s a webpage about the influence of Islam on Hitler.
http://www.islam-watch.org/SujitDas/Heil-Hitler-Heil-Muhammad.htm

And a website.
http://prophetofdoom.net/


77 posted on 01/10/2012 3:15:06 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 28 | View Replies]

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

********************************

Don't enact it in the first place.

Shari'a law would not be "enacted" in one fell swoop - it would enter the state's jurisprudence one legal decision at a time. That's what this law was intended to prevent.

78 posted on 01/10/2012 3:25:25 PM PST by Charles Martel (Endeavor to persevere...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
All federal courts with the exception of the Supreme Court are a creature of the Congress. Go read the Constitution if you don't believe me! The Congress could abolish the 10th Circuit Court, merge with another district or do whatever it decides. Like call the judges in to explain themselves, even impeach, Remember impeachment is NOT a criminal indictment, the reasons for impeachment can involve criminal activity but it doesn't have to be. It's a removal from office for failure in that office. Failure being whatever a higher authority like the US Congress over the lower federal courts define that failure to be.
79 posted on 01/10/2012 3:26:54 PM PST by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
How? Judges don’t serve at the whim of the POTUS as they are appointed for life. Is he planning on impeachments?

Yes, Gingrich was talking about impeachment of federal judges, where justified.

80 posted on 01/10/2012 3:34:41 PM PST by Charles Martel (Endeavor to persevere...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: FReepers

you've come to the right place to donate & help FR
thank you!

81 posted on 01/10/2012 3:37:50 PM PST by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel; bigdirty
The Constitution would not allow the introduction of Sharia in U.S. Courts. There is the Due Process Clause thingy and lots of other Clauses. Criminal law in the U.S. is statutory. Even if you wanted to adopt Sharia punishments, legislatures would have to change those laws, assuming it would pass Constitutional muster, which it wouldn't.

Europe is a different matter. The English Constitution isn't written down and can be changed by Parliament. That can't happen here.

This really is a big to-do over nothing.

82 posted on 01/10/2012 3:44:29 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Old North State

It’s a legislative/executive loophole of the courts
gone haywire. Courts should interprete individual
cases or send back what they do not like for
reevaluation. They should not be general like this and vague.

A major corruption case of judges and cops should
warrant a call up of the militia or a volunteer counter
law enforcement volunteer corp seceding from obedience to such rulings.

Keep these judges in power but away from effectiveness.


83 posted on 01/10/2012 3:46:34 PM PST by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Old North State

It’s a legislative/executive loophole of the courts
gone haywire. Courts should interprete individual
cases or send back what they do not like for
reevaluation. They should not be general like this and vague.

A major corruption case of judges and cops should
warrant a call up of the militia or a volunteer counter
law enforcement volunteer corp seceding from obedience to such rulings.

Keep these judges in power but away from effectiveness.


84 posted on 01/10/2012 3:47:42 PM PST by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

I remember when supreme court Brewer said the courts should not just look at the Constitution but at international laws as well and everyone got upset as they should only look at the Constitution - Scalia (sp) noted should we look at muslim laws for gay rights?

We all said the courts should only look at the Constitution.

Either this article is poorly written on what happened or I don’t see the problem.


85 posted on 01/10/2012 3:50:50 PM PST by edcoil (It is not over until I win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

“This really is a big to-do over nothing.”

Okay. What about civil law? Contract law determines its own parameters on how civil courts rule - such law is constantly in flux. I read recently that a plaintiff wanted to settle his contract dispute via Sharia law. Didn’t see any follow-up, but that is a definite camel-humper nose in the tent.

With due respect, folks like you often can’t see the slow insidious movements that our Republic can’t recognize until it’s too late to turn the tide. Think liberalism/socialism encroachment and how long they have been inching along to this point. If you need further proof, look at Europe and their extreme political correctness towards all things Islam, not mention bankrupt well-fare states that could possibly make 2008 look like a boom market.

Just stand by...we may not have the camel nose as yet, but definitely smelling the breath...


86 posted on 01/10/2012 4:09:24 PM PST by A Navy Vet (An Oath is Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound

“It’s time the judiciary and lawmakers started reading the constitution again.”

And when exactly will that happen? I am so disgusted with the path we are on that at the age of 64 it doesn’t much matter if I see 65. God forbide me, but we are so screwed.


87 posted on 01/10/2012 4:10:42 PM PST by animal172 (Calling the Founding Fathers!! We need your help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Jean S

OK, sorry, I didn’t see that. It happens to all of us at one time or another. FRegards!


88 posted on 01/10/2012 4:13:59 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Jean S

OK, sorry, I didn’t see that. It happens to all of us at one time or another. FRegards!


89 posted on 01/10/2012 4:14:33 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled
Actually, I know EXACTLY how to fight this.

Oklahomans, or the people of any state, should now draft new amending language mandating the incorporation of some sort of ecclesiastic court adjudication, sighting this very ruling -- right in the bill itself! This would absolutely force a court, through the evaluation of the law AS WRITTEN, to either deny the previous ruling or else accept a Christian alternative.

As usual, the argument is the thing.

90 posted on 01/10/2012 4:27:42 PM PST by Brass Lamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

I don’t understand the court’s reasoning. They say the law violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

Leaving aside the not-insignificant fact that this law was not made by the Congress, but rather by the OK legislature, exactly which religion is established by the law? Christianity? Judaism? Hinduism? Buddhism? Obviously no religion is established by this law.

So maybe the court’s problem is really with the Free Exercise clause:

“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

If so, then they are equating the practice of sharia with the free exercise of Islam. And that would be a real can of worms to open.


91 posted on 01/10/2012 4:28:04 PM PST by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet
You are correct that much civil law is common law, or judge made law. That law has developed over centuries, ever since the English royal courts were established.

That said, judges can't just change it willy-nilly. The Colorado Constitution says our common law is as it existed in England at the time of the settlement of America and as it subsequently developed in America. Judges are very careful to apply the concepts of contract law consistently and fairly because trillions of dollars in transactions and the stability of the economy depend on them. The appellate courts enforce the rules when a trial judge gets it wrong. The idea of a judge adopting Sharia, say, the prohibition on charging interest, is absurd.

That said, we do have freedom of contract. If two people want their contract to be government by certain tenets of Sharia, they are free to do so as long as what they are doing doesn't violate a law or public policy of the state. I've seen contracts where people agree to have any dispute settled by certain Christian tenets.

Also, the extent to which Muslims govern their religious affairs by Sharia is their own business, again so long as no law or policy is violated. The Catholics govern themselves by their canon law. Many Protestant denominations have their own laws and even courts.

People get very exercised about this, but there is no danger of America being governed by Sharia law.

92 posted on 01/10/2012 4:28:19 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: RightWingConspirator

No problem.


93 posted on 01/10/2012 4:29:29 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: livius

LOL, not your fault that I’m the idiot :-)


94 posted on 01/10/2012 4:29:44 PM PST by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Reily

And you seriously think that’s a possibility?


95 posted on 01/10/2012 4:31:14 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel

I know. He is pandering. It’s a nonstarter and will never happen. Take a look at the history of federal judicial impeachment.


96 posted on 01/10/2012 4:32:25 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl of Justice
"So another form of government is allowed to trump US law?"

I haven't even read it yet, but I'm quite sure you can't get that from it.

97 posted on 01/10/2012 4:33:31 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

10th Circuit: Amendment Banning Sharia Law is Not OK
_______________________________________

Banishment works for me...

Should be OK with everyone else


98 posted on 01/10/2012 4:35:55 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

Blackstone is rolling over in his grave

along with Madison and Co...


99 posted on 01/10/2012 4:37:48 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: greeneyes

Sharia is not a “specific group or people”; it is a codified set of religious laws. The Constitution very specifically allows and demands that it not be instituted.


100 posted on 01/10/2012 4:42:51 PM PST by wbarmy (I chose to be a sheepdog once I saw what happens to the sheep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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