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 ...
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?
Your reply doesn’t make sense. I know a lot about the Koran, including what you posted. I was commenting on removing federal judges.
First issue is the way the article is written.
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.
What...the...FRACK????
IMPEACH the buggers!!! GO NEWT!!!!!
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.
"Honest Abe" sort of dispatched that concept.
ML/NJ
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.
I see little difference in the practice of Sharia Law, and Vigilante “justice”, or even the “justice” on carried out by the KKK.
Sorry about that, my reply should have been to post 57, not post 50. I really don’t know how that happened.
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.
Perhaps there is a problem with the wording that would have prohibited Sharia for civil matters within a community.
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.
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/
********************************
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.
Yes, Gingrich was talking about impeachment of federal judges, where justified.
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.