Order Blocks Oklahoma Constitutional Amendment

newsok.com ^ | November 8, 2010 | Tim Talley

[gwjack]

A temporary restraining order has been issued to block a state constitutional amendment that prohibits state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases. U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange handed down the ruling this morning in Oklahoma City following a brief hearing.

[Jim Noble]

But they’re not banning Islam; they’re forbidding international or sharia laws from being considered [as precedent].

Same thing.

Islam = sharia. Sharia = Islam.

[I got the rope]

If I were the governor I would ignore the judge.

[MizSterious]

In fact, on tonight’s local news (OKC), it seems some groups are saying that they’d like to ban any laws that have a basis in Christianity, as well. Since so many of our laws are rooted in Christianity, I can only imagine a state and/or country in complete anarchy. Everything from theft to murder would have to be allowed—10 Commandments, y’know.

[azishot]

Is this judge an American? Makes no sense to me.

[thouworm]

Book (and Amazon comments) mentioned in post #121

Editorial Reviews
Product Description

This study is the result of months of analysis, discussion and drafting by a group of top security policy experts concerned with the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time: the legal-political-military doctrine known within Islam as "shariah." It is designed to provide a comprehensive and articulate "second opinion" on the official characterizations and assessments of this threat as put forth by the United States government.

The authors, under the sponsorship of the Center for Security Policy, have modeled this work on an earlier "exercise in competitive analysis" which came to be known as the "Team B" Report. The present Team B II report is based entirely on unclassified, readily available sources.

As with the original Team B analysis, however, this study challenges the assumptions underpinning the official line in the conflict with today's totalitarian threat, which is currently euphemistically described as "violent extremism," and the policies of co-existence, accommodation and submission that are rooted in those assumptions.

Amazon Reader's comment

...it identifies how Shariah Law contradicts many of the protections in the Bill of Rights, and especially women's rights (specifically, such behavior as underage and forced marriages, honor killing, female genital mutilation, polygamy, and domestic abuse including marital rape--where's the National Organization for Women (NOW) when you need them?).

It clarifies how senior government officials, as well as generals and admirals in the military, are failing their oath to protect and defend the Constitution. It highlights why anyone supporting Shariah in the United States is commiting sedition and treason. It identifies how the Muslim Brotherhood are secretly waging a "stealth Jihad" through scores of front organizations.

The West is led to believe that Jihad is nothing more than an "inner struggle" while there are in fact four types of Jihad: of the heart, the tongue, the pen, and the sword. The Muslim Brotherhood's plan is to settle in the West to conduct a "grand Jihad in eliminating the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house BY THEIR HANDS".

Through its front organizations like the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Pulbic Affairs Council (MPAC), as well as dozens of others, the Muslim Brotherhood is twisting the protections of our own Constitution and using them to protect themselves behind the First Amendment while waging a very effective propaganda campaign.

Ignorant Americans, and especially high-ranking government officials, are then duped into supporting the Muslim Brotherhood's efforts falsely believeing they are supporting "religious tolerance".

What many Westerners have been falsely led to believe is that "Islam is a religion of peace" when it is much more than just a religion, and it's not peaceful. This is NOT a First Amendment issue. Article 6 of the Constitution states that the Consitution shall be the law of the land. Any efforts to replace the Consitution with Shariah or any other foreign laws is seditious and treasonous.

This reference outlines how current laws that were used against other seditous groups like communists during the Cold War can be applied as tools to protect our nation against Shariah.
~~~~~~~~~~

Note to self on the following posts: 73, 87, 116 - judge's bio, 117, the book (and Amazon comments) mentioned in 121, 127, 156, 157, 165, 170 (the OK document)

[Candor7]

She seems to have originated in Ghana.

[takenoprisoner]

Congress should identify Islam as a subversive organization.

Absolutely. The founding principle of Islam is Jihad. Any muslim not supporting jihad, should any exist, is not a practicing muslim.

The mere fact they went to court to promote consideration of Sharia law in our courts demonstrates their intent to implement Sharia law in America.

At least for now, thanks to some single judge sitting her fat ass on a swivel chair, they have successfully circumvented the intent of the OK legislature, and voters.

Islam has committed a grievous and subversive act against the God given, as well as Constitutional rights, of Oklahomans to prevent Islamic laws from infiltrating, and perverting, our courts.

CAIR has the money, the wherewithal, and the balls to fight for Sharia law in America. We should be investigating just how much this judge was offered to prevent the OK legislature, and it's citizens from preventing Sharia law to be legitimized in our courts.

Anyone who believes there are not corrupted judges need to remove their blinders.

On the other hand, if her life, or the life of her family has been threatened for not complying with the desires of Islam, that needs to be investigated too.

From what I read, her decision wasn't even deliberated. It was delivered post haste. It would seem to me a decision of this consequence should have been deliberated for an extended time. At least time enough for the legislature to in act the law. Then let the battles begin. States and US Constitutions vs Islam.

Subversives indeed.

[circlecity]

"It doesn't restrict judges' use or implementation of papal law, or Jewish law, or Bahai law, or Hindu law. Judges can still rely on any of those varieties of religious law. Rather, it singles out just one particular type of religious law, Islamic law, and then says that Oklahoma courts have to treat that religious law different from any and all other religious law."

I disagree. What is banned is the Legal/political construct apart from its acknowedged origin. That it appeals to a certain religious group is incidental. And specific prohibition of this certain construct does not imply approval of any other given political construct whether it appeals to Jews, Hindus or whoever. Those can be dealt with in the future or on a case by case basis. (The English/American legal system and how it functions is unmistakeably similar to the Jewish study and practice of Talmudic/Torah law. That one was modeled after the other is undeniable) That our original constitutional political construct appealed immensely to Christians is of no moment in this regard either. The sharia legal construct, whether despite of or because of its theological foundation conflicts with much of the constitution itself and I see no plausible way banning the same could be said to conflict with the language or intent of the US constitution. Granted, a liberal can find anything unconstitutional if it conflicts with their political objectives. (which is, in itself, unconstitutional)

[TornadoAlley3]

Here is the full text of what we voted for.

State Question No.: 755 Legislative Referendum No. 355

RESOLUTION OR BILL NUMBER: HJR1056

CITATION: Amends Const. Article 7, Section 1

SUBJECT: Courts to rely on federal and state laws when deciding cases forbidding courts from looking at international law or Sharia Law.

BALLOT TITLE: This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.

International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.

The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties.

Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.

SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL Yes: __________

AGAINST THE PROPOSAL No: __________

State Question No.: 756 Legislative Referendum No. 356

RESOLUTION OR BILL NUMBER: SJR 59

CITATION: New Const. Art 2, Section 37

SUBJECT: Health Care System

BALLOT TITLE: This measure adds a new section of law to the State Constitution. It adds Section 37 to Article 2. It defines “health care system.” It prohibits making a person participate in a health care system. It prohibits making an employer participate in a health care system. It prohibits making a health care provider provide treatment in a health care system. It allows persons and employees to pay for treatment directly. It allows a health care provider to accept payment for treatment directly. It allows the purchase of health care insurance in private health care systems. It allows the sale of health insurance in private health care systems.

The measure’s effect is limited. It would not affect any law or rule in effect as of January 1, 2010.

Nor could the measure affect or negate all federal laws or rules. The United States Constitution has a Supremacy Clause. That clause makes federal law the supreme law of the land. Under that clause Congress has the power to preempt state law. When Congress intends to preempt state law, federal law controls. When Congress intends it, constitutionally enacted federal law would preempt some or all of the proposed measure.

SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL Yes: __________

AGAINST THE PROPOSAL No: __________

[SunkenCiv]

/bingo

[TornadoAlley3]

Currently, the Supreme Court applies a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the “Lemon Test”.

First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a neutral or non-religious purpose.

Second, the statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.

Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion.

[circlecity]

The Lemon test is just one of several establishment clause cases setting requisites which even Justice Breyer admits are irreconcilible. Obviously the prayer before a session of congress opens or the phrase “In God We Trust” on currency funks the “Lemon” test but passes the “ceremonial language or practices” test. In any event, if we can’t separate the specific provisions of sharia law from the religion that informs them then the word “religious” has become a meaningless weasle-word that can be twisted to one’s purpose. Of course this type of sophistry is what makes up 90% of the practice of constitutional law.

[random_user_827]

70% of Oklahoma says yes.

One judge says no.

The law is shot down.

What’s right with this picture?

[patriot preacher]

Oklahoma should tell the Federal Court Judge where he (or she) can go.

[TheThinker]

And how is any court able to circumvent the 10th Amendment?

Answer: Because we allow it.

[Safrguns]

The ruling is a violation of the 1st ammendment, and is therefore grounds for the judge to be removed for cause.

[TCH]

“And the federal judiciary will give them carte blanche to do whatever they want in the United States.”

Maybe it is about time the American people rise up and take carte blanche to do whatever they want to the federal judiciary... like hang their members from the nearest tree.

[Nowhere Man]

bookmark bump

[Don W]

The establishment of a religion by any individual STATE is most definitely NOT hampered in any way by the U.S Constitution.

In fact, many of the several states had established religions well before the formation of the USA, and there were no problems with that. In fact, there were such strictures on representatives; in certain states representatives could NOT be Catholic, right up intil the early 20th century.

The First Amendment reads, and pay VERY close attention to the first word:

CONGRESS shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; orthe right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

Nowhere in there does it say that any INDIVIDUAL state can’t alter its laws to prohibit certain religious practices, or even an entire sect.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I don’t agree with the judge’s interpretation, but in fact US courts will have to recognize marriages from other nations, including those with Islamic legal systems.