It's About Time!

The voters of OK grew some and the rest of us need to also...



http://www.newsok.com/article/feed/208677

Voters ban judges from using international law

Associated Press 45
Published: November 2, 2010


OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Oklahoma voters have approved a measure that would forbid judges from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.


Republican Rex Duncan, the sponsor of the measure, called it a "pre-emptive strike" designed to close the door on activist judges "legislating from the bench or using international law or Sharia law."

Members of the Muslim community called the question an attack on Islam and some of them said they are prepared to file a lawsuit challenging the measure.



Read more: http://www.newsok.com/article/feed/208677#ixzz14KBzwNWC

Click to expand...

So no self righteous anti judge can quote some obscure gun law in whoknowswhereasatan and apply it to us, real grand idea this!

Shouldn't it already be illegal for judges to quote international law when making decisions? Don't make much sense to me. Sounds like a good law, I'd probably vote for it.

Sounds like a non-issue. I didn't realize that it was such a problem in Oklahoma that the base would be afraid of that muslim minority.

beebobby said:

Sounds like a non-issue. I didn't realize that it was such a problem in Oklahoma that the base would be afraid of that muslim minority.

Click to expand...

Ordinarily, I would agree with you. However, take a look at what is happening in England in regards to Sharia law. I can't cite, but I seem to remember a news story of one of the "activist" judges considering international law in reaching a decision.

Considering the groups, including the United Nations, who devoutly want to forceably disarm/convert/impoverish American citizens, I am sorely afraid that we need such laws yesterday.

Jack House said:

Shouldn't it already be illegal for judges to quote international law when making decisions? Don't make much sense to me. Sounds like a good law, I'd probably vote for it.

Click to expand...

The delightfully evil thing about a "common law" based legal system, is that the comon law precedents of ANY nation that uses a similar legal system can be referenced in support of decisions. In the US, we can reference UK, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand law, and occasionally French (Napoleonic) law has been referenced in Louisiana courts because their "parish" system of political subdivision is is a little different than the rest of the states...

It's good to see that this decision was made, and finally codified in one state. Hopefully other states will soon follow.

Jack House said:

Shouldn't it already be illegal for judges to quote international law when making decisions?

Click to expand...

Actually, it depends on the level and nature of the decision, as well as the subject matter.

The U.S. is a sovereign nation. While the Constitution grants authority to Congress for making treaties, no treaty or international law can overrule Constitutional, or even state law. Both treaty and international law can, however, fill in the gaps not covered by Constitutional or state law. In the hands of the unwise, however, that slippery slope can lead to a serious erosion of our law.

Sadly, previously sovereign countries within the European Union forfeited some of their sovereignty when they joined the EU. I don't intend to allow that to happen to our United States - in fact, I took an oath to prevent it. Sadly, despite the fact that all holders of public or military office in the US are required to take nearly the same oath, some of them prefer to believe that forfeiting our sovereignty is preferrable to maintaining it.

What the voters of Oklahoma did is astounding! It's a move towards preserving the heritage of our great nation, against the tides of irrational thought which seek to dilute it.

Dreamer said:

Hopefully other states will soon follow.

Click to expand...

One can do more than hope. Those of us who think this should become a part of State law, or for that matter, even federal law, should forward the idea to your state and federal congressmen.

Update....

Oh WAH, Just my opinion but if they don't like it they can pack up and get the H E double hockey sticks out of the USA...



http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=224009

CAIR sues Oklahoma for banning Islamic law



Unindicted terrorist co-conspirator reacts after 70% of voters approve





The Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations announced today it will file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state ballot measure that bars judges from considering Islamic law in any ruling.

On Tuesday, with about a dozen other states watching, Oklahoma became the first state to put before voters the proposition that Islamic courts, Islamic law – known as Shariah – and Shariah-based court decisions should be banned.

State Question 755, a constitutional amendment, was approved by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters. But at a news conference today, CAIR-OK Executive Director Muneer Awad called the measure unnecessary and offensive.

Click to expand...

N fox's spin...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-anti-shariah-ballot-measure/?test=latestnews

I think the law should have been worded more broadly as applies to religious law, not calling out any one religion, but rather saying that no governmental body/entity within the state, including judges, may consider religious law when making a policy or ruling. That would have been completely fair, and cut off the protest from CAIR before it could start.

MKEgal said:

I think the law should have been worded more broadly as applies to religious law, not calling out any one religion, but rather saying that no governmental body/entity within the state, including judges, may consider religious law when making a policy or ruling. That would have been completely fair, and cut off the protest from CAIR before it could start.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I was going to make the same post but kept putting it off.

^ +2 To target one religion is a bit reckless.

Coded-Dude said:

^ +2 To target one religion is a bit reckless.

Click to expand...

but within the rights of a state unless the state relinquishes that right.

Coded-Dude said:

^ +2 To target one religion is a bit reckless.

Click to expand...

For the record, here is the exact text. Sharia is not the only non-American law banned. It is one of two and the only one linked to a single religion.

The uniqueness of Sharia law is that it is not only religious, but is political. It presents the unique possibility of a religious law being cited since is has that political dimension. It was probably unwise to mention Sharia by name. Instead, they should have outlawed any scheme of law that is used as both political and religious law.

However, because of its uniqueness, I see no reason not to reference it by name.

deleted

Daylen said:

really? you see no reason? Even though the 2nd amendment has been reinterpreted by some to mean the federal govt has the right to have arms? Even though it sends a great message to those who are trying to get all nations to submit to Sharia?

Click to expand...

Did you miss the word "not" in my last sentence?

eye95 said:

Did you miss the word "not" in my last sentence?

Click to expand...

no...

Daylen said:

no...

Click to expand...

OK, how about the double-negative?

The ban of Sharia law, by name, from consideration in court rulings is OK by me. I just think that it begged for a court challenge when it was mentioned by name instead of by attributes.

In a case where the application of Sharia law is the only way to get justice, why unilaterally ban it?

http://www.guernicamag.com/features/2030/zakaria_9_15_10/

TL;DR: After a Muslim woman living in Indiana was divorced - basically deceived into signing the papers - she ended up with no support and no prospects under American law - but her attorney got her Islamic marriage contract accepted by the judge as a pre-nup.

If the case went as described, Sharia law was not used in interpreting or determining our law. The judge did not consider it as a matter of law, but as part of the factual context of the case.

Sharia law was merely used to establish what the husband and wife believed about the nature of their marriage contract.

I have no problem with that, and it shouldn't run afoul of the OK amendment.

eye95 said:

If the case went as described, Sharia law was not used in interpreting or determining our law. The judge did not consider it as a matter of law, but as part of the factual context of the case.

Sharia law was merely used to establish what the husband and wife believed about the nature of their marriage contract.

I have no problem with that, and it shouldn't run afoul of the OK amendment.

Click to expand...

Were the law in operation, perhaps the attorney for the husband could have influenced the judge to rule the document out, being that it was created under and as an expression of Sharia law, signed by an imam, etc. etc.

On a slightly different tack, I note that this legislation is in Oklahoma, a state which has many, many Native Americans and reservations. Does this law also forbid judges from considering tribal laws when deciding cases? Seems like it'd be equally fair ...

AmbushBug said:

Were the law in operation, perhaps the attorney for the husband could have influenced the judge to rule the document out, being that it was created under and as an expression of Sharia law, signed by an imam, etc. etc.

On a slightly different tack, I note that this legislation is in Oklahoma, a state which has many, many Native Americans and reservations. Does this law also forbid judges from considering tribal laws when deciding cases? Seems like it'd be equally fair ...

Click to expand...

Of course the lawyer could incorrectly request that the judge not consider the context, and the judge might incorrectly grant the request. That does not mean that is what the law requires.

"The courts shall not look to the precepts of other nations or cultures." So, no, Oklahoma courts should not consider tribal laws when making decisions of law. Tribal laws matter only on tribal lands and should be considered as tribal law dictates in tribal legal proceedings. (You can insert "English" or "Chinese" for "tribal" in the preceding sentence and get just as valid a statement.)