"Federal judge rules against 'Sharia law' restrictions in Oklahoma Constitution"

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Sunni Man, Nov 30, 2010.

  1. Sunni Man
    Offline

    Sunni Man Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    40,001
    Thanks Received:
    5,328
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    Patriotic American Muslim
    Ratings:
    +12,444
    An Oklahoma City federal judge has struck down a constitutional amendment aimed at restricting judges from considering Islamic 'Sharia law' while making a judgement in the United States.

    A ballot measure was passed with 70 percent of the vote during the Republican landslide on November 2, urging a ban the 'Sharia law'.

    However within two days, Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, had sued to block the amendment, arguing that the state was condemning his religious beliefs.

    The lawsuit against ballot measure, State Question 755 or better known as "Save Our State," had sought for a temporary restraining order to block the results of the electionrom being certified by the state Election Board on November 9, which is scheduled to go into effect on January 1.

    While Muslims claim the state is discriminating against their religion, supporters, most of whom are Christian conservatives, say the amendment is needed to stop radical Muslims from imposing Shariah law in the United States.

    According to the New York Times, Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of Federal District Court in Oklahoma City said the measure did not appear to pass constitutional muster.

    She said it conveyed a message that the state favours one religion or particular belief over others, and that added federal courts have long held that such a message violates the First Amendment's clause prohibiting the establishment of a state religion.

    "While defendants contend that the amendment is merely a choice-of-law provision that bans state courts from applying the law of other nations or cultures-regardless of what faith they may be based on, if any-the actual language of the amendment reasonably, and perhaps more reasonably, may be viewed as specifically singling out Shariah law, conveying a message of disapproval of plaintiff's faith," the judge wrote.

    Judge LaGrange also barred the State Election Commission from certifying the results of the election until she makes a final ruling, but did not set any timetable for her decision.

    After today's ruling, Awad said he was satisfied with the decision.

    "We are definitely satisfied. She is recognizing the majority vote cannot be used to take away my constitutional rights," he added.

    www.USA Today - MyFox Memphis
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Intense
    Offline

    Intense Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44,909
    Thanks Received:
    5,849
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,863
    I'll look forward to the Appeal. The Judge will be overruled.

    What is in conflict here is parts of Islam that are in conflict with State and Federal Law, that is all that is in question. You foolishly think that you can manipulate the rule of law like you manipulate Politicians. No aspect of Sharia will precedence over the Constitutional Rights of Sharia's Victims.
    __________________
     
  3. Sunni Man
    Offline

    Sunni Man Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    40,001
    Thanks Received:
    5,328
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    Patriotic American Muslim
    Ratings:
    +12,444
    "Sharia's Victims"??
     
  4. Intense
    Offline

    Intense Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44,909
    Thanks Received:
    5,849
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,863
    Why do think Sharia Law is being opposed in the first place?
     
  5. kwc57
    Offline

    kwc57 BOHICA Obama

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,154
    Thanks Received:
    2,301
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Ratings:
    +2,788
    Her order is a preliminary injunction. She will lose on appeal. The law does not deny a Muslim his constitutional rights. The law says that international law and Sharia law can not be considered in state courts when making judgements. In other words, precedent must be set using US federal and state law. Vicki Miles-LaGrange has been one of our more activist judges here in Oklahoma for years and she has simply slowed the law down.
     
  6. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    Sorry, Intense. The judge's ruling will stand.

    The parties are free to introduce any information they want in their Court documents. The judge determines what can be heard on a case by case basis, the jury decides what it wants to give credence to. That's the foundation of our system.

    We just had the Supreme Court deny cert to a birther case that used Biblical passages in its petition. The petition was not granted, but it was allowed to be filed and went through the appropriate channels without regard to its religious content.

    If we're going to ban all religion from the courtroom, then do it. But you'd have to ban it all, not allow the Bible to be filed and argued but not the Koran.

    The judge was correct.
     
  7. kwc57
    Offline

    kwc57 BOHICA Obama

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,154
    Thanks Received:
    2,301
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Ratings:
    +2,788
    It might help if you saw what we actually voted on in the ballot.

    STATE QUESTION NO. 755 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 355

    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2010
  8. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    And yet the Restatement of Torts was recently updated using British rules as the guideline, since they are so similar to those prevailing in the US and they have one clearly stated rule to work from.

    The courts both State and Federal use anything they can to determine issues of first impression. Religious law of any kind isn't going to carry much weight if any, but international law is often argued and used as a guide even at the SCOTUS level to look for a solution.
     
  9. Intense
    Offline

    Intense Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44,909
    Thanks Received:
    5,849
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,863
    I understand your point am and not in contention with it as long as Religious Law or the Interpretation of it does not supersede or take precedence over Higher Laws it finds itself in conflict with. For example, here, in this Country, changing your Religion is neither a crime or a death sentence. When Sharia Law comes in conflict with Statute, it is no longer a matter of freedom to practice your Religion. When your practice of Religion violates Other's Constitutional Rights, the Constitutional Right's of your intended Victim take precedence over what you want or don't want. ;)
     
  10. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    Of course the First Amendment takes precedence. Which is why arguing religious law in secular courts is futile. But if somebody wants to make the futile gesture, the law cannot pick and choose which religious groups may and may not do so. Either they all can, which is the current situation, or they all can't, which would arguably run afoul of free exercise.
     

Share This Page