Shariah Law or the U.S. Constitution?

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,863
60,200
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. The name at the top of the ballot means naught,...this is the choice:

A. Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism.

B. Equality before the law, free market capitalism, the United States Constitution.

2. Here's why: "“Shariah Law and American Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases,” published by the Center for Security Policy, is one of the most comprehensive studies ...covers more than 600 pages of material. The following summary statement is shocking:

Our findings suggest that Shariah law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have said there are no more than one or two cases of Shariah law in U.S. state court cases; yet we found 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate published cases. Others state with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy; yet we found 15 Trial Court cases, and 12 Appellate Court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in the case at bar. The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with Constitutional protections. This is a serious issue and should be a subject of public debate and engagement by policymakers."
http://shariahinamericancourts.com/...aw_And_American_State_Courts_1.4_06212011.pdf

3. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is acknowledging the growing effect of international law on Supreme Court decisions, particularly in the areas of the death penalty, race admissions and gay sex: “Our island or lone ranger mentality is beginning to change,” Ginsburg said during a speech to the American Constitution Society, a liberal lawyers group holding its first convention. Justices “are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives,” said Ginsburg, who has supported a more global view of judicial decision making. Ginsburg cited an international treaty in her vote . . . to uphold the use of race in college admissions.
Sharia Law Deciding American Court Cases*|*Godfather Politics

4. "In 1919 there was an international conference to establish the International Labor Organization (ILO). The plan was that members would vote on labor standards, and member nations would automatically adopt those standards. The American members declined, saying that this would be contrary to the Constitution, specifically, it would be delegating the treaty-making power to an international body: we would be surrendering America’s sovereignty as derived from the Constitution.

In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?"
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009

Let us be clear...this is what your vote means: either you see the United Stateds Constitution as unique, as responsible for the liberty we have enjoyed, or, as explained by a proponent of global governance, "he believed in American exceptionalism. He said he did, "just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."
 
Sharia Law IS uncontitutional.

I do not know how anyone could say otherwise
 
I imagine that there is a segment of the union educated American public who actually think there is a legitimate comparison between Shria law and the US Constitution.
 
Center for Security Policy

The Center for American Progress calls CSP part of the "Islamophobia network," particularly under its founder and director Frank Gaffney.[2]

Islamophobia
Opposition to "Ground Zero Mosque"
CSP has been at the forefront of opposition to the planned Park51 Muslim Community Center two blocks from the site of the 9/11 attacks. CSP head Gaffney insists the community center, deemed the "Ground Zero mosque," is "designed to be a permanent, in-our-face beachhead for Shariah, a platform for inspiring the triumphalist ambitions of the faithful.” [3]

Center for Security Policy - SourceWatch

Founded in 1988 by Frank Gaffney, the Center for Security Policy (CSP) is a prominent member of the militarist advocacy community. The organization claims to promote the "establishment of successful national security policies through the use of all elements of national power." According to the CSP: "The philosophy of 'Peace through Strength' is not a slogan for military might but a belief that America's national power must be preserved and properly used for it holds a unique global role in maintaining peace and stability."

According to Gaffney, who is a member of the third incarnation of the Committee on Present Danger (CPD), established in June 2004, CSP "prides itself on being loosely modeled" on an earlier version of the committee, which had been established in the 1970s to combat the politics of détente and push aggressive anti-Soviet defense policies. [1]

In a 2002 article about CSP, journalist Jason Vest summarized: "Gaffney and CSP's prescriptions for national security have been fairly simple: Gut all arms control treaties, push ahead with weapons systems virtually everyone agrees should be killed … give no quarter to the Palestinians and, most important, go full-steam ahead on just about every national missile defense program.” [2]

Since the election of President Barack Obama, CSP has served as a vocal opponent to administration security policies, issuing alarmist pronouncements that question the president’s patriotism and pushing exaggerated threat assessments.

An example of its criticism was a November 2009 CSP article penned by Gaffney that cited the discredited terrorism “expert,” Steve Emerson, in arguing that the government’s handling of the killings at Fort Hood threatened the nation’s security. Claiming the Obama administration “has done everything possible to obscure the true nature of the jihadist attack perpetrated at Fort Hood,” Gaffney wrote that “an unsettling question has begun to nag as Team Obama's conduct of security policy becomes ever more inconsistent with common sense—and, at least in some cases, manifestly at odds with our national interests: Whose side are they on?” Gaffney then concluded, “We can only speculate about the motivations behind such deeply problematic behavior on the part of a President of the United States and his administration. What is beyond dispute, however, is the cumulative effect of the application worldwide of the Obama Doctrine—emboldening our enemies, undermining our allies and diminishing our country: Team Obama is making it much more difficult to defend our vital interests and the security of our people, even as its actions encourage the emergence and intensification of threats to both.” [3]

Center for Security Policy - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies
When you can cite a credible, reliable, objective source on the issue, we’ll discuss.
 
I imagine that there is a segment of the union educated American public who actually think there is a legitimate comparison between Shria law and the US Constitution.

Since 2004, the law requires that any school- at any level- that recieves federal funds devote September 17th to teaching the US Constitution....
...who knows to what extent?
...or what comparisons are used.
 
It used to be "original intent", now it's "sharia law". Just an another attempt to force a particular minority view of the Constituion on the majority. :eusa_boohoo:
 
I imagine that there is a segment of the union educated American public who actually think there is a legitimate comparison between Shria law and the US Constitution.

Since 2004, the law requires that any school- at any level- that recieves federal funds devote September 17th to teaching the US Constitution....
...who knows to what extent?
...or what comparisons are used.

We had to pass a law (during the Bush administration) that the greatest document ever written which gave political power to the people for the first time in human history gets a single day in school?
 
Center for Security Policy

The Center for American Progress calls CSP part of the "Islamophobia network," particularly under its founder and director Frank Gaffney.[2]

Islamophobia
Opposition to "Ground Zero Mosque"
CSP has been at the forefront of opposition to the planned Park51 Muslim Community Center two blocks from the site of the 9/11 attacks. CSP head Gaffney insists the community center, deemed the "Ground Zero mosque," is "designed to be a permanent, in-our-face beachhead for Shariah, a platform for inspiring the triumphalist ambitions of the faithful.” [3]

Center for Security Policy - SourceWatch

Founded in 1988 by Frank Gaffney, the Center for Security Policy (CSP) is a prominent member of the militarist advocacy community. The organization claims to promote the "establishment of successful national security policies through the use of all elements of national power." According to the CSP: "The philosophy of 'Peace through Strength' is not a slogan for military might but a belief that America's national power must be preserved and properly used for it holds a unique global role in maintaining peace and stability."

According to Gaffney, who is a member of the third incarnation of the Committee on Present Danger (CPD), established in June 2004, CSP "prides itself on being loosely modeled" on an earlier version of the committee, which had been established in the 1970s to combat the politics of détente and push aggressive anti-Soviet defense policies. [1]

In a 2002 article about CSP, journalist Jason Vest summarized: "Gaffney and CSP's prescriptions for national security have been fairly simple: Gut all arms control treaties, push ahead with weapons systems virtually everyone agrees should be killed … give no quarter to the Palestinians and, most important, go full-steam ahead on just about every national missile defense program.” [2]

Since the election of President Barack Obama, CSP has served as a vocal opponent to administration security policies, issuing alarmist pronouncements that question the president’s patriotism and pushing exaggerated threat assessments.

An example of its criticism was a November 2009 CSP article penned by Gaffney that cited the discredited terrorism “expert,” Steve Emerson, in arguing that the government’s handling of the killings at Fort Hood threatened the nation’s security. Claiming the Obama administration “has done everything possible to obscure the true nature of the jihadist attack perpetrated at Fort Hood,” Gaffney wrote that “an unsettling question has begun to nag as Team Obama's conduct of security policy becomes ever more inconsistent with common sense—and, at least in some cases, manifestly at odds with our national interests: Whose side are they on?” Gaffney then concluded, “We can only speculate about the motivations behind such deeply problematic behavior on the part of a President of the United States and his administration. What is beyond dispute, however, is the cumulative effect of the application worldwide of the Obama Doctrine—emboldening our enemies, undermining our allies and diminishing our country: Team Obama is making it much more difficult to defend our vital interests and the security of our people, even as its actions encourage the emergence and intensification of threats to both.” [3]

Center for Security Policy - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies
When you can cite a credible, reliable, objective source on the issue, we’ll discuss.

We wait....
 
1. The name at the top of the ballot means naught,...this is the choice:

A. Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism.

B. Equality before the law, free market capitalism, the United States Constitution.

2. Here's why: "“Shariah Law and American Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases,” published by the Center for Security Policy, is one of the most comprehensive studies ...covers more than 600 pages of material. The following summary statement is shocking:

Our findings suggest that Shariah law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have said there are no more than one or two cases of Shariah law in U.S. state court cases; yet we found 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate published cases. Others state with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy; yet we found 15 Trial Court cases, and 12 Appellate Court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in the case at bar. The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with Constitutional protections. This is a serious issue and should be a subject of public debate and engagement by policymakers."
http://shariahinamericancourts.com/...aw_And_American_State_Courts_1.4_06212011.pdf

3. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is acknowledging the growing effect of international law on Supreme Court decisions, particularly in the areas of the death penalty, race admissions and gay sex: “Our island or lone ranger mentality is beginning to change,” Ginsburg said during a speech to the American Constitution Society, a liberal lawyers group holding its first convention. Justices “are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives,” said Ginsburg, who has supported a more global view of judicial decision making. Ginsburg cited an international treaty in her vote . . . to uphold the use of race in college admissions.
Sharia Law Deciding American Court Cases*|*Godfather Politics

4. "In 1919 there was an international conference to establish the International Labor Organization (ILO). The plan was that members would vote on labor standards, and member nations would automatically adopt those standards. The American members declined, saying that this would be contrary to the Constitution, specifically, it would be delegating the treaty-making power to an international body: we would be surrendering America’s sovereignty as derived from the Constitution.

In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?"
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009

Let us be clear...this is what your vote means: either you see the United Stateds Constitution as unique, as responsible for the liberty we have enjoyed, or, as explained by a proponent of global governance, "he believed in American exceptionalism. He said he did, "just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

I'll take the Constitution for a 1000
 
Center for Security Policy

The Center for American Progress calls CSP part of the "Islamophobia network," particularly under its founder and director Frank Gaffney.[2]

Islamophobia
Opposition to "Ground Zero Mosque"
CSP has been at the forefront of opposition to the planned Park51 Muslim Community Center two blocks from the site of the 9/11 attacks. CSP head Gaffney insists the community center, deemed the "Ground Zero mosque," is "designed to be a permanent, in-our-face beachhead for Shariah, a platform for inspiring the triumphalist ambitions of the faithful.” [3]

Center for Security Policy - SourceWatch

Founded in 1988 by Frank Gaffney, the Center for Security Policy (CSP) is a prominent member of the militarist advocacy community. The organization claims to promote the "establishment of successful national security policies through the use of all elements of national power." According to the CSP: "The philosophy of 'Peace through Strength' is not a slogan for military might but a belief that America's national power must be preserved and properly used for it holds a unique global role in maintaining peace and stability."

According to Gaffney, who is a member of the third incarnation of the Committee on Present Danger (CPD), established in June 2004, CSP "prides itself on being loosely modeled" on an earlier version of the committee, which had been established in the 1970s to combat the politics of détente and push aggressive anti-Soviet defense policies. [1]

In a 2002 article about CSP, journalist Jason Vest summarized: "Gaffney and CSP's prescriptions for national security have been fairly simple: Gut all arms control treaties, push ahead with weapons systems virtually everyone agrees should be killed … give no quarter to the Palestinians and, most important, go full-steam ahead on just about every national missile defense program.” [2]

Since the election of President Barack Obama, CSP has served as a vocal opponent to administration security policies, issuing alarmist pronouncements that question the president’s patriotism and pushing exaggerated threat assessments.

An example of its criticism was a November 2009 CSP article penned by Gaffney that cited the discredited terrorism “expert,” Steve Emerson, in arguing that the government’s handling of the killings at Fort Hood threatened the nation’s security. Claiming the Obama administration “has done everything possible to obscure the true nature of the jihadist attack perpetrated at Fort Hood,” Gaffney wrote that “an unsettling question has begun to nag as Team Obama's conduct of security policy becomes ever more inconsistent with common sense—and, at least in some cases, manifestly at odds with our national interests: Whose side are they on?” Gaffney then concluded, “We can only speculate about the motivations behind such deeply problematic behavior on the part of a President of the United States and his administration. What is beyond dispute, however, is the cumulative effect of the application worldwide of the Obama Doctrine—emboldening our enemies, undermining our allies and diminishing our country: Team Obama is making it much more difficult to defend our vital interests and the security of our people, even as its actions encourage the emergence and intensification of threats to both.” [3]

Center for Security Policy - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies
When you can cite a credible, reliable, objective source on the issue, we’ll discuss.

I note that you have chosen the path of least effort...to criticize the source, rather than the substance. I am fully aware of the work of Frank Gaffney, and have great respect for him and for his work.

Is the post correct or not?

The fact that you avoid the essential point is the best indication that you know that the OP is correct.


Are you going to argue that foreign law of any kind should or could be the basis for court, Supreme Court decisions?
That Rabkin was incorrect in his warning?

I thought not.
I expect a better response from you.
 
It used to be "original intent", now it's "sharia law". Just an another attempt to force a particular minority view of the Constituion on the majority. :eusa_boohoo:

Shouldn't you refrain from any discussion involving the Constitution until you understand the enumerated powers?

Show some respect for knowledge.


And, consider carefully, the choices:
A. Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism.

B. Equality before the law, free market capitalism, the United States Constitution.
 
Sharia Law IS uncontitutional.

I do not know how anyone could say otherwise
Exactly what part(s) of Sharia Law are un-Constitutional or would be in conflict with the Constitution? :cool:

Sunni, I hope you don't see this as a personal attack...the OP specified all foreign laws.I was using the report as a vehicle to remind all that the Constitution and its import required protection.

Article VI:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding
 

Forum List

Back
Top