A Muslim advocacy group filed suit Thursday (Nov. 4) in Oklahoma, saying a just-passed amendment forbidding judicial use of Islamic law is unconstitutional.
The suit, filed by the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, seeks a federal district court’s order to prevent board of elections officials from enacting the constitutional amendment. Seventy percent of Oklahoma voters Tuesday approved State Question 755, which bans the use of Shariah law in state courts.
There were reports yesterday that the federal district judge had temporarily enjoined the amendment, presumably in response to this suit. Much as regard the ballot measure as a silly political trick whose real purpose is to advance its author’s (or authors’) electoral standing, I am a little puzzled at the constitutional basis of the suit. I’ll have to pull down the complaint when I get a free moment. An establishment clause attack based on a measure that forbids application of religious law strikes me as a bit contradictory. The linked news item indicates that plaintiffs are hanging their hat on the sponsor’s claim that the purpose of the measure is to protect “the Judaeo-Christian” foundations of the Country’s formation. Politicians say stuff like that all the time. I’m not sure that that alone, however, creates constitutional tensions sufficient to invalidate the amendment. Perhaps there’s more to it. Of equal or greater concern, it would seem to me, is the potential that the amendment would forbid reliance on treaties or international law principles in disputes where the treaties, via the federal Constitution, have full force of law in the United States, or where commercial parties have voluntarily contracted to apply the law of another forum.
This country already has laws and a Constitution. Let those who are dissatisfied and want to live under the barbarism of Sharia, go to live in one of the countries already ruled by it.
My question is what happens when Sharia is in opposition to current law? The second is why should Sharia get a preferernce when other religions don’t?
I’d also have to agree with St. Nikao on one level. If you come to the US, the law of the US should be the one you adapt to, otherwise, why come? (Other than attempting to convert to your way of life.)
[blockquote] The second is why should Sharia get a preferernce when other religions don’t?[/blockquote]
Hey. there’s an elephant in here.
Perhaps we are seeing the results of the Saudi payback to the Wahhabis for helping them grab the throne. You could buy a boatload of propaganda with all of that oil money.
Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion. That’s it.
Islam is a religion. Sharia is sedition. Implementing sharia would be de facto establishment of religion. We already have an amendment. But outlawing sharia won’t make any Islamists happy.
This OK amendment seems completely unnecessary and needlessly fearful. Are there any examples of courts basing decisions on Shariah Law in conflict with existing US or State law? Any such decision, even if it happened, would be quickly overturned in a higher court. This amendment was simply a political maneuver to stir up fear of a non-existant threat.
(Similar to the constitutional amendment we passed in this state, to guarantee the right to hunt and fish (a right that has never been under threat. But at least that doesn’t make a bogeyman out of another religious group).
We are a nation of laws, and our Constitution is the Law of the Land. There is not, and cannot be, a provision in that constitution which says that any other system of laws can be permitted to function as the law in place of what already exists. Those whose religious beliefs conflict with the Constitution already know this, and they should not be allowed to demand that their religious leaders be permitted to force sharia law upon an unwilling country……EVER!
Here’s the question the voters approved:
“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.”
Leaving aside international law, what would you think of a constitutional amendment that said that “it forbids courts from considering or using Jewish Law. …
Jewish Law is the law of the Hebrew people. It is based on two principal sources, the Old Testament of the Bible and the teaching of Moses.”
Good idea or bad idea? And would Jewish people really have any standing to complain about such a law?
(Cross-posted from Stand Firm)
The idea is not totally off the wall, given statements from one or two U.S. Supreme Court Justices on the applicability of international law in the U.S. I would prefer to have seen the amendment stated more generally, prohibiting state court decisions based upon international law, the laws of other countries, or on the internal legal codes of any religious or other group. Voluntary contracts or agreements based on Islamic law or Jewish law or any other organizational code would be enforceable so long as they were genuinely voluntary and did not violate U.S. or state law, or remove rights granted by U.S. law. The involvement here is going to be in family law, primarily, and the protection of the rights of women is the strongest reason for supporting such a principle.
I doubt that any substantial group in Oklahoma was demanding that the citizens change out secular law for either Sharia or international law. It probably is a safe conjecture that a large number of Muslims in this country came here precisely to get away from quasi- theocratic governments in other parts of the world. And, as others point out, there isn’t the slightest possibility that a state government could establish a religious, sectarian governmental process, given the protections of the federal Constitution. This was, as Scott points out, a non-problem whose purpose was to aggrandize the pols who promoted the ballot measure.
Could be, NoVA Scout, politics being what it is. I’d venture to conjecture that another large number of Muslims in this country came here to improve their financial condition. The rejection of Islamic rules should not be assumed, although it is to be hoped for.
The amendment was preemptive rather than prescriptive.
[blockquote] But bill co-sponsor State Sen. Anthony Sykes and other conservatives against the use of Sharia law in U.S. courts cite cases outside of Oklahoma, such as a 2009 case when a New Jersey judge declined to issue a restraining order against a Moroccan man after he forced his wife to have sex with him.[/blockquote]
And Sharia is already in place in parts of this country:
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smw9QuH1xkA&feature=related ]YouTube Vid From Michigan[/url]
[blockquote] It probably is a safe conjecture that a large number of Muslims in this country came here precisely to get away from quasi- theocratic governments in other parts of the world. [/blockquote]
Really? Then why does one of the most prominent muslim groups instantly come out suing this quite reasonable amendment?
Then there is [url=http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-awlaki-20101110,0,41495.story]Anwar al-Awlaki[/url], 39, was born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents.
Sharia is part of Jihad. the people of Oklahoma sensibly want no part of it. You can deny that it is coming, but it is already here.
#8, The reason why they specifically cited Sharia Law is because this is something that is happening, maybe not currently in the United States, although I believe that the question already came up in Michigan inside of ‘limited communities’… could be wrong about that, but it is the movement that is happening in European countries and they have no basis for not allowing Sharia Law (the arguments are beginning to be made here as well but not that loudly). They are taking a pre-emptive measure to make sure it cannot happen; or at least that it will make it just that much more difficult to do so.
No. 12. The federal Constitution forbids governmental imposition of religious requirements. End of the boogey-man discussion, I would think. The same suit could have just as reasonably been brought by Christians or Jews. Conservative constitutionalists would be mightily annoyed to see a state constitution being loaded up with this kind of thing. And I find nothing in the link to Anwar al-Awlaki that connects him in any way to Oklahoma political activity. My understanding is that he no longer resides in the United States, let alone Oklahoma.