I'm going to vote No or abstain now, instead of yes, simply because it appears to be unconstitutional as directly violative of the 1A.
Unlike the blissninny gun-banners, who support measures that are clearly unconstitutional because they believe they're good ideas and the constitution be damned; I actually have a conscience and think that it's wrong to vote for something pretty clearly unconstitutional, just because I think it's a good idea.
It IS a good idea to prohibit courts from using Islamic law in decisions, but it's also a law "respecting [a particular - 'an'] establishment of religion", which is binding on the states as a no-no through the 14A - it singles out Islam to the exclusion of all other religions - it's clearly a law "respecting an establishment of religion" - it is law passed "with respect to", "in respect to", or "related to" (and thus "respecting" as that terms was used in those days) a specific establishment of religion - that being Islam. Just change it to say all religions equally next time, and it will then be a good idea AND constitutional - and I'll vote for it. Much as I'd like to frankly see Islam wiped from the face of the planet as the scourge and cancer that it is - IN MY OPINION - the US Constitution is the first and foremost concern which must be obeyed.**
'Course, it will still pass, but a losing vote, used well with principle and conviction, is not ever wasted.
**However, there is at least one contra argument here: When is a 'religion' not a 'religion'? The courts do not just accept any hare-brained scheme that you cough up and claim as a 'religion', which is why prisoners' lawsuits to smoke peyote and sacrifice animals for their satanic 'religion' usually fail in the courts. So perhaps it could be argued that a religion is only a religion if it is a teacher solely of of non-violent, non-criminal acts? Is a religion that encourages its followers to kill others in the name of its deity a valid recognizable religion? Maybe not. I don't know the federal definition of 'religion', and it may not be fully fleshed out, but perhaps Islam doesn't meet the definition - or maybe some sects of Islam do, and some don't (blatent teachers of violence)? It's an interesting hypothetical though. Anyone have a quick overview of how the courts have generally gone about deciding which religions are valid under 1A and which are not?
Is it based on the number of followers as a percentage of the population? If so, then it's in our best interest (arguably) to stop the spread before they can bootstrap themselves into the definition, if they're not already there (similar to the ridiculous definition that the SCOTUS put down for us in Heller - If the gun is "commonly used for self-defense", then it's protected, and if it's not, it's not -- Say what? The only way for the masses to get Gun Type A or Gun Type B into their hands such that they become commonly used, is if the public is allowed to buy them - if they're not banned - idiotic circular catch-22 logic. Because machine guns have been banned since 86, they're not commonly used for self-defense, so they likely aren't protected, which is complete and utter BS - perhaps had they not been banned since 86 moratorium - perhaps then, like semi-auto AR15 types, they MAY have transitioned during that time from "not commonly used" to "commonly used" for self-defense). Stupid definition, but that wouldn't stop the SCOTUS and other courts from applying an analygous one to religion - one which we can use against Islam, but in a constitutional way: "Hey Islam, you're not a religion because you don't have enough people, and the fact that you can't get enough people to become a religion is (allegedly) in part because you can't get laws to protect your groups, is what's known colloquially as 'tough noogies' ".
Of course the other contra is, Hey the legislatures and the people are *supposed to* pass unconstitutional stuff - that's just what we do. It's the duty and responsibility of the courts to come in each and every time and strike them down as unconstitional if they are - we ought not speculate on constitutionality if there's any ambiguity at all, and just pass things with a solely prudential calculus in mind (this is a good idea; the benefits outweigh the costs).
Unlike the blissninny gun-banners, who support measures that are clearly unconstitutional because they believe they're good ideas and the constitution be damned; I actually have a conscience and think that it's wrong to vote for something pretty clearly unconstitutional, just because I think it's a good idea.
It IS a good idea to prohibit courts from using Islamic law in decisions, but it's also a law "respecting [a particular - 'an'] establishment of religion", which is binding on the states as a no-no through the 14A - it singles out Islam to the exclusion of all other religions - it's clearly a law "respecting an establishment of religion" - it is law passed "with respect to", "in respect to", or "related to" (and thus "respecting" as that terms was used in those days) a specific establishment of religion - that being Islam. Just change it to say all religions equally next time, and it will then be a good idea AND constitutional - and I'll vote for it. Much as I'd like to frankly see Islam wiped from the face of the planet as the scourge and cancer that it is - IN MY OPINION - the US Constitution is the first and foremost concern which must be obeyed.**
'Course, it will still pass, but a losing vote, used well with principle and conviction, is not ever wasted.
**However, there is at least one contra argument here: When is a 'religion' not a 'religion'? The courts do not just accept any hare-brained scheme that you cough up and claim as a 'religion', which is why prisoners' lawsuits to smoke peyote and sacrifice animals for their satanic 'religion' usually fail in the courts. So perhaps it could be argued that a religion is only a religion if it is a teacher solely of of non-violent, non-criminal acts? Is a religion that encourages its followers to kill others in the name of its deity a valid recognizable religion? Maybe not. I don't know the federal definition of 'religion', and it may not be fully fleshed out, but perhaps Islam doesn't meet the definition - or maybe some sects of Islam do, and some don't (blatent teachers of violence)? It's an interesting hypothetical though. Anyone have a quick overview of how the courts have generally gone about deciding which religions are valid under 1A and which are not?
Is it based on the number of followers as a percentage of the population? If so, then it's in our best interest (arguably) to stop the spread before they can bootstrap themselves into the definition, if they're not already there (similar to the ridiculous definition that the SCOTUS put down for us in Heller - If the gun is "commonly used for self-defense", then it's protected, and if it's not, it's not -- Say what? The only way for the masses to get Gun Type A or Gun Type B into their hands such that they become commonly used, is if the public is allowed to buy them - if they're not banned - idiotic circular catch-22 logic. Because machine guns have been banned since 86, they're not commonly used for self-defense, so they likely aren't protected, which is complete and utter BS - perhaps had they not been banned since 86 moratorium - perhaps then, like semi-auto AR15 types, they MAY have transitioned during that time from "not commonly used" to "commonly used" for self-defense). Stupid definition, but that wouldn't stop the SCOTUS and other courts from applying an analygous one to religion - one which we can use against Islam, but in a constitutional way: "Hey Islam, you're not a religion because you don't have enough people, and the fact that you can't get enough people to become a religion is (allegedly) in part because you can't get laws to protect your groups, is what's known colloquially as 'tough noogies' ".
Of course the other contra is, Hey the legislatures and the people are *supposed to* pass unconstitutional stuff - that's just what we do. It's the duty and responsibility of the courts to come in each and every time and strike them down as unconstitional if they are - we ought not speculate on constitutionality if there's any ambiguity at all, and just pass things with a solely prudential calculus in mind (this is a good idea; the benefits outweigh the costs).
You can require the prison to give you a Koran or Book of Mormon, but you can't require them to supply you with virgins.
