Judge issues order to block "anti-muslim" amendment

[CutBaitNBlowSh*tUp4ALivin]

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-judge-order-block-amendment-story,0,4227046.story
OKLAHOMA CITY -- A temporary restraining order has been issued to block a state constitutional amendment that prohibits state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases. U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange handed down the ruling Monday morning in Oklahoma City following a brief hearing. The order will remain in effect until a Nov. 22 hearing on a requested preliminary injunction.




It prevents the state election board from certifying the results of Tuesday's general election in which the amendment was approved by 70 percent of the voters.

The order was sought in a lawsuit by Oklahoma Muslim Muneer Awad.

Awad is executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma and said during the hearing that the law stigmatizes his religion.

 

[KillShot]

I received a breaking news sms message from KRMG about this.

 

[aceflyer001]

My question is what right do the courts have to intervene in the will of the people of Oklahoma? Was this not a constitutional amendment, and voted on 70% to approve? It's time the feds get out of our business.

 

[deja]

My question is what right do the courts have to intervene in the will of the people of Oklahoma? Was this not a constitutional amendment, and voted on 70% to approve? It's time the feds get out of our business.

As we saw in Chicago v McDonald, among numerous other cases (Brown v Board of Education), the state cannot infringe on federally guaranteed rights. We cannot implement a state constitutional amendment that, say, brings back slavery, because it would be in conflict with the 13th amendment of the US Constitution.

The right the courts have to intervene is the Supremacy Clause.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

My question is what right do the courts have to intervene in the will of the people of Oklahoma?

Yeah, what deja said - the short answer is "every right" - that's what courts do - that's what they're supposed to do, interpret the constitutionality of a law. It could have been brought in front of a state court judge, with likely the same ruling. The Plaintiff got to choose their forum on this federal question case, and they happened to choose federal court. So it's not really the "feds" doing it to us here - it's just *a* court of general jurisdiction applying the U.S. Constitution to a state law that is pretty patently violative of the 1A.

 

[aceflyer001]

I understand the supremacy issue; however, think about it. If I'm not mistaken, international law cases really don't end up in state courts anyway. They are filed in federal courts...which is fine. What this amendment did was ban state courts from considering international or Islamic law.

What is the federally guaranteed right this amendment violates? The freedom of religion? I don't see it that way.

Personally, I have absolutely no problem with ANY religion being observed in this country. That's the freedom that our service members have fought for globally. What I do have a problem with is the federal courts intervening in a state issue. We're not trying to bring back slavery, or anything of the like. I would be opposed to that. The amendment just stated that the courts could only consider U.S. or Oklahoma laws. That's it. That's all it did.

 

[donner]

if 70 percent of the state said they wanted to ban guns, i bet people here wouldn't mind one bit if the courts stepped in and blocked it as unconstitutional. But it always different when it's them and not you.

 

[aceflyer001]

But there is a Federal constitution guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms. I'm just curious as to what federal law, or part of the constitution this violated?

 

[donner]

I understand the supremacy issue; however, think about it. If I'm not mistaken, international law cases really don't end up in state courts anyway. They are filed in federal courts...which is fine. What this amendment did was ban state courts from considering international or Islamic law.

What is the federally guaranteed right this amendment violates? The freedom of religion? I don't see it that way.

Personally, I have absolutely no problem with ANY religion being observed in this country. That's the freedom that our service members have fought for globally. What I do have a problem with is the federal courts intervening in a state issue. We're not trying to bring back slavery, or anything of the like. I would be opposed to that. The amendment just stated that the courts could only consider U.S. or Oklahoma laws. That's it. That's all it did.

isn't the problem with this law widely considered to be the fact that it singles out one religion and bans it? If it just said international law, i don't think it'd be that big of a problem, but since it says islamic law it is. No different than saying Christian law or Jewish law or any other religion.

 

[deja]

But there is a Federal constitution guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms. I'm just curious as to what federal law, or part of the constitution this violated?

The state courts cannot block a state amendment, because their jurisdiction is to find something unconstitutional or not, but they can only consider state constitution. A constitutional amendment is inherently constitutional.

I'm not sure what grounds the district court ( a federal court) blocked this under, but it could be a myriad of things. Singling out a religion likely could be considered a violation of the establishment clause. But if it violates international law, it could be done on those grounds as well. The US Constitution empowers the federal government to negotiate foreign treaties (and in fact bars the states from doing so), and the US Constitution also specifies that treaties the US is signatory to are binding as federal law.

Article 6:

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article 2, section 2:

Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; ...

Article 1, section 10:

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts

^For reference, cited from the US Constitution. I'm sure most of you know most of this, but it's always nice to have it spelled out in text.