Judge issues order to block "anti-muslim" amendment

[GlocksInMySocks]

 

[aceflyer001]

Haha! You're funny!

 

[aceflyer001]

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 2, section 2:


Article 1, section 10:


^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.

It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm not an attorney, but I do believe federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over international law issues or disputes for the very reasons you state above. I think what the framers of this amendment were attempting to avoid is what has ALREADY occurred in other states. I forget the exact case, but it can be researched. There has been precedent already set to use Sharia law in a state court here in the U.S. (I will note it was overturned on appeal)

 

[NikatKimber]

I voted against the question.

That aside, I don't think this singles out a religion, rather a religious law. So I don't see it as being against the 1A. Again, it does not prevent muslims from practicing Islam here, but rather prevents the application of their religious law here.

 

[aceflyer001]

I voted against the question.

That aside, I don't think this singles out a religion, rather a religious law. So I don't see it as being against the 1A. Again, it does not prevent muslims from practicing Islam here, but rather prevents the application of their religious law here.

This is what I was really getting at...not that I don't respect the place the courts have in our government, but rather the heavy handed approach they have taken in a situation that is clearly only a state issue. I don't think it violates anything...in fact, if anything, the amendment asserts the right the federal courts play in ruling on international law cases by prohibiting state courts from ruling or considering other laws. The injunction prevents the Secretary of State from certifying the results of the election, which I don't agree a federal court has the right to do in this specific case. It's one thing for a federal court to make a decision about a law, whether it's constitutional or not, it's another for a federal court to prohibit an officer of the state of Oklahoma from certifying the results of an election on a matter that was a state ONLY issue. It would be different had they ruled in a federal election matter, and only then if there was some evidence there was some type of fraud.

In this case, Oklahoma is being prevented from certifying their own state election results. This is the primary problem I have with the ruling. Which brings me back to my original statement. What right does the federal courts have in prohibiting state election results from being certified?

The case was filed prior to the amendment actually being certified as PASSED. Until the Secretary of State's office certifies the results of an election, they are not yet official. If they can stop this election results, what is to stop them from intervening on any other STATE election results?

 

[tacmedic]

No one is aquitted, convicted, freed or punished based on Christian, Jewish, Hidu, or any other religious law!

Court decisions have been made based on shiria law in direct conflict with U.S. law. THAT'S THE PROBLEM! Thats why this was on the ballot.

If you wanna live under shiria law, pack your schiat and move to one of the many countries that can accommodate you.

 

[RETOKSQUID]

For or against it, it does not matter. It does not ban a religion! It bans a religion's LAW from being forced upon another person who does not want it.

 

[deja]

This is what I was really getting at...not that I don't respect the place the courts have in our government, but rather the heavy handed approach they have taken in a situation that is clearly only a state issue. I don't think it violates anything...in fact, if anything, the amendment asserts the right the federal courts play in ruling on international law cases by prohibiting state courts from ruling or considering other laws. The injunction prevents the Secretary of State from certifying the results of the election, which I don't agree a federal court has the right to do in this specific case. It's one thing for a federal court to make a decision about a law, whether it's constitutional or not, it's another for a federal court to prohibit an officer of the state of Oklahoma from certifying the results of an election on a matter that was a state ONLY issue. It would be different had they ruled in a federal election matter, and only then if there was some evidence there was some type of fraud.

In this case, Oklahoma is being prevented from certifying their own state election results. This is the primary problem I have with the ruling. Which brings me back to my original statement. What right does the federal courts have in prohibiting state election results from being certified?

The case was filed prior to the amendment actually being certified as PASSED. Until the Secretary of State's office certifies the results of an election, they are not yet official. If they can stop this election results, what is to stop them from intervening on any other STATE election results?

You do make good points.

 

[tacmedic]

For or against it, it does not matter. It does not ban a religion! It bans a religion's LAW from being forced upon another person who does not want it.

THIS!!!!!!!

The woman who was beaten and raped by her husband sought protection under the law. She got none as the judge determined under shiria law a husband had the right to DEMAND sexual relations from his wife.

I'm about ****ing sick and tired of this ****! You do not legislate from the bench!

 

[rr2008]

Court decisions have been made based on shiria law in direct conflict with U.S. law. THAT'S THE PROBLEM! Thats why this was on the ballot.

my understanding is that it 'shiria law' has never been considered in a state case here in oklahoma. my understanding also is that cases where this would likely be considered are federal cases. now by oklahoma voters passing this measure, have we now thrown a rock a a sleeping dog? if this is ruled unconstitutional, might not we have just done the opposite of what we voted on and all of a sudden 'shiria law' can be considered in state of oklahoma cases?