Judge issues order to block "anti-muslim" amendment

[aceflyer001]

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?

It has not YET been considered in a case in Oklahoma, but you are incorrect in that Sharia law can only been considered in a federal case. The case which has already been mentioned here where it was used was indeed a state criminal case. A STATE judge ruled that under Sharia law, the husband had a right to rape and beat his wife. Keep in mind, this ruling HAS been overturned already. The amendment here in Oklahoma was a preemptive strike to prevent similar cases from considering religious law. This has NOTHING to do with international business law. It has everything to do with people's right's that already exist under our laws from being trampled on by judges who wish to make a name for themselves.

Here is a reference to the case in question in New Jersey.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/100725

 

[ez bake]

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.

When/where? Can you point out a case where this has happened?

The law was worded terribly (as were nearly all of the state questions) and it served no purpose because no religious or international law has been used in criminal court to over-turn an existing law (to the best of my knowledge and research).

The only times (that I can find) where International law has been used in court cases was to provide guidance in areas where US law doesn't exist.

They could have left it at international and had a half-way decent shot at creating a law that would do some good (against the EU / UN), but they had to go to the Oklahoma scare tactic of adding the word Sharia to it and I think that is coming back to bite them on the ass (as it should).

 

[JB Books]

. It has everything to do with people's right's that already exist under our laws from being trampled on by judges who wish to make a name for themselves.

Or maybe it has something to do with the Dederal Courts protecting the rights of a minority population in a state where that population's religious beliefs are unpopular.

 

[poopgiggle]

It has not YET been considered in a case in Oklahoma, but you are incorrect in that Sharia law can only been considered in a federal case. The case which has already been mentioned here where it was used was indeed a state criminal case. A STATE judge ruled that under Sharia law, the husband had a right to rape and beat his wife. Keep in mind, this ruling HAS been overturned already. The amendment here in Oklahoma was a preemptive strike to prevent similar cases from considering religious law. This has NOTHING to do with international business law. It has everything to do with people's right's that already exist under our laws from being trampled on by judges who wish to make a name for themselves.

Here is a reference to the case in question in New Jersey.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/100725

That website looks like a fantastically unbiased source of legitimate news!

Seriously though, that judge was an idiot and the decision was overturned on appeal. Saying "SHARIA LAW IS HERE NOW" is overreacting.

 

[donner]

Or maybe it has something to do with the Dederal Courts protecting the rights of a minority population in a state where that population's religious beliefs are unpopular.

what? protection of the minority population? surely, you must be kidding. why would the courts want to go and do a thing like that?

 

[aceflyer001]

That website looks like a fantastically unbiased source of legitimate news!

Seriously though, that judge was an idiot and the decision was overturned on appeal. Saying "SHARIA LAW IS HERE NOW" is overreacting.

Well, yes, I probably should have warned everyone of the biased opinion of the author. It was just a quick find that at least spelled out the facts of the case that was used as a catalyst for the amendment.

 

[SoonerDVM]

what? protection of the minority population? surely, you must be kidding. why would the courts want to go and do a thing like that?

Crazy talk.

 

[Werewolf]

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.

Does that mean if the US signed a treaty with say England that made the Anglican Church the only legal church that the 1st Amendment of the constitution wouldn't apply.

I am confused by the "Notwithstanding" wording. What does that mean?

 

[Dave70968]

That website looks like a fantastically unbiased source of legitimate news!

Seriously though, that judge was an idiot and the decision was overturned on appeal. Saying "SHARIA LAW IS HERE NOW" is overreacting.

Overturned on appeal is not the same as the problem not occurring in the first place.

There's actually a fairly wide gulf between what can be considered in the trial court and what can be litigated in appeal. As a rule, matters of law are fair game in appeals, but questions of fact are generally not appealable. If a trial court gets the findings of fact wrong, it is very difficult to get them changed. Granted, this amendment appears to specifically address questions of law (i.e. "what law applies"), but even at that, appeals take time and money. Better to get it right the first time.

All that said, that last sentence is the problem and the reason for the suit: by singling out one religion, it appears to be using the State to bring condemnation and disrespect to that one faith. Whether it's deserved or not, the State is not allowed to do that.

 

[BReeves]

Makes me wonder if any other religion has "laws" like the Muslims? Is this the same as say the Ten Commandments which I believe most of our basic laws are based on or.....

I don't have a clue about religions. Always felt religion is for people that can't deal with the idea that death is final.