Judge issues order to block "anti-muslim" amendment

[gl89aw]

While I am not an Obama fan I wish him to do well as a President because that will be good for the United States. I do believe in freedom of religion but I do draw the line at saying a honor killing or stoning is acceptable because Islamic law condones it. We have laws in place that prohibit that kind of behaviour. I do believe that if a person wishes to immigrate legally to the United States and are of good character they should be allowed to do so. I also believe the when they do they automatically come under our laws and leave theirs behind.

 

[71buickfreak]

We don't the luxury of US protection when in other countries, we have to abide by their rules. Why in hell would they expect it here.

 

[donner]

Actually, you are wrong. The courts took it upon themselves to start legistlating from the bench. NOWHERE in the constitution does it give the courts the authority to judge laws and their constitutionality, they took that on themselves. Over time, it has become accepted as the norm, but in reality, that is not what they are there for. This is a republic, when we vote, that vote is all that matters. The courts have taken it upon themselves to be "above reproach", and we (by we I mean our forefathers) have let that happen.

So what is the job of the judicial branch? What should be really be?

I do think it's funny that the court case you are pointing to is Marbury vs. Madison and involved several of the people who wrote the Constitution, but i'm sure they were misinformed as to what the role of the judiciary should be, like the rest of us.

As i've said before, the 'will of the people' doesn't mean they passed a good law. Whether written as such in the Constitution, or not, the judiciary has always served to keep the majority from placing unconstitutional laws on the minority. That is the power of judicial review and it has worked pretty well for a couple of hundred years if you ask me.

 

[Glocktogo]

First off, this guy doesn't have a case. This amendment covers the application of a set of laws. It makes no law respective to religion. Muslims like Mr. Awad delight in using our religious freedoms and separation of church and state against us. Funny, his issue is that we want to CONTINUE to separate church from state. The amendment doesn't say we cannot consider religious cannons and religious teachings in developing our laws. It simply says we will not apply the laws of others in our courts.

Second, who the hell does this judge think he is in interfering with the actual process of voting? If he wants to issue an order that the amendment may not be implemented, so be it. But to actually interfere with the certification of an election? WTF! That is not within his scope of authority.

 

[Werewolf]

The country goes to hell in a handbasket when people forget to respect other people, which you are doing simply because you are angry.

Multiculturalism has worked anywhere where people decided to appreciate each other's virtues and exploit them for the common good.

It ceases to work when one or more groups decide their way is better than another's and try to force it on them rather than abiding by a few simple principles of common good.

The beauty of our constitution is that it only has a few hard, undebateable rules, i.e. what I would refer to as the common good, respect everyone, keep your hands to yourself rules.

Michael Brown

The concept you describe is fine and quite possibly something we all should aspire to.

Too bad man's nature is such that it never has worked and barring some devine being touching us all and changing our natures never will.

Diverse cultures clash - always - an even perusory study of history shows it - ancient and contemporary.

Sucks but that's just the way it is.

 

[Werewolf]

There's an amount of ignorance in terms of history in this statement.

Really?

Name one country on the planet where multiculturalism has worked?

 

[lstdonsldr]

Okay, so if a muslim decides to kill some of your families, and say that under his faith, Allah told him to kill your family because you don't agree with Islam, he would then be protected by his mulsim laws here in Oklahoma. You'd be okay with that?

Or if your neighbor is repeatedly raping and abusing his wife, and tells the courts that the Quran permits it, you're really going to be okay with that?

I understand thats a little to the extreme, but if we permit it, we permit it all, not just the simple stuff.

The thing is, we voted. 70% were against, now one person disagrees and overturns the votes of 70% of Oklahomans who voted? thats crap.

so much for our votes meaning ANYTHING

 

[71buickfreak]

So what is the job of the judicial branch? What should be really be?

I do think it's funny that the court case you are pointing to is Marbury vs. Madison and involved several of the people who wrote the Constitution, but i'm sure they were misinformed as to what the role of the judiciary should be, like the rest of us.

As i've said before, the 'will of the people' doesn't mean they passed a good law. Whether written as such in the Constitution, or not, the judiciary has always served to keep the majority from placing unconstitutional laws on the minority. That is the power of judicial review and it has worked pretty well for a couple of hundred years if you ask me.

The judicial system is there to serve the people and to apply the law, not to judge the law. Interpreting the law is not judging. Thomas Jefferson was adamantly against this decision, as it empowered the courts to impose their will against the peoples. If you were paying attention, you will see the last line in that article-

"Because the Constitution lacks a clear statement authorizing the Federal courts to nullify the acts of coequal branches, critics contend that the argument for judicial review must rely on a significant gloss on the Constitution's terms. Despite such criticisms of Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has been accepted in the American legal community."

The courts are not federally authorized to make these decision's they authorized themselves, via this original decision. Over time, it became accepted, though these actions, in and of themselves, are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

 

[71buickfreak]

Okay, so if a muslim decides to kill some of your families, and say that under his faith, Allah told him to kill your family because you don't agree with Islam, he would then be protected by his mulsim laws here in Oklahoma. You'd be okay with that?

Or if your neighbor is repeatedly raping and abusing his wife, and tells the courts that the Quran permits it, you're really going to be okay with that?

I understand thats a little to the extreme, but if we permit it, we permit it all, not just the simple stuff.

The fact of the matter is that these extreme cases are exact REASON this law was introduced. It all stems from a case in Texas. Sharia law was never considered, but with lifetime appointments for judges, you can see where there may come a time/situation where this could happen. This law would supercede that, eliminating it from being a possibility. And that is a good thing.

 

[1shot(bob)]

The judicial system is there to serve the people and to apply the law, not to judge the law. Interpreting the law is not judging. Thomas Jefferson was adamantly against this decision, as it empowered the courts to impose their will against the peoples. If you were paying attention, you will see the last line in that article-

"Because the Constitution lacks a clear statement authorizing the Federal courts to nullify the acts of coequal branches, critics contend that the argument for judicial review must rely on a significant gloss on the Constitution's terms. Despite such criticisms of Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has been accepted in the American legal community."

The courts are not federally authorized to make these decision's they authorized themselves, via this original decision. Over time, it became accepted, though these actions, in and of themselves, are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

By your reasoning we are not a republic but a democracy. A state where the majority rules in all instances. There is no higher power than the majority.

Or am I missing who that higher power is? Pray tell.