Lawsuit filed in Okla. against Islamic law ban

Page 1 of 1 [ 15 posts ] 

John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

04 Nov 2010, 10:45 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_islamic_law_lawsuit

OKLAHOMA CITY – An Oklahoma Muslim filed a federal lawsuit on Thursday to block a state constitutional amendment overwhelmingly approved by voters that would prohibit state courts from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.

The measure, which got 70 percent of the vote in Tuesday's election, was one of several on Oklahoma's ballot that critics said pandered to conservatives and would move the state further to the right.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City, seeks a temporary retraining order and injunction to block the election results from being certified by the state Election Board on Nov. 9. Among other things, the lawsuit alleges the ballot measure transforms Oklahoma's Constitution into "an enduring condemnation" of Islam by singling it out for special restrictions by barring Islamic law, also known as Sharia law.

"We have a handful of politicians who have pushed an amendment onto our state ballot and then conducted a well-planned and well-funded campaign of misinformation and fear," said Muneer Awad, who filed the suit and is executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. "We have certain unalienable rights, and those rights cannot be taken away from me by a political campaign." About 20,000 and 30,000 Muslims live in Oklahoma, Awad estimated.

Legal experts have also questioned the measure.

Joseph Thai, a professor at the University of Oklahoma's College of Law, said the ballot measure is "an answer in search of a problem." He said he knows of no other state that has approved similar measures.

"There is no plausible danger of international law or Sharia law overtaking the legal system," Thai said in an e-mail to The Associated Press. He said courts only consider international law when deciding issues involving a federal treaty, a business contract or a will that incorporates international law.

Thai said the ballot measure "raises thorny church-state problems as well" and could even affect a state judge's ability to consider the Ten Commandments.

"The Ten Commandments, of course, is international law. It did not originate in Oklahoma or the United States," Thai said.

The measure is scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1. It's author, Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs, said it was not intended to attack Muslims but to prevent activist judges from relying on international law or Islamic law when ruling on legal cases.

"The threat posed by activist judges is clear," Duncan said. "It shouldn't matter what the law in France or any other European country is."

Duncan described the measure as "a pre-emptive strike" in Oklahoma, where he said activist judges are not an imminent problem. But some judges elsewhere, including U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, believe courts should look to the law of other countries for guidance when deciding cases, he said.

Ginsburg told a meeting of international lawyers in Washington in July that American judges can learn from their foreign counterparts when seeking solutions to "trying questions."

"The only people who would be a victim of this are activist judges," said Duncan, who in 2007 rejected a Quran as a gift from a council created by Gov. Brad Henry, explaining that "most Oklahomans do not endorse the idea of killing innocent women and children in the name of ideology."

One Oklahoma resident said he voted for the measure on Tuesday because chaos might ensue if judges were permitted to rely on international or religious laws in their courts.

"Any private organization could come in and say the judge has to rule according to our rules and regulations and overrule state laws," Oklahoma City attorney Jerry Fent said. "How many religions could you have?"

But Laura Gorton, a college student from Oklahoma City, said she saw no need for the measure and voted against it.

"It's not an issue here," Gorton said. "It's almost like an attempt to make a jab at other cultures."

Among the 10 other questions on Tuesday's ballot were a measure that would make English the state's official language and another one the allows residents to "opt-out" of the new federal health care reform law. Both passed.

The questions are the product of a Republican-controlled Legislature, which circumvented Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry — a Democrat — to take them to the ballot. Critics say Republicans were trying to beef up voter turnout among certain conservative groups by appealing to biases on immigration, Islam and the reach of Washington in a state where President Barack Obama failed to win a single county in 2008.

Republicans have denied there is a conspiracy, saying that some of the measures are designed to protect citizens from the reach of the federal government.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Zara
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,877
Location: Deep Dungeon, VA

04 Nov 2010, 11:03 pm

International law, maybe. Islamic law, no.

State Courts shouldn't rule on the basis of religious opinions.
If they want to be fair about it, then they should amend it so that any religious dogma cannot be used to decide a case.

And since when has the Ten Commandments been International Law? I never got a memo on that one.


_________________
Current obsessions: Miatas, Investing
Currently playing: Amnesia: The Dark Descent
Currently watching: SRW OG2: The Inspectors

Come check out my photography!
http://dmausf.deviantart.com/


Spyral
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 210
Location: Norman, OK

05 Nov 2010, 12:57 am

I feel like I should weigh in on this one, seeing as how I live in Oklahoma--although hopefully not for long. It's super right wing here--we have a state representative who said gays are more of a threat to Americans than terrorists. And a senator who contended that climate change is a conspiracy by the Weather Channel to increase its ratings. Also had a candidate for governor openly calling for a militia to resist the federal government--when a man making that same argument killed 163 people by blowing up a building in downtown Oklahoma City. Just to give you an idea of some of the jokers we've elected....

The health care opt-out questioned contained this statement:

Quote:
Nor could the measure affect or negate all federal laws or rules. The United States Constitution has a Supremacy Clause. That clause makes federal law the supreme law of the land. Under that clause Congress has the power to preempt state law. When Congress intends to preempt state law, federal law controls. When Congress intends it, constitutionally enacted federal law would preempt some or all of the proposed measure.


The Sharia law/international law question was a clear reaction to the anti-Muslim fervor of the country. The only reason they put the international law thing in there is to try and preempt a court challenge about religion. After all, Oklahoma has tried to install prayer in schools and post the Ten Commandments in courtrooms. So I guess it's just Islam that's not OK but other religions are. The author of the bill stated we are at war with all Muslims (which, frankly is irresponsible since statements like this are why people hate us internationally) not just the fundamentalist and extremists in that religion.

An interesting consideration is how this question will affect tribal law. Native American tribes are still considered sovereign nations and we still have many treaties in place between the tribes and the federal government. We are also still about 8% Native American here in Oklahoma. I wonder if this will mean judges cannot use those treaties when making decisions. If so, huge clusterf**k ahead...


_________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."


Roxas_XIII
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jan 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,217
Location: Laramie, WY

05 Nov 2010, 2:10 am

Spyral wrote:
I feel like I should weigh in on this one, seeing as how I live in Oklahoma--although hopefully not for long. It's super right wing here--we have a state representative who said gays are more of a threat to Americans than terrorists. And a senator who contended that climate change is a conspiracy by the Weather Channel to increase its ratings. Also had a candidate for governor openly calling for a militia to resist the federal government--when a man making that same argument killed 163 people by blowing up a building in downtown Oklahoma City. Just to give you an idea of some of the jokers we've elected....

The health care opt-out questioned contained this statement:
Quote:
Nor could the measure affect or negate all federal laws or rules. The United States Constitution has a Supremacy Clause. That clause makes federal law the supreme law of the land. Under that clause Congress has the power to preempt state law. When Congress intends to preempt state law, federal law controls. When Congress intends it, constitutionally enacted federal law would preempt some or all of the proposed measure.


The Sharia law/international law question was a clear reaction to the anti-Muslim fervor of the country. The only reason they put the international law thing in there is to try and preempt a court challenge about religion. After all, Oklahoma has tried to install prayer in schools and post the Ten Commandments in courtrooms. So I guess it's just Islam that's not OK but other religions are. The author of the bill stated we are at war with all Muslims (which, frankly is irresponsible since statements like this are why people hate us internationally) not just the fundamentalist and extremists in that religion.

An interesting consideration is how this question will affect tribal law. Native American tribes are still considered sovereign nations and we still have many treaties in place between the tribes and the federal government. We are also still about 8% Native American here in Oklahoma. I wonder if this will mean judges cannot use those treaties when making decisions. If so, huge clusterf**k ahead...


Can we just send you and any other sane people in Oklahoma an order for evacuation and just nuke this state already?


_________________
"Yeah, so this one time, I tried playing poker with tarot cards... got a full house, and about four people died." ~ Unknown comedian

Happy New Year from WP's resident fortune-teller! May the cards be ever in your favor.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Nov 2010, 3:02 am

Zara wrote:
International law, maybe. Islamic law, no.

State Courts shouldn't rule on the basis of religious opinions.
If they want to be fair about it, then they should amend it so that any religious dogma cannot be used to decide a case.

And since when has the Ten Commandments been International Law? I never got a memo on that one.


Islamic Law (Shariah) should have no standing in the courts or in reaching decisions. Shariah should not be permitted to be imposed by force by either government or private individuals. Let me give you an example: If a person uses force to impose the Kashrut (kosher laws) on another person, he is violating that persons rights under the U.S. constitution (by way of the 9th Amendment) and under any State constitution. A similar comment applies to Shariah.

Shariah cannot have any standing in the U.S. except as custom and since it is religious it is permitted as a voluntary action by way of the First Amendment which prohibits the free exercise of religion (short of forceful violent action or the imposition of force).

If a head of Muslim household insists that Halal be the custom of his house that is perfectly fine. But if he uses force against one of his household members for violating halal outside, he is in breach of the law.

ruveyn



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

05 Nov 2010, 3:24 am

Spyral wrote:
The Sharia law/international law question was a clear reaction to the anti-Muslim fervor of the country. The only reason they put the international law thing in there is to try and preempt a court challenge about religion. After all, Oklahoma has tried to install prayer in schools and post the Ten Commandments in courtrooms. So I guess it's just Islam that's not OK but other religions are. The author of the bill stated we are at war with all Muslims (which, frankly is irresponsible since statements like this are why people hate us internationally) not just the fundamentalist and extremists in that religion.

An interesting consideration is how this question will affect tribal law. Native American tribes are still considered sovereign nations and we still have many treaties in place between the tribes and the federal government. We are also still about 8% Native American here in Oklahoma. I wonder if this will mean judges cannot use those treaties when making decisions. If so, huge clusterf**k ahead...


1) Sharia law is a threat to the rights of some American citizens and does nothing to benefit society. It is true that it would be a double standard to accept the 10 Commandments and guiding principles other religions but not sharia law, but getting rid of all official religious influence would be a small price to pay to stop the use of multiculturalism to victimize people. Hopefully this legislation will catch on elsewhere.

2)“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 that 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 VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution

The Indian treaties were made the federal government and sovereign Indian nations, and those treaties do not conflict with the constitution, so those treaties will stand in matters that involve Indian reservations. However, if someone commits a crime and claims that it's customary on the Indian reservations or some other country, then that defense wouldn't be acceptable.

Roxas_XIII wrote:
Can we just send you and any other sane people in Oklahoma an order for evacuation and just nuke this state already?

Nuke the raving moonbats in the People's Republic of California first. By the time they are done with the place, the economy will make the current state of affairs look desirable, crime will be rampant, self-defense options will be curtailed, and they will try to console everyone by telling everyone how they cut greenhouse emissions.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Zara
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,877
Location: Deep Dungeon, VA

05 Nov 2010, 7:28 am

ruveyn wrote:
Zara wrote:
International law, maybe. Islamic law, no.

State Courts shouldn't rule on the basis of religious opinions.
If they want to be fair about it, then they should amend it so that any religious dogma cannot be used to decide a case.

And since when has the Ten Commandments been International Law? I never got a memo on that one.


Islamic Law (Shariah) should have no standing in the courts or in reaching decisions. Shariah should not be permitted to be imposed by force by either government or private individuals. Let me give you an example: If a person uses force to impose the Kashrut (kosher laws) on another person, he is violating that persons rights under the U.S. constitution (by way of the 9th Amendment) and under any State constitution. A similar comment applies to Shariah.

Shariah cannot have any standing in the U.S. except as custom and since it is religious it is permitted as a voluntary action by way of the First Amendment which prohibits the free exercise of religion (short of forceful violent action or the imposition of force).

If a head of Muslim household insists that Halal be the custom of his house that is perfectly fine. But if he uses force against one of his household members for violating halal outside, he is in breach of the law.

ruveyn


It's sounding like a case of another poorly written law.
It's coming off as targeting specifically Sharia law in some preemptive move. With it's wording, it does come off as discriminatory.
So a court cannot consider Islamic law, but Kosher law is okay?

I like the idea, overall, but for the state to act impartially, the wording needs to change to cover all religious dogma.


_________________
Current obsessions: Miatas, Investing
Currently playing: Amnesia: The Dark Descent
Currently watching: SRW OG2: The Inspectors

Come check out my photography!
http://dmausf.deviantart.com/


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Nov 2010, 9:39 am

Zara wrote:
So a court cannot consider Islamic law, but Kosher law is okay?

I like the idea, overall, but for the state to act impartially, the wording needs to change to cover all religious dogma.


The both Orthodox Jewish Halachah (laws) and Sharia (Islamic law) have a standing as voluntarily observed customs protected by the First Amendment. Neither can legally be imposed by force.

ruveyn



Spyral
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 210
Location: Norman, OK

05 Nov 2010, 5:24 pm

John_Browning wrote:
The Indian treaties were made the federal government and sovereign Indian nations, and those treaties do not conflict with the constitution, so those treaties will stand in matters that involve Indian reservations. However, if someone commits a crime and claims that it's customary on the Indian reservations or some other country, then that defense wouldn't be acceptable.


Because the tribes are considered sovereign, the treaties could be considered international law depending on how current courts define it. A judge would be prevented from enforcing the treaty in matters of civil jurisdiction also--the treaties cover all sorts of scenarios, not just criminal law.

I would argue, judging by the mood in this state, though that people don't consider the long term implications of anything--they just hear "Muslim" and think "Ooh, scary." Sharia law does not pose a threat to anyone in this country, it's all just anti-Muslim, right-wing xenophobic hype.


_________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."


Wombat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2006
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,051

06 Nov 2010, 11:28 pm

There are private laws that people sometimes agree to be bound by.

The Catholics have their Canon law. A Catholic who gets a divorce is still considered married by the church unless they can get an annulment from Rome.
I believe Orthodox Jewish women need something called a "get" signed by their husband before they can remarry.

But these things should have nothing to do with regular courts.

Imagine if a man is arrested and charged with beating his wife with a stick.

Lawyer: "In my client's culture that is acceptable"
Judge: "OK, case dismissed" :D



Douglas_MacNeill
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,326
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

07 Nov 2010, 11:27 am

I wonder what happens when the Crown Prince of some country and his consort happen to have a baby in an Oklahoma hospital.
Would Oklahoma go against the Princess Margriet precedent?
After all, that precedent is part of the same international law that Oklahomans voted against in the plebiscite.

And what about the use of precedent decisions from cases argued in the UK or Canada (foreign jurisdictions, to be sure, but
jurisdictions that share the same English criminal law with Oklahoma)?

Or, are Oklahomans trying to insist that they are pure in their state of being American?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Nov 2010, 12:13 pm

Wombat wrote:
There are private laws that people sometimes agree to be bound by.

The Catholics have their Canon law. A Catholic who gets a divorce is still considered married by the


Bound, but not necessarily legally bound. Only contracts meeting certain conditions are legally binding.

Without legal binding there is no practical way of enforcing the contract. You will notice the word "force" in enforcing. To make sure contracts are kept we need swords, spears, whips, guns, chains and dungeons.

ruveyn



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

07 Nov 2010, 11:29 pm

Zara wrote:
International law, maybe. Islamic law, no.

State Courts shouldn't rule on the basis of religious opinions.
If they want to be fair about it, then they should amend it so that any religious dogma cannot be used to decide a case.

And since when has the Ten Commandments been International Law? I never got a memo on that one.


Both shouldn't be allowed because we are sovereign nation.

Also Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause



Roxas_XIII
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jan 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,217
Location: Laramie, WY

08 Nov 2010, 12:38 am

It's not so much I support Islamic law, as a matter of fact I don't because I'm not Muslim. However, the Constitution already says that just because it's a law or legal precedent in another country does not mean that it holds any legal sway in America. The only laws that American citizens can be legally bound by are those of the Constitution as well as it's descendants (federal, state, and local law).

Islamic law cannot exist in America because it conflicts with seperation of church and state. Though it may be considered international law because some Islamic countries adopt it as their laws specifically, it boils down to the simple fact that Islamic law is religious law. It's spelled out in the Quran. If it existed in America, it would be the equivalent of a judge taking out a Bible or Torah to decide a case. The Constitution DOES NOT ALLOW this.

However, the idiots here in Oklahoma don't realize that their case for banning Islamic law has already been covered by the Constitution. They're just bringing up the issue because they're a bunch of ultraconservative bigots who want to use every freaking opportunity they can to pick on Muslims with the usual intolerant BS. If they had done their homework and weren't just trying to stir s**t up, then the ballot initiative and subsequent lawsuit that started all of this would not have existed in the first place.

As for my personal opinion, if Muslims wish to follow their own laws, they may do so in America so long as a) they also follow the laws of this country, and b) if Islamic law conflicts with our laws, the latter takes precedence. That is only to be expected of an American citizen regardless of faith.


_________________
"Yeah, so this one time, I tried playing poker with tarot cards... got a full house, and about four people died." ~ Unknown comedian

Happy New Year from WP's resident fortune-teller! May the cards be ever in your favor.


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

08 Nov 2010, 2:12 pm

You're assuming that the Judges would actually follow the Constitution...

Update:
http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2010/ ... ia-law-ban


Predictable...