Federal Appeals Court Rules In CAIR’s Favor, Blocks Oklahoma Voter-Approved Ban On Sharia Law…
CAIR has been gloating all day on their Twitter feed.
(CNN) — A federal appeals court has blocked an Oklahoma voter-approved measure barring state judges from considering Islamic and international law in their decisions.
The three-judge panel at the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier injunction preventing State Question 755 from being certified until the free speech questions are resolved. The decision Tuesday allows a lawsuit brought by Islamic-American groups to move ahead to a bench trial.
“The proposed amendment discriminates among religions,” said the judges. “The Oklahoma amendment specifically names the target of its discrimination. The only religious law mentioned in the amendment is Sharia law.”
A federal judge last summer had issued a temporary restraining order in favor of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which had sued to nullify the law completely.
The amendment would require Oklahoma courts to “rely on federal and state law when deciding cases” and “forbids courts from considering or using” either international law or Islamic religious law, known as Sharia, which the amendment defined as being based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.
In bringing suit, CAIR argued that the amendment violates the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom. The group’s local leader, Muneer Awad, has said the amendment passed in November 2010 under a campaign of fear and misinformation about Islam.
Posted by ZIP on Tuesday, January 10, 2012, at 5:24 pm | 
Tweet
This lawless regime conspires to thwart the will of the people at every opportunity.
Conditioning: The use of words, pictures, and phrases to make you believe the agenda.
Sometimes I wish a bunch of this CAIR-related news was simply hallucinations.
The CAIR invasion is well underway. Clip-clopping along in one way or another.
Court records will show:
The U.S. Government
vs
We The People of the United States of America
NUTS–Those Judges should be disbarred—PERIOD
How exactly can a Federal Judge rule like this? This is in total contradiction with the U.S. Constitution, the same Constitution they swore to uphold.
In a sane United States, this judge would be convicted for high-treason against the U.S.
The Constitution protects the “freedom of religion”, but should it protect the “freedom of foreign political system”?
Because that is what Islam is.
“The three-judge panel at the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier injunction preventing State Question 755 from being certified until the free speech questions are resolved.”
This is just a legal procedure, part of the Court process, it is neither a win nor loss for anyone.
“In bringing suit, CAIR argued that the amendment violates the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom.”
———-
It violates the social contract to impose a set of laws upon a people without their consent.
“We the people of the United States” are a group who is defined by a common set of laws. We are literally, “a nation of laws”. All new additions to our official set of rules are brought about through the actions of our legislature, and proposals only become laws when a majority of our legislature approves them, then our executive signs the proposal.
SHARIAH LAW NEVER WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS. Neither have many “International Laws”.
Great – sorry Oklahoma – all these diseased animals will now be in caravans on their way to your State to prepare for Government-assisted Honor killings. When in the HELL is this nightmare going to stop??? How many bodies have to pile up before this cult is eradicated?
“the amendment passed in November 2010 under a campaign of KNOWLEDGE and PROVEN information about Islam.
Toronto and the Arab decade! according to the toronto census conducted in 2006.. Toronto accounted for 23% of all Canada’s minorities… from 1996-2006 Toronto had a 42% increase in minority influx (mostly arab- called non chinese asian in the census). In FIVE years Toronto’s minority population has gone from 42 to 47%… thats a 5% increase in FIVE years… Im telling you in 2012 it seemed more like 70-80%…. http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/pdf/2006_ethnic_origin_visible_minorities_backgrounder.pdf
My newly created religion has laws that state that I may not pay taxes.
Let’s see how this works out.
Separation of church and state, unless the church is a mosque, evidently.
I saw this coming, and I had my suspicions when our local community college began offering a new class, “Introductory Stoning: Learn The Proper Technique.”
Needless to say, some of us are up in arms about it.
In truth, the amendment should have been worded differently. I don’t know exactly how they could have worded it, but it should have been.
@OEFVet: Toronto is just a cold Minneapolistan.
Thanks to Obama, the Dems and Libtards in general, the Islamification of our country is proceeding on schedule.
20 years ago it was barely noticed.
10 years ago they attacked us from within. Contrary to what we’re told, they had A LOT of inside help.
Then, in spite of all the evidence, Islam became protected… and the myth of “moderate” Islam was shoved down our throats.
They have become the victims… they are now the oppressed, they are in constant need of protection from the Courts to counter the will of We the People, who are trying to defend ourselves against them.
Soon, Islam will be mandatory (as in some places, it already is).
Our schools will have “I am a Muslim day”… (they already do).
Our schools will send our children to pray in a mosk… (they already do).
Our Government will observe Muslim holidays (Barry already does, while ignoring Christian ones).
Before long, there will be exclusively Muslim communities where no American will dare enter (as in London and Paris)… like Dearbornistan.
Our next President MUST be someone who recognizes this, and will not fall for the “moderate Islam” crap.
Well I’m in Oklahoma, and I’m livid.!! Sharia is simply legalized murder ,pedophilia, slavery of women, masochism, and multiple other horrible things that go against the laws of our country. The reason Oklahoma had it up for vote was judges that govern from the bench..looks like they still are.
Hopefully this will go to the Supreme Court!!!
Un-freakin’-believable.
These judges cannot rule this way. Their power is derived from the Constitution. The Constitution codifies our laws. No where in this document does it allow for other countries’ laws or religious edicts to become part of our law without a due process in the state legistalions or Congress.
Take these fools out to the woodshed. Now!
@ClarkNarkulis: Good snarkasm!
@OEF: Went to look on the page, this is what I got: ?
The page you have attempted to view could not be found on the City of Toronto’s website. You may have typed its location incorrectly, or it may have been moved, deleted, or incorporated into another part of our site. You may also have come to our site through an incorrect link made on a website not managed by the City of Toronto. Try using our search engine to find the page in question.
Broken links
To report a broken link found on the City of Toronto pages, please note the browser bar address of the page you were attempting to view with a mention of the location of the bad link. Forward these details to our website development team at: webdevelopers@toronto.ca.
For a broken link from another website, please mail the webmasters at that website and copy us the mail.
Katherine says:
January 10, 2012 at 5:45 pm
In truth, the amendment should have been worded differently. I don’t know exactly how they could have worded it, but it should have been.
—————
Correct, it should say international and any religious law.
Absurdistan to Amerabia…………….BULL%#@&
someone should bring up the fact that Shariah has no “SEVERABILITY CLAUSE”
any use of shariah allows muslims to claim the deadly portions of their religion to be considered in court under the idea of ‘freedom of religion’
if one part of shariah is allowed to be practiced, then all parts must be allowed according to islamic doctrine..
@vangrungy: An “all or none” type principal?
Unbelievable. I thought the legislation was a slam dunk.
..meant “principle”…..
And this is different from shoving homos down the throats of the rest of us, how?
Can’t wait for all of the sympathetic muslim characters to show up on the new crop of TV shows next year or the following year showing all of us yahoos in America that genital-mutilation, honor killing, and strapping suicide vests on your children is perfectly normal behavior.
i guess we have to keep the u. n. happy. wouldn’t want to piss off the commies.
Another liberal federal judge that needs to be tarred and feathered and run out of town.
We have something called the “Establishment Clause” in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which already prevents adopting sharia law. The problem with the law in Oklahoma is that it is poorly worded and overly broad.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey statute funding student transportation to schools, whether parochial or not. Justice Hugo Black held,
The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause
Does this mean that the fatwa against Salman Rushdie has legal standing in the United States?
If we’re going to, as a nation, enforce foreign laws upon American citizens, then isn’t the first thing to go is our freedom of speech? (It’s currently against the law to criticize Islam in numerous middle-eastern hell-holes.)
.
It would be nice to see all the judges’ names and who appointed them. We need the historical reference so we can point back to the fools who helped start the next civil war.
And then someday soon all the “American middle class folk ” that “cling to their guns and religion” will have to fix this problem that our government promotes!
While the left wing liberals (current administration) will be hiding behind all the women and children just like the Islam extremist do during their religious terrorist bombing of incent people.
When the sh$t hits th fan this is going to be a blood bath all Americans are fed up with this bullsh&t!
Trying to pass poorly worded, unconstitutional laws is only legitimizing C.A.I.R. and doing more harm then good.
Oh and by the way!
Boy do we like our “pork”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We ride horses here so you are not going to get far on those camels when the war starts!
Gah!
The dhimmitude is surreal.
We’re headed as as fast as we can go to cultural suicide.
The twist that CAIR spewed is irrelevant – obvious (to anyone with a brain) examples though of Kettle logic, not to mention the informal fallacies of false attribution and straw man.
Our Constitution prohibits the state enforcing religion thus by nature the US Constitution discriminates against Islam because Islam demands its.
The reason why this is hard to deal with is that Islam is the only major religion that is a religion, a legal system and a political system. Islam is not just a religion, it is a theocracy. Democracies and theocracies are opposites.
When we say “no” to Sharia, they can come back and say we discriminated based on religion.
The Constitution simply cannot work for an ideology that itself prohibits the very concept of a constitution.
Having fled Europe, BECAUSE of its islamization (well… among other things) this makes me think.
Who would have thought this would happen in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?!
And what’s scary is that they are using the exact same tactics they used in Europe at the start of the invasion in the late ’70/early ’80s. It’s the EXACT same blueprint!
Having been there before I can tell you guys that it’s useless to scratch our heads over this kind of stuff. The reason this is all happening is OIL MONEY and all the cash the OIC pours into the West, buying corrupt political bastards, judges and media companies.
Gloat, fools..
http://tinyurl.com/863mxef
Horrifying news. I know what it’s like to live with Muslims who spread their sharia-laden fecal matter through taqiyya.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/01/court-rules-sharia-ban-unconstitutional.html#comments
================================
just read the comments here to understand the threat of shariah and it’s unseverability from it’s mostly evil rules..
If Oklahoma wants to pass an “Anti-sharia” law it should try to mimic the “Establishment Clause” and the “Free Exercise Clause” and then include the further explanation by Justice Hugo Black in “Everson v. Board of Education (1947)”.
That would be Constitutional and stop any application of sharia in it’s tracks.
Who would have thought this would happen in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?!
************************
I did. What do the Empires of Babylon, Persia, Greek, Roman, British, German Nazi, and others, now Europe, and America all have in common. God will send the enemies of His people into your lands and destroy you if you come against the Jewish people or Gods Land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause
@Refresh: good point!
The U.S. did start to turn away from God about 25-30 years ago…
@Pendog says:
January 10, 2012 at 5:48 pm
@OEFVet: Toronto is just a cold Minneapolistan.
Sorry Pendog but Toronto is at least 150 miles south of Minneapolis and for once it is probably one of the few examples of some where in Canada being warmer than somewhere in the US, but still a hell of a mess. Lets just say political California north.
Much more of this BS and there’s going to be a good old fashioned reckonin’.
People are not going to stand for much more…
http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/FreedomOfExpression/FreedomOfReligion&EstCl.asp
In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1970), the Court provided a three-part test for Establishment Clause analysis.
The three-part Lemon Test asks:
(1) Does the law have a secular purpose? If not, it violates the Establishment Clause.
(2) Is the primary effect either to advance religion or to inhibit religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.
(3) Does the law foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.
Note here that these are not factors which are employed in some balancing test, but rather, these are all requirements which must be met for a law to pass review. There must be a secular purpose, the primary effect must not be the aid or inhibition of religion, and there must be no excessive entanglement. If any of these three requirements are not met, the law violates the Establishment Clause. See e.g. Windmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 272 (1981).
One more thing about the whole plan…
If Obama gets another 4 years, expect a massive wave of immigration from Muslim countries.
The thing is, it’s VERY deceitful, as a majority of WZ readers know.
I remember the early 80′s in Europe… you’d see a Muslim here and there, so it was no big deal. Those who were trying to warn us were mocked. Just like they are today in the U.S., with the same kind of argument: “What are you talking about, Muslim represent less than 1% blah blah blah…”
Next thing you know a decade goes by and your country is completely, irreversibly changed into something you never wanted in the first place.
Another 20 years later your country is utterly unrecognizable: they impose their beliefs on every aspect of society and you realize you are screwed because Western women have a birth rate barely over 1 child (because they have other “priorities” you see) while it is over 6 for Muslim women living in YOUR country.
I’ve mentioned this before, but Egyptian-born Jewish writer Bat Ye’or has discussed, and DOCUMENTED, the whole blueprint in a couple books.
Once again, this is all happening by design.
PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON ISLAM, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON ISLAM, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON ISLAM, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON ISLAM, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON ISLAM, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON ISLAM, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON ISLAM, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON ISLAM, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON ISLAM, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON ISLAM, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON ISLAM, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON ISLAM, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON ISLAM, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON ISLAM, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON ISLAM, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON CAIR, PISS ON ISLAM, PISS ON CAIR.
and PISS ON FEDERAL JUDGES!
That about sums up my feelings, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!
Sounds like more clinton appointes!
Sorry if this has been repeated, but isn’t this the kind of case that Gingrich talked about? That if he was elected President, he would require those federal judges to explain how they reached their decision and most of the media, Republicans and Democrats got their panties in a wad over?
The 10th is in Oklahoma? What’s wrong with them?
cabrerski says:
January 10, 2012 at 6:12 pm
It would be nice to see all the judges’ names and who appointed them. We need the historical reference so we can point back to the fools who helped start the next civil war.
——-
It’s not secret. Read the opinion here: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6273.pdf
The judges were O’Brien, McKay, and Matheson – G.W. Bush, Carter, Obama respectively.
Sorry if this has been repeated, but isn’t this the kind of case that Gingrich talked about? That if he was elected President, he would require those federal judges to explain how they reached their decision and most of the media, Republicans and Democrats got their panties in a wad over?
The 10th is in Oklahoma? What’s wrong with them?
—————-
Did Gingrich really say that? Is he fucking retarded? Appeals court judges do explain how they reached their decision every single time they rule on something. In fact these judges wrote 37 pages worth of explanation. God forbid the American public would read a court opinion every now and then. Hell, the 9th circuit wrote like 200 pages explaining itself overturning Prop 9.
Read up: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6273.pdf
Does this mean Oklahoma can use sharia law and sentence homosexuals to death?
@MADMADJACK:
“cair” to share your feelings?
Time for term limits for judges
Oh boy! Hope they stop all those cannibals at the border or you could be soup tonight.
Rupaula..
essentially the appellate court declined to even research shariah law at all..
they simply kicked the can down the road.. saying that they need a reason first..
How many apostates need to be killed? How many non-muslim girls and women need to be gang raped? how many blasphemers need to be threatened with death? how many muslim girls need to be forced to marry their first-cousin from butt-fuckistan?
I hope you are gang raped by muslims Rupaula.. you deserve shariah law up your ass
IF YOU DON’T STAND UP NOW & STOP ALL THIS B.S. ”WE THE PEOPLE”
ARE ”SHIT OUT OF LUCK”..IT STARTS IN THE W.H. AND WORKS ITS WAY DOWN…NOT ONE PERSON WILL SAY SHIT ABOUT THIS, NOT ONE?
IF AMERICA WANTS TO LIVE LIKE THIS, SO BE IT…I WILL NOT LIVE IN A WORLD LIKE THIS, NEVER……THEY ALL CAN KISS MY ASS. WILL
TALK TOMORROW ABOUT THIS CRAP.
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/08/9307729-canada-considers-can-rape-accuser-testify-under-veil
=======
Watch for this in your area soon.. muslims will demand that they have the religious right to testify veiled..
but they don’t want to be held to the shariah standard of four male witnesses to a rape..
that’s how you stick it to muslims.. there is NO SEVERABILITY OF SHARIAH.. it’s all or nothing.. if they want one part, they want it all.. any shariah MUST be disallowed because so much of it conflicts with current American law and Constitutional standards..
force a court to rule on the severability of shariah laws.. if there is a way to do that..
@vangrungy,
Please either abide by the Constitution or GTFO of my country. You would fit well in one of the oppressive Muslim theocracies. We have the establishment and free-exercise clause for a reason. Write the amendment so it does not favor or inhibit one specific religion and we are golden. You can’t have your freedom and eat it too.
Given the lack of evidence of any concrete problem, any harm Appellants seek to remedy with the proposed amendment is speculative at best and cannot support a compelling interest. 15
“To sacrifice First Amendment protections for so speculative a
gain is not warranted . . . .” Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Democratic Nat’l Co., 412 U.S. 94, 127 (1973).
==========================
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6273.pdf
Rupaula,
you deserve 10 muslim cocks up your ass by force.. you want shariah.. take it
Rupaula,
under shariah you are a najis kafir (sub-human)… you want that? then you want to take 20 muslim cocks up your ass because muslims have the 1st amendment right of freedom of religion to do so..
What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad
In 1786 Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:
The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.
U.S. state dept. and both Sotomayor and Kagan — in their Senate hearings — spoke enthusiastically and in promotion of the use of “international law” in the U.S. vs. a U.S. reliance solely on the U.S. Constitution. I just wish more U.S. citizens would pay closer attention to the implications of these disasterous perspectives.
Never forget what they want.
Convert, submit or die.
All you need to do is beat them to the punch on the last one.
Our Freedom of Religion doesn’t include or does not establish another power’s authority over the U.S. as to our laws and government, while Sharia Law does that under guise of religion. There needs to be clear delineation in the U.S., legally, in our courts, by our Congress, as to the distinction between religious liberty and alternative forms of government in this nation functioning to supplant and replace our own.
Even if the state could identify and support a reason to single out and restrict Sharia law in its courts, the amendment’s complete ban of Sharia law is hardly an exercise of narrow tailoring. Appellants have not carried their burden to show why the proposed amendment is “closely fitted” to a compelling interest.
===========
I point to the FACT that shariah law cannot be applied piecemeal.. in islam, shariah is all or nothing.. slavery, rape, pedophilia and all..
See, it’s people like Rupaula that sold out Europe about 3 decades ago…
In terms of quotes, don’t forget what Nazism’s fiercest enemy had to say about Islam.
Winston Churchill:
“No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
NO STRONGER RETROGRADE FORCE EXISTS IN THE WORLD!
From the man who had to deal with Nazism in his lifetime…
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that each of the preliminary injunction factors weighed in favor of Mr. Awad’s request and that he made a strong showing on the substantial likelihood and balance-of-harms factors as the heightened standard requires. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction.16
16 Appellants raised the issue of severability of the Sharia law portions of the
amendment for the first time to this court in post-oral argument supplemental briefing. Their argument consisted of one sentence and cited no authority, stating that if this court decides the Sharia law provisions in the amendment render the amendment invalid, “the court should simply treat the explicatory example as surplusage, and strike it.” Because this issue has not been adequately briefed, we do not address it. See United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104, 1128 (10th Cir. 2011) (“It is well-settled that arguments inadequately briefed in the opening brief are waived.” (quotations omitted)).
==========
there is an open door.. I mentioned severability.. the court did not consider it YET
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/01/court-rules-sharia-ban-unconstitutional.html#comment-848948
A standard Islamic legal reference, certified by Al-Azhar, the chief center of Islamic and Arabic learning in the world, not only says one can kill one’s children or grandchildren with impunity; impunity also extends to a Muslim who kills a non-Muslim, and to non-Muslims who kill apostates from Islam:
From page 583-584 of The Reliance of the Traveller/Umdat Al-Salik:
o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:
1. a child or insane person, under any circumstances…
2. a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;
3. a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam…
4. a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring;
From the back cover of Reliance of the Traveller:
“There is no doubt that this translation is a valuable and important work, whether as a textbook for teaching Islamic jurisprudence to English speakers, or as a legal reference for use by scholars, educated laymen, and students in this language.”
– Dr. Taha Jabir al-Alwani, president of the International Institute of Islamic Thought
The back cover also says the book
…is the first translation of a standard Islamic legal reference in a European language to be certified by Al-Azhar, the Muslim world’s oldest institution of higher learning. It presents an explanative interpretation of Umdat al-Salik, a classic Sunni manual of Sacred law…
Silly me. I though that the US Constitution said: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
That means no:
Jewish Law
Catholic Law
Bahá’í Law
Hindu Law
or freakin’ Sharia Law!
HiramHawk says:
January 10, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Silly me. I though that the US Constitution said: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
That means no:
Jewish Law
Catholic Law
Bahá’í Law
Hindu Law
or freakin’ Sharia Law!
============================
Actually, it means that the Federal Government shall STFU and let the States handle religion..
most Founding States had an official State Religion
====
the 14th changed everything.. (Lincoln is both a saint and a demon)
In reality, the Founders wanted the People to shape the country.. they didn’t want the Federal Government to direct the People..
Shariah Law is a system that disallows any PRECEDENT whatsoever.. that’s what the Constitution was supposed to be as well..
funny thing happened though.. Progressivism.. Precedent is a tenant of faith in the Progressive system.. it’s why we have a ‘living document’ Constitution..
thus, America’s first enemy (as a new nation) islam/muslims are allowed to use our precedent set laws against us..
Notice how ‘precedent’ gave us the unconstitutional ‘separation of church and state’ based on a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote, but now we cannot use anything Thomas Jefferson wrote about islam and muslims to end shariah in America today…
in the end, it all boils down to slavery and those who support that institution.
Hiram…your issue is that the PC jackasses who pushed this through don’t know anything about Sharia and its subjugation of other religions. They are UNQUALIFIED. So it’s even worse!!! Not only have these assholes violated the constitution, they’ve ruled in favor of a system that declares that their religion obligates them to persecute other religions. Two words: Costa Rica…buy now!
The fed guvmint won’t be happy until SC is lobbing shells over at Ft. Sumter …AGAIN! Eventually the states will have enough of this crap and do exactly that. I’ll be donning my grey uniform at that point!
And this “religion” changes the rules every time an Imam makes a fatwa. This “religion” also goes against almost all of our laws of the land. most certainly our full constitution.
There are no rights in Islam. Everthing is unIslamic. Just look at how many things have been deemed unIslamic, that Zip has reported on.
Everything of course except rape, incest, murder, beheadings, beatings, stonings, killing everyone in sight that is non Islamic, Christians, Jews, Budists, homosexuals, rape victims, I could go on and on and on, This isn’t a religion, it is a mental disease. It is delivered by Satan, and must be resisted !! It is the bloodiest bunch of devil worshipers I have ever heard of.
We have got to try again, and keep on trying. Stop Sharia !!!
Brain Trust….pretty much the truth.
UN Agenda 21-the communists want these muslims,they can feed them shit and keep them in the dark. They do not want innovative people that can think on their own.**********Nanna you are spot on. Islam is not a religion,it is a radical political party. Time to play cowboys and muslims in Oklahoma. Run these evil inbred, satanic hell spawn germs the hell out of the United States of America.
And this “religion” changes the rules every time an Imam makes a fatwa. This “religion” also goes against almost all of our laws of the land. most certainly our full constitution.
==============
actually FATWAS only narrow shairah.. nothing changes.. just the ability of those under that imam’s perview to do something ‘unislamic’…
islam does not change.. in Iran or Saudi Arabia, they all read the same quran and hadiths.. in Arabic..
Frank Gaffney on Lars Larson tonight said he was glad about this because they could reframe it and make so it wasn’t just Sharia but all international and religious law. They haven’t posted the interview yet.
A plane load for these CAIR wacktards should crashland in the GOBI DESERT and lets see them apply their dracinian sharia laws on the desert creatures without getting buried alive
Any law that imposes penalties including maiming, mutilation, and murder is not a religious law, regardless of what it’s proponents choose to call it.
Is a battle plan a religious law?
@Rupaula
I never thought I would do this, but right is right. And, in my opinion, you are right in this case. As I said earlier, the amendment was poorly worded and whoever wrote it should have known that it wouldn’t pass muster, that it would run head on into the Establishment clause. Even I knew that, just glancing at it and I’m not a lawyer.
I blame the person responsible for writing this amendment and the lawyers who did nothing to correct it prior to its being voted on.
But, they will and it will be voted on again.
The Constitution protects your freedom of Religion but it does not allow church law to overrule civil law. Our federal judges have become more political activist then the judicial keepers of the law. When corruption rears it’s ugly head justice becomes the loser.
I fiollow the U.S. Constitution, which I did swear an Oath to protect, and shall never attempt to hide that fact. I view Sharia Law, with the same view I hold for three day old fish.
The hullabaloo about the supposed threat of sharia overtaking the law of the United States and the several states is SHEER UNFOUNDED HYPE. Those working themselves into a lather about this need to take a deep breath, relax, and then inform themselves–after which they can sigh in relief and affirm, “Nevermind!”
First, the courts apply federal and state law, not sharia. I can’t imaging a legislature enacting sharia, can you? I thought not, so no worries on that score.
Second, in certain instances (which are rare), IF parties to a contract agree that a dispute between them about the contract should be resolved according to sharia, then the court–applying longstanding federal and state law–may implement the parties’ contract in keeping with their expressed intent and resolve their dispute according to sharia UNLESS–again applying longstanding federal and state law–the court finds that doing so would conflict with fundamental rights or principles of federal or state law. The courts have long done the same sort of thing with contracts in which parties agree to resolve their disputes by the laws of one state rather than another, or by Jewish law, or Catholic church law, or . . . you get the picture. Continuing to implement the law of contracts in this manner poses NO RISK that sharia will overrun the nation and somehow govern your next appearance in court. Chill.
this was actually a GREAT decision and the Amendment that was blocked was so obviously unconstitutional. All the 10th Circuit did hear was say that the lower court was correct in granting an injunction temporarily not allowing the Amendment to go through, but it still has to be contested on its mertis. I’d suggest that Oklahoma give that up, since it’s just such an obviously unconstitutional amendment. There are other ways to get the same results but that are constitutional.
Sharia law already is unconstitutional. The law that they were trying to pass was poorly written as it does not define what sharia law or international law is. It should have copied the “Establishment Clause” and “Free Exercise Clause” of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and included the rational by Justice Hugo Black in “Everson v. Board of Education (1947)” and The three-part Lemon Test from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1970).
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey statute funding student transportation to schools, whether parochial or not. Justice Hugo Black held,
The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause
In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1970), the Court provided a three-part test for Establishment Clause analysis.
The three-part Lemon Test asks:
(1) Does the law have a secular purpose? If not, it violates the Establishment Clause.
(2) Is the primary effect either to advance religion or to inhibit religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.
(3) Does the law foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.
Note here that these are not factors which are employed in some balancing test, but rather, these are all requirements which must be met for a law to pass review. There must be a secular purpose, the primary effect must not be the aid or inhibition of religion, and there must be no excessive entanglement. If any of these three requirements are not met, the law violates the Establishment Clause. See e.g. Windmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 272 (1981).
http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/FreedomOfExpression/FreedomOfReligion&EstCl.asp
Somehow, I doubt the dopes on the bench would wish to be tried in a Sharia court themselves. It is all too easy for someone to accuse you of a crime and I would rather not be subject to the whims and vagaries of a guy wrapped in a tent quoting the koran. The protections afforded us by the US constitution are far more preferable. Sharia law had no place in the justice system of the US—it is a product of the 7th century, not of any civilized society.
We need sharia in order to cause chaos and mayhem, besides justice is relative.
This law was passed, not because of fear based on misinformation about Islam.
It was passed out of hatred of Islam, based on the facts!
I hate Islam, there I feel better.
Gloat if you want but the Federal court will not protect you from Oklahomans.
read the book of revelations, Daniel it is coming to pass. Hey, Oklahoma, our your public school children still saying “one nation under God” or do they say “one nation under GEE-HAD”…..