Can our on-line lawyers...

N

NOVA

U. S. NAVY Veteran
explain this in layman language...????

An Oklahoma constitutional amendment that would bar the state’s courts from considering or using Sharia law was ruled unconstitutional Thursday by a federal judge in Oklahoma City. In finding the law in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause, U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the certification of the results of the state question that put the Sharia law ban into the state constitution. “While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out, the Court finds that the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual’s constitutional rights,” the judge wrote. How can a law that is being called upon to protect the Constitution of the United States be considered “unconstitutional?” The establishment clause is the phrase of the first amendment which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/08/o...ral-judge-vicki-miles-lagrange/#ixzz2cHVeEtIR
 
It will be interesting to see if anti-Christian liberals are OK with bringing non-Christian religious law into American public life.
 
NOVA said:
explain this in layman language...????
Click to expand...
a fuck-up......it's a bit difficult to see how a provision of law prohibiting the government establishing a religion is invalid as establishing a religion.......how can one argue a person has a constitutional right to state court's enforcing Sharia law.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
a fuck-up......it's a bit difficult to see how a provision of law prohibiting the government establishing a religion is invalid as establishing a religion.......how can one argue a person has a constitutional right to state court's enforcing Sharia law.....
Click to expand...

But Christian beliefs have no place in the public arena?
 
I'm not a lawyer, online or in RL. However I do wonder why the general assembly felt the need for an amendment? Was there a creeping Sharia movement in OK? If not, what was the purpose of that proposed amendment? Seems to me that the point is all moot argument. There's no there, there.
 
The problem is not the proposed amendment, its the asshole judge's ruling that the amendment
that would bar the state’s courts from considering or using Sharia law unconstitutional....

That ruling in itself seems to create a climate that would allow "a creeping Sharia movement in OK".....
 
NOVA said:
The problem is not the proposed amendment, its the asshole judge's ruling that the amendment
that would bar the state’s courts from considering or using Sharia law unconstitutional....

That ruling in itself seems to create a climate that would allow "a creeping Sharia movement in OK".....
Click to expand...

You fail to get my point. Without the nonsense from the legislature, it never would have come before that 'asshole' judge. There wasn't any reason for the proposal.
 
Annie said:
I'm not a lawyer, online or in RL. However I do wonder why the general assembly felt the need for an amendment? Was there a creeping Sharia movement in OK? If not, what was the purpose of that proposed amendment? Seems to me that the point is all moot argument. There's no there, there.
Click to expand...

It's a law that panders to idiots, like nova, who can't seperate fact from fiction and are fooled by spam.
 
Patrician said:
Liberals disagree, don't they?
Click to expand...

one of the reasons I consider liberals irrational....it stems from an assumption that one cannot be opposed to killing unborn children or not wanting to change the definition of marriage unless one belongs to a particular religion....
 
Nova, shall we instead debate why no judge has barred courts from taking the opinion of flying pink & purple elephants into consideration? We must start a movement to keep flying elephants from taking over our justice system!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
one of the reasons I consider liberals irrational....it stems from an assumption that one cannot be opposed to killing unborn children or not wanting to change the definition of marriage unless one belongs to a particular religion....
Click to expand...

I never really understood why those on the right are so anxious to bring unwanted children into a life of deprivation and poverty. Surely they should be happy that millions upon millions of potential hoodlums have not been brought into the world.
 
Patrician said:
It will be interesting to see if anti-Christian liberals are OK with bringing non-Christian religious law into American public life.
Click to expand...

Everything that happens in America that is taken to extremes is interesting to we outsiders, liberal or not. You fuckers have to make a sideshow out of everything don't you!

This calls for more bagger reaction to the problem! Something else wankers like Rand Paul can hang their hats on! Whattaya want to bet?
 
monty1 said:
Everything that happens in America that is taken to extremes is interesting to we outsiders, liberal or not. You fuckers have to make a sideshow out of everything don't you!

This calls for more bagger reaction to the problem! Something else wankers like Rand Paul can hang their hats on! Whattaya want to bet?
Click to expand...

Are you the Canadian Kid?
 
Annie said:
You fail to get my point. Without the nonsense from the legislature, it never would have come before that 'asshole' judge. There wasn't any reason for the proposal.
Click to expand...

tekkychick said:
Nova, shall we instead debate why no judge has barred courts from taking the opinion of flying pink & purple elephants into consideration? We must start a movement to keep flying elephants from taking over our justice system!
Click to expand...


You don't consider stopping a potential problem before it becomes an actual problem, worthwhile ?
Don't you see that just about all regulations are enacted to do exactly that....from speed limits to banking regs. to divorce laws, etc, etc, etc.

Our government enacts the laws of the land, not religions....as we would not allow some Christian or Jewish religious law to be enforced by the
government, why would we consider Muslim law to to be treated differently....and that is what the amendment is about.....(thats for Annie)

As for the child, tekkychick....It might be better if you would just stfu as long as you can't debate the point with even a semblance of intelligence.

The Center for Security Policy’s report, Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases evaluates 50 Appellate Court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law.

These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah. When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded.

The study’s findings suggest that Shariah law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have said there are no more than one or two cases of Shariah law in U.S. state court cases; yet we found 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate published cases.

http://tinyurl.com/5wuzn5l
 
Last edited:
Nova said:
As for the child, tekkychick....It might be better if you would just stfu as long as you can't debate the point with even a semblance of intelligence.
Click to expand...

oh, I'm just crushed. Really. How about you bring up something worth debating? or ban me from your threads if you don't want to hear from me? or put me on ignore?
 
So let's pose a question -if sharia law says it's illegal to murder someone, and OK says we can't enforce Sharia laws, does that mean we can't prosecute someone for murder?

It's just a stupid law and should never have been enacted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top