"you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos
Banning something that is not there and has a low possibility of being there seems to be more about the statement than about actually doing anything productive or useful. At least thats how I interpret it.
Maybe we should also consider allowing clitorus mutilation. To say that it's racist to ban these laws is rediculous.
Do you consider people who are against "dry counties" xenophobes? Or what if a Christian group wanted to make homosexuality completely illegal? Would that make you a xenophobe for being against that? I think not. Double standards.
If Jewish, Islamic or other laws ARE precedent in the US then it's still acceptable - it doesn't strike down things that the US already upholds or believe in, it strikes down what other countries uphold or believe in. . . It seems like common sense, to me, to use the laws of your own country to pass judgment in court rather than deferring to the laws of the Netherlands.
What on EARTH does this have to DO with Roe V Wade? This isn't about abortion.Basically they still pissed over Rove VS Wade...
You're flailing your arms in shallow water - put your feet down and just walk out, you're not drowning.
A screaming comes across the sky.
It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow
Pointing out this law bans Sharia Law from being implemented is nothing but grandstanding considering our constitution in the U.S. already prohibits Sharia law from being implemented.
You can't ban foreign law because our law is rooted in "foreign" law, and you can't ban international law because international law is just as binding on the states as federal law. Not to mention that, as has been observed above, shari'a is automatically banned under the first amendment. Frankly, whoever wrote this law is out of their depth. It's only a matter of time before this nonsense gets struck down as an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.
I was simply responding to the comments that laws against Sharia law were racist and xenophobic. Not that we need to stop the current implementations of Sharia law. So no, it was not moot. I wish it were.
Last edited by Mcygee; 06-15-10 at 10:22 AM.
I can't even believe that this ban was necessary to begin with. THAT is what astounds me. Why in the HELL would a judge even consider international or religious laws when making a judgment in the US? The fact that the ban to stop them from doing such nonsense was necessary is what I find so bothersome.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
OK simply doesn't have the authority to do this.
Here's the proposed addition to the OK Constitution:
That is patently absurd. I hate to break it to you, Oklahoma, but International law is federal law. This is like OK trying to amend its constitution to say that the courts can't look to federal law. Literally.Originally Posted by OK HJR 1056
As for Shari'a, I think this is just a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. If you think that there is a serious concern about the implementation of shari'a in US courts, you have too little faith in our first amendment. This addition to the OK constitution is just redundant, and considering how obviously unnecessary it is, it carries the strong odor of anti-Islamic sentiment. It is disingenuous to think otherwise.