Oklahoma to Pass Laws Prohibiting Islamic Sharia Laws to Apply

Re: Islamic Sharia Law to Be Banned in, ah, Oklahoma

PeteEU said:

Funny... So I am guessing that they will ban Jewish law and native American courts too right? If not, then it is another racist xenophobic attempt by the far right in the US.

Click to expand...

There is no jurisdiction to ban native American courts on their own reservations. State and Federal laws don't even apply there...

Re: Islamic Sharia Law to Be Banned in, ah, Oklahoma

rivrrat said:

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.

Click to expand...

You miss the entire point: It was COMPLETELY UNnecessary as Sharia law hasn't been implemented ANYwhere in the US, let alone Oklahoma.

Additionally, Guy Incognito points out that much American case law is based on Common Law (which is British) and French law. To ignore foreign law and its influence on the formation of US law could result in the overturning of a great deal of case law and legislation.

This is nothing but foolish grandstanding. The biggest problem is that it IS utterly unnecessary and foolish.

I should know - the Tennessee legistlature spent days and taxpayer dollars passing a ton of these idiotic pieces of "legislation" before they wrapped up (and barely got a budget passed).

Re: Islamic Sharia Law to Be Banned in, ah, Oklahoma

Redress said:

How often is Sharia used by judges to decide cases? This sounds like something done just for popularity, since really, it has zero real effect on anything.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

But while they're at it, maybe they should ban judges from considering Star Trek Federation law, too.

Re: Islamic Sharia Law to Be Banned in, ah, Oklahoma

Guy Incognito said:

I can't speak to Jewish law, but you are incorrect about Native American courts. Tribal Courts do exist, and recognized Native American tribes and bands are considered sovereigns under United States law.

Click to expand...

Granted, but those courts do not dismiss the basic civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Re: Islamic Sharia Law to Be Banned in, ah, Oklahoma

ludahai said:

There is no jurisdiction to ban native American courts on their own reservations. State and Federal laws don't even apply there...

Click to expand...

I know.. hence the hypocrisy of people for this. The US already has large areas of its territory where a group of people are living outside the law of the land and here we are talking about a group of people who might want to use aspects of Sharia law among themselves with agreement of both parties and within the law of the land.. and people are up in arms just because we are talking about muslims.. and yet Jews get this right. Hypocrites.

Re: Islamic Sharia Law to Be Banned in, ah, Oklahoma

PeteEU said:

I know.. hence the hypocrisy of people for this. The US already has large areas of its territory where a group of people are living outside the law of the land and here we are talking about a group of people who might want to use aspects of Sharia law among themselves with agreement of both parties and within the law of the land.. and people are up in arms just because we are talking about muslims.. and yet Jews get this right. Hypocrites.

Click to expand...

Call me when every major native American school of jurisprudence calls for the death penalty in cases of apostasy and sodomy, and call me when every major school of native American jurisprudence condones wife beating, because such is the case with Islamic jurisprudence, it is not the radical view that is the only view at least in terms of fiqh. Oh and your assertion that women have a free choice within Muslim society is laughable on its face.

Re: Islamic Sharia Law to Be Banned in, ah, Oklahoma

TheNextEra said:

The situation hasn't come up because the U.S. Constitution prevents Sharia law from being implemented.

Shall we now have our lawmakers make laws that already exist on the books as well? Again, this is nothing more than grandstanding by mentioning Sharia law.

Now what should be touted is that the law prevents from using foreign law as a precedent. But as noticed by the title of the article and thread, this was not done.

This is just using fear tactics by saying this law prevents Sharia law from being used when it never has been or could be used in the U.S.

Click to expand...

If we assumed judges abide fully by the constitution, then I would fully agree with you. However, I have no faith in a system that has already ignored the constitution and altered laws plenty of other times. But again, since any such usurping of our laws would have to come from the supreme court it really wouldn't matter what AZ's law is. Therefore, in the end this law does in fact accomplish nothing as you say.

Some interesting links...

Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts - Times Online

Is Sharia law now enforceable in the United States?

I'll leave it to you to determine any credibility to their information. But from what I'm seeing from many sources is that sharia law is already happening in Britain. Maybe that's one reason some people are already on edge. Since we have obviously been pushed to model ourselves like Britain in many other areas.

Guy Incognito said:

Incorrect, Spiker. What's sad is that they the state legislature thinks they have the ability to define what laws can be used and applied and what can't. International law has a precise technical meaning, it is the law among nations that arises by treaties and international custom. It is the reason why, for example, international waters begin six miles off the coast.

International law is identical to federal law. States cannot limit the ability of courts to apply international law!

Click to expand...

As far as I understand, however, since international law is already defined - and acceptable within the US as a basis for judicial calls, then it would still be acceptable even after the passing of this OK amendment. I might be wrong - but I don't believe this undoes anything that is already acceptable by our own nation's laws and regulations. It barrs, however, the use of what is ONLY acceptable IN Italy to be used in a US court, etc.

Aunt Spiker said:

As far as I understand, however, since international law is already defined - and acceptable within the US as a basis for judicial calls, then it would still be acceptable even after the passing of this OK amendment. I might be wrong - but I don't believe this undoes anything that is already acceptable by our own nation's laws and regulations. It barrs, however, the use of what is ONLY acceptable IN Italy to be used in a US court, etc.

Click to expand...

International law is tantamount to federal law, but it isn't necessarily contained within federal statutes. If the OK legislature meant that they don't want the US courts looking to foreign domestic law, like Italian divorce law for example, then they should have said so. What they did say is that courts cannot look to "international law" which on a literal reading includes treaties to which the United States is a party. That's how a conservative constructionist like Scalia would interpret the law. Even on a liberal reading, "international law" or the law of nations is largely customary and not contained within US statutory law.

But even if it isn't "on the books," international law is still very much a part of US law and it would take a (federal) Constitutional amendment to change that. Again, if they wanted courts to be disallowed from looking at foreign domestic law, they should have said that, and they didn't.

Guy Incognito said:

International law is tantamount to federal law, but it isn't necessarily contained within federal statutes. If the OK legislature meant that they don't want the US courts looking to foreign domestic law, like Italian divorce law for example, then they should have said so. What they did say is that courts cannot look to "international law" which on a literal reading includes treaties to which the United States is a party. That's how a conservative constructionist like Scalia would interpret the law. Even on a liberal reading, "international law" or the law of nations is largely customary and not contained within US statutory law.

But even if it isn't "on the books," international law is still very much a part of US law and it would take a (federal) Constitutional amendment to change that. Again, if they wanted courts to be disallowed from looking at foreign domestic law, they should have said that, and they didn't.

Click to expand...

Well then before they pass anythingk, then, they need to carefully re-read and redefine in order to clarify exactly what they DO mean.

With respect to the thread the proposed law deals with rulings of other countries and their presidents in their court systems. observe link

Oklahoma House of Representatives - Print Story

Re: Islamic Sharia Law to Be Banned in, ah, Oklahoma

PeteEU said:

And that is exactly what Sharia law and those who want to use it have to do. Sharia law has been used in the US among the Muslim community for years if not centuries. As long as what they are doing is within the legal framework of the US justice system, then there is nothing to prevent them from doing it if both parties agree. It is no different than Jewish courts in the US, who use Jewish religious law in disputes such as divorce and financial matters.

Click to expand...

Except that Jewish courts settle disputes between members of the Jewish faith and are external to the Government court system just as Arbitrators that is "private" courts are external to the Government system. The Idea is to prevent the Judges on a Government Court from ruling using procedures and presidents external to Legislative made laws and existing common laws derived from case law.

PeteEU said:

Jewish religious law. As long as both parties agree on using it, and it is within the framework of US law, and the legal aspects of US law are followed, then nothing prevents them from doing so.

Jewish religious courts have existed in the US, and Europe for centuries.

Click to expand...

Mayhap they do but they cannot have such implemented in the OK State Court System.

PeteEU said:

And so what? Judges have used other countries rulings as inspiration in interpretation of laws passed by the legislative, who btw, OFTEN use other countries laws and ways as motivation for the freaking laws and rules they are passing.. so it is more to do about nothing and more fearmongering and xenophobia by the US right.

Click to expand...

Perhaps where you live that is considered appropriate. But where we live we want to live under our own laws that our own elected Representatives have made and NOT having to live under another nations laws that our Representatives did not make and chose not to incorporate into our laws.

Re: Islamic Sharia Law to Be Banned in, ah, Oklahoma

PeteEU said:

I know.. hence the hypocrisy of people for this. The US already has large areas of its territory where a group of people are living outside the law of the land and here we are talking about a group of people who might want to use aspects of Sharia law among themselves with agreement of both parties and within the law of the land.. and people are up in arms just because we are talking about muslims.. and yet Jews get this right. Hypocrites.

Click to expand...

The proposed state law doesn't include the Governments for the various Tribes since that is partially a Federal Issue and the Tribes themselves are a Constitutionally recognized and at any rate there are existing Jurisdictional procedures when a Tribes sovereignty may be involved.

Re: Islamic Sharia Law to Be Banned in, ah, Oklahoma

Guy Incognito said:

It's also dead wrong. US law isn't the only law that ought to be considered in American jurisprudence. And even the most conservative judges and justices regularly cite to foreign sources, and it's nothing new, they've been doing it since 1776. I wonder how gun rights activists will feel when this statute bars the citation of the Seymane's case, an English case that established the "Castle" doctrine ("A man's home is his castle.").

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.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the only court system that this Amendment would apply to is the State Courts of Oklahoma it don't apply to Federal Courts. It is one thing to site common law that occurred before the US was a nation and thus is shared with other nations (Mostly Great Britain) and another to site common law that has occurred since then and esp. to common law that with nations that has no connection to the US. Oklahoma would have at best a weak connection to Spanish common law and only slightly a stronger to French common law due to the connection of the Constitution of the State of Michigan was used as a starting point at statehood.

Re: Islamic Sharia Law to Be Banned in, ah, Oklahoma

Guy Incognito said:

There are a multitude of reasons why a judge would consider international law. It is done all the time. According to the SCOTUS in The Paquete Habana case, "international law is part of our law." More recently, In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation., "It is ... well settled that the law of nations is part of federal common law."

OK simply doesn't have the authority to do this.

Click to expand...

THE PAQUETE HABANA, 175 U. S. 677 :: Volume 175 :: 1900 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

The Paquete Habana case deals with the laws of nations and conduct during wars with respect to seizing properties duing wars on the seas. This cannot apply in particular to OK since is landlocked and cannot apply in general since it would be a Federal Level Jurisdiction.

And In Re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation.agapita Trajano; Archimedes Trajano, Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Ferdinand E. Marcos, Defendant,andimee Marcos-manotoc, Defendant-appellant - 978 F.2d 493 - Justia US Court of Appeals Cases and

the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation deals with when a foreign sovereign can be sued under international law which is Also delt with at the Federal Level.

Guy Incognito said:

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.

Click to expand...

The Amendment would apply to OK State Courts and OK State Laws

Guy Incognito said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think there is little faith in Judges that stick to their role as interpretors of Law and keeping within bounds of existing State law

Re: Islamic Sharia Law to Be Banned in, ah, Oklahoma

Shadow Serious said:

Keep in mind that the only court system that this Amendment would apply to is the State Courts of Oklahoma it don't apply to Federal Courts. It is one thing to site common law that occurred before the US was a nation and thus is shared with other nations (Mostly Great Britain) and another to site common law that has occurred since then and esp. to common law that with nations that has no connection to the US. Oklahoma would have at best a weak connection to Spanish common law and only slightly a stronger to French common law due to the connection of the Constitution of the State of Michigan was used as a starting point at statehood.

Click to expand...

What you're forgetting, Shadow, is that the Eerie Doctrine requires federal courts to apply the laws to the state within which they sit (at least to the extent that those laws are Constitutional). So the amendment would still apply to federal courts in OK, and even if it only applied to Oklahoma state courts, it would still be unconstitutional as a violation of the Supremacy Clause since state courts are still required to apply federal law.

Another minor correction, there is no French or Spanish "common law" as those countries follow the civil law tradition.

Shadow Serious said:

The Paquete Habana case deals with the laws of nations and conduct during wars with respect to seizing properties duing wars on the seas. This cannot apply in particular to OK since is landlocked and cannot apply in general since it would be a Federal Level Jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

There are still occasions where Oklahoma courts might have to apply the law of the sea, even though they are landlocked. For example, suppose a shipping company is incorporated in Oklahoma and gets sued. Regardless, Paquete Habana is a US Supreme Court decision and is controlling over all courts both state and federal.

Shadow Serious said:

the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation deals with when a foreign sovereign can be sued under international law which is Also delt with at the Federal Level.

Click to expand...

Again, state courts must apply federal law, which includes international law whether Oklahomans like that fact or not.

Shadow Serious said:

I think there is little faith in Judges that stick to their role as interpretors of Law and keeping within bounds of existing State law

Click to expand...

There are other ways to accomplish this than violating the Federal Constitution.