View Poll Results: Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    17 51.52%
  • No, It's against the First Amendment of our Constitution

    9 27.27%
  • Other

    7 21.21%
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 100

Thread: Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

  1. #41
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Why do you think it would prohibit the court from following the individuals request? What specific provisions of Sharia would be in conflict with the law of the land?
    I don't necessarily think it would; I haven't read Oklahoma's law. But that's what the lawsuit alleges...that the new law would prohibit the court from following his wishes even if none of the provisions violated the law. If that's the case, it certainly sounds like discrimination.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #42
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:52 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,498

    Re: Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Specifying a form that contradicts his religion would be a violation of the 14th Amendment. Unless it involved killing someone or stealing or something.
    Only if it doesn't serve some general non-religious purpose. A law against murder doesn't violate the First Amendment of one whose religion requires human sacrifice (as you agree). Nor do sanitary laws violate the First Amendment freedoms of those whose religion requires animal sacrifice. These are solidly-litigated, long-decided principles.

    Probate law as it exists doesn't discriminate against religion. If the form of his will satisfies it, then so be it. But if it doesn't, then his estate is subject to probate adjudication on the same basis of any other. If he wants his wishes followed, it's incumbent upon him to follow the requirements of a will. And no, none of those requirements are religious in nature.

    This amendment doesn't affect probate law in the slightest.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  3. #43
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,600

    Re: Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    Equal protection under the law.

    Are you really unaware that women's testimony is not worth that of a man under sharia?
    Not sure if you have actually been following the specific conversation, but thats sort of my point. Where there is no conflict the mans case has no bearing. Where there IS conflict, likewise.

  4. #44
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:52 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,498

    Re: Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I don't necessarily think it would; I haven't read Oklahoma's law. But that's what the lawsuit alleges...that the new law would prohibit the court from following his wishes even if none of the provisions violated the law. If that's the case, it certainly sounds like discrimination.
    Perhaps you should read it. I linked to it here. It's quite short.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1059086118
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  5. #45
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,312

    Re: Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Why do you think it would prohibit the court from following the individuals request? What specific provisions of Sharia would be in conflict with the law of the land?
    The exclusion of female's rights. If someone "leaves everything to their cat" and there is nuclear/direct family alive it will be contested and the inheritence rights of family will be enforced. Despite popular opinion, a man cannot write his wife and daughters completely out of his will and have that go uncontested in a court, family-less people with pet-fixations notwithstanding. I believe that most states have a minimum rights of a wife or children in the dividing of family estates. "As per Sharia law, the chicks get nothing" does not hold up in court.

    It's a matter of Sharia not trumping state or federal laws in regard to widow's rights or societal norms in regard to judge's decisions on the legal enactment of wills. Thr judge cannot rule "well, according to his wishes within Sharia law, the wife gets nothing - too bad". Probably? I figure a man cannot just give all of the family possessions to his son with a living wife, according to US law.
    Last edited by ecofarm; 11-06-10 at 03:51 PM.

  6. #46
    Guru
    JohnWOlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    01-17-17 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,594

    Re: Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

    You know, in Kentucky we have a really silly law that came out of Elizabethtown. At one point it was made illegal to carry an ice cream cone in you back pocket because people would use it to get horses to follow them home and say they didn't steal it, that the $150 horse just followed them. I kind of look at this as another silly law that no one will ever enforce or give a **** about so it's not an issue either way.
    "We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy." -Reagan

  7. #47
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

    I agree that it is unconstitutional, but it's not a violation of the first amendment. It's a separation of powers issue. The critical flaw of this legislation is in limiting the law the courts can look to in forming a decision. If you take this law on its face it even rules out judicial reference to English common law cases. "International" law is the very basis of our system of law.

    It's not just racist, it's legally frivolous.

  8. #48
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:52 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,498

    Re: Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    I agree that it is unconstitutional, but it's not a violation of the first amendment. It's a separation of powers issue. The critical flaw of this legislation is in limiting the law the courts can look to in forming a decision. If you take this law on its face it even rules out judicial reference to English common law cases. "International" law is the very basis of our system of law.

    It's not just racist, it's legally frivolous.
    Oklahoma can define its courts and their jurisdictions however it wants, particularly within its own constitution. There's no conflict with the federal Constitution over that. There's no "separation of powers" issue, either -- the state constitution is the ultimate authority over all branches of government. Not that there would be even if it were a mere act of the state legislature, because that's how it's done.

    In fact, do you have any idea what body the US Constitution itself granst the power to define the jursidiction of federal courts and all of their rules? (Hint: it isn't the Supreme Court.)

    (Bonus question: there is a state which quite specifically does NOT have a commonlaw system, English or otherwise. Which state is that, and why is this so?)
    Last edited by Harshaw; 11-06-10 at 04:15 PM.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  9. #49
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Oklahoma can define its courts and their jurisdictions however it wants, particularly within its own constitution. There's no conflict with the federal Constitution over that. There's no "separation of powers" issue, either -- the state constitution is the ultimate authority over all branches of government. Not that there would be even if it were a mere act of the state legislature, because that's how it's done.

    In fact, do you have any idea what body the US Constitution itself granst the power to define the jursidiction of federal courts and all of their rules? (Hint: it isn't the Supreme Court.)

    (Bonus question: there is a state which quite specifically does NOT have a commonlaw system, English or otherwise. Which state is that, and why is this so?)
    Your answer is at cross purposes with the point. If Oklahoma's court appropriates authority that relates to foreign relations, it might have overstepped its bounds. At best, their right to order their courts gives them a case. The ability to order your courts does not mean, for example, you can give them the ability to appoint state congressmen. That would violate the Guarantee clause.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 11-06-10 at 05:16 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  10. #50
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:52 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,498

    Re: Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Your answer is at cross purposes with the point. If Oklahoma's court appropriates authority that relates to foreign relations, it might have overstepped its bounds.
    Where does this do anything remotely like that?

    At best, their right to order their courts gives them a case. The ability to order your courts does not mean, for example, you can give them the ability to appoint state congressmen. That would violate the Guarantee clause.
    Nothing like that is in play here. It has nothing to do with anything other than how a court exercises its legitimate judicial power. That is squarely within the purview of the state, with no question whatsoever.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •