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 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 100

Thread: Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

  1. #61
    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
    No, I said the states have the power to define their courts and the jurisdictions of those courts, which they absolutely do. I didn't say anything at all about giving courts the power over anything having remotely to do with foreign policy, not in the slightest -- or anything else non-judicial, for that matter.
    No, but you were responding to somebody who did make that assertion.

    Guy Incognito: This takes away foreign policy authority from the federal government.

    Harshaw: The states have the authority to order their courts.

    That's the cross-purpose, and it implies the authority to order courts exceeds the federal government's authority over foreign policy. The argument has since developed to you adding:

    Harshaw: This legislation does not take foreign policy authority away from the federal government.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 11-06-10 at 06:05 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

  2. #62
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,592

    Re: Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    But at the same time bans.



    True. But to lump international law in its entirety as this bill has done effectively creates a contradiction. It does not state that US treaties are not included.



    Attempt is irrelevant. You may not attempt to do something, but end up doing it anyway.



    We'll see about that. Explicitly forbidding state courts to apply treaties is ignoring the COTUS in delegating foreign relations to the federal government.
    Well, you know what? If all you're going to do is say "IS TOO!!!!" and repeat yourself, I'm not sure what else to say. I already responded to each of these points, including any apparent contradiction in the law.

    If there's a conflict within the law itself, that's not a point of constitutionality. And besides, a court reads any law first in the light which favors its constitutionality, because constitutionality is the very last question a court will consider on any law, if and ONLY if it can't first be decided on other grounds.
    “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. #63
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,592

    Re: Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    No, but you were responding to somebody who did make that assertion.

    Guy Incognito: This takes away foreign policy authority from the federal government.

    Harshaw: The states have the authority to order their courts.

    That implies the authority to order courts exceeds the federal government's authority over foreign policy. The argument has since developed to you adding:

    Harshaw: This legislation does not take away foreign policy away from the federal government.
    I was responding to a number of points at the same time; you're picking and choosing which ones to match up with the others. He said a lot more than just that (and he's rather absent in defending it himself, too), so you can't take my entire repsonse and claim it's only to one specific thing. He was talking about separation of powers, as though a state doesn't have the right to define a court's jurisdiction. Indeed, it does.
    “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

  4. #64
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Well, you know what? If all you're going to do is say "IS TOO!!!!" and repeat yourself, I'm not sure what else to say.
    Well, you never addressed the points.

    I already responded to each of these points, including any apparent contradiction in the law.
    Responded does not equate to address.

    If there's a conflict within the law itself, that's not a point of constitutionality.
    But the conflict is with the bill forbidding states to apply US laws that deal with foreign relations as it forbids all international law with no exceptions. Effectively stating that the federal government no longer has the sole right to conduct such business. That is not constitutional.

    And besides, a court reads any law first in the light which favors its constitutionality, because constitutionality is the very last question a court will consider on any law, if and ONLY if it can't first be decided on other grounds.
    Fair enough. I'll give you that.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  5. #65
    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
    I was responding to a number of points at the same time; you're picking and choosing which ones to match up with the others. He said a lot more than just that (and he's rather absent in defending it himself, too), so you can't take my entire repsonse and claim it's only to one specific thing. He was talking about separation of powers, as though a state doesn't have the right to define a court's jurisdiction. Indeed, it does.
    Indeed. I am picking and choosing a point I think could be misleading to a person who doesn't enjoy an informed awareness of federalism. It's moot now, though, as the argument has developed to a point where the two points relate to each other.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 11-06-10 at 06:13 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

  6. #66
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,592

    Re: Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Well, you never addressed the points.



    Responded does not equate to address.
    Ah. Living up to the "child" part of your name, are you? You know I did. Or perhaps you don't, but I still did.


    But the conflict is with the bill forbidding states to apply US laws that deal with foreign relations as it forbids all international law with no exceptions. Effectively stating that the federal government no longer has the sole right to conduct such business. That is not constitutional.
    That's your spin on what it says. But it's not what it actually says. Given what it explicitly INCLUDES, it's clear to me that it's not intended to dispense with treaties, US-recognized international law, or to impede on any foreign relations powers at all. To the extent it conflicts with itself, it can be fixed with a few words which will not change the substance of the measure at all.


    Fair enough. I'll give you that.
    And as such, a court is highly likely to read it the way I just did, above.
    “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

  7. #67
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Ah. Living up to the "child" part of your name, are you? You know I did. Or perhaps you don't, but I still did.
    Or more appropriately, you believed you addressed it. Respond does not equate to address.

    That's your spin on what it says. But it's not what it actually says. Given what it explicitly INCLUDES, it's clear to me that it's not intended to dispense with treaties, US-recognized international law, or to impede on any foreign relations powers at all.
    Unless there are written exceptions within the terms defined, it should ban the entirety of it. It outright states no international law period. We agree it is contradictory.

    To the extent it conflicts with itself, it can be fixed with a few words which will not change the substance of the measure at all.
    Indeed. The problem is at the moment, the law does not have those terms.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #68
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,592

    Re: Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Or more appropriately, you believed you addressed it. Respond does not equate to address.
    OK, Child. Bang your highchair about that one all you want.


    Unless there are written exceptions within the terms defined, it should ban the entirety of it. It outright states no international law period. We agree it is contradictory.
    Never said it wasn't potentially contradictory, but I've given you plenty of sound reasons why it doesn't "ban the entirety of it" in both factual legal terms and as a matter of standard statutory construction. You may choose to pretend I did not, but I gave them to you nonetheless.


    Indeed. The problem is at the moment, the law does not have those terms.
    Which does not make it unconstitutional, only confusing.
    “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. #69
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by deb View Post
    Yes, the ban is constitutional.

    All people are bound by the laws that are passed - white, black, Christian, Jew, Islam.

    If portions of Sharia law become the law of the land, everyone would be subject to those laws. The legal system is supposed to be applied to all persons, and there are no special provisions for one religion or another.

    I personally don't want to be governed by Sharia law - do you?
    What it the law instead of Sharia said Christain or Jewish law would you then say it's Constitutional?


  10. #70
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    What it the law instead of Sharia said Christain or Jewish law would you then say it's Constitutional?
    No worries, the law was worded by a bunch of ignorant right wing morons so it most likely also took care of that.

    From what I can gather, legal experts (something the writers of the law did not consult... and no the RNC and Tea Party are not legal experts) believe that ALL forms of religious material are now banned.... since that can go under "international law". Yes, American's did not invent/write the bible, that was someone in Europe/Middle East, and hence ... illegal to use. So that means the 10 commandments and all that... illegal to use by judges in any way.. even indirectly.. oh bugger... that means the 7 deadly sins are now legal!

    In other words, it is looking more and more like the "right wing" is equal to "stupid" these days.
    PeteEU

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •