- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 3,357
- Reaction score
- 986
- Location
- Alabama
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Hopefully this goes all the way to the SC and they rules in favor of Oklahoma's law banning judges from citing religious and Foreign laws.Courts should not recognize foreign laws and religious laws. If someone wants to be buried according to some religious custom then leave specific details on it in a will.
Hopefully this goes all the way to the SC and they rules in favor of Oklahoma's law banning judges from citing religious and Forign laws.Courts should not recognize foreign laws and religious laws.
That isn't how courts work. It isn't like courts just get confused and end up applying the law of some other country when they're supposed to apply US law... Obviously... Foreign or religious law, or really any kind of rule or regulation anywhere, comes up in court for one of three reasons:
1) US law incorporates the common law that existed prior to the constitution. Mostly that means British Common law. So, unless a court or the legislature has reversed a precedent, a decision of an old British court could still be binding. Generally speaking, these are non-controversial common sense things that the courts and legislature have never had a reason to reverse. One area where it is sometimes more of an issue is, for example, that in a civil trial you are entitled to a jury if it was a case that would have gone to a common law court back in the founder's time, but not if it would have gone to a court of equity back then. So, figuring out if somebody has a jury trial sometimes goes back to an analysis of English law from the time.
2) The case, or some element of the case, is under some other set of rules than US law. Courts everywhere have the power to resolve many kinds of disputes that are governed by other law. For example, maybe a corporation here and a corporation in Spain make a contract and specify that any disputes should be resolved under a particular trade treaty. A US court can decide the case, but they need to apply the rules of that treaty to do it.
3) When a court encounters a legal question that hasn't been decisively addressed by US courts, or when they encounter something that they think US courts resolved incorrectly, they look at how other courts elsewhere have dealt with the issue. Those rulings from other countries don't have legal effect here of course, but if the logic behind them is sound they certainly have persuasive significance. For example, say that a corporation bought artificial snow making services from another corporation for their ski resort. Maybe the ski resort is suing the snow maker claiming that what they delivered was really "ice" rather than "snow". Maybe there isn't any US case that really delves into the difference, but there is a Canadian case where the court pulled in tons of experts and did a bunch of analysis and came up with a really logical way to distinguish the two. A smart court certainly would consider that interpretation by the Canadian court.
No American court should ever cite foreign laws period. If there are issues with a law then the elected officials in the US who who authored the law should be consulted or if they are dead then their notes, writings or reasons why the law was enacted should be consulted.
No American court should ever cite foreign laws period. If there are issues with a law then the elected officials in the US who who authored the law should be consulted or if they are dead then their notes, writings or reasons why the law was enacted should be consulted.
No American court should ever cite foreign laws period.
I don't know how unusual it would be for an American judge to be presiding over a case that falls under the jurisdiction of any foreign laws
Not very unusual. Most contracts between companies from different countries specify that they are governed either by the law of one of the countries or by some instrument of international law. That's probably the most common one, but international law or foreign law comes up in a lot of circumstances. For example, if you have a couple and one of them claims they were married in Canada and the other claims they were never officially married, resolving it would require an analysis of Canadian marriage law.
People also sue in US court under principles of international treaties and the international laws that stem therefrom...
(just throwing in another example)
All this anti-Sharia nonsense is just transparent bigotry. Muslims make up 0.3% of the population of the US. Obviously Sharia law is never going to take root in our legal system. It's just an excuse for them to express their hatred of Muslims.
Are blue states embracing Sharia law?Do legislators in these backwards bigoted states not own a copy of the U.S. Constitution?
I guess Obama should make sure there's money in the federal budget to send a copy of the U.S. Constitution to some of these governors and legislators.
No American court should ever cite foreign laws period. If there are issues with a law then the elected officials in the US who who authored the law should be consulted or if they are dead then their notes, writings or reasons why the law was enacted should be consulted.
How can you know that for a fact? Things change in America. For example, our grandparents would not have thought the US ethnic population would have shifted to what it is today.
Our laws are our laws. Why consider others.
It still amazes me if someone dislikes something the bigotry card or race card is played. There could be other reasons for not liking Shariah law.
Yes and no. You can only sue somebody in US court based on a US law. International law comes into it secondarily. For example, if somebody breaches a contract with you and the contract says it is governed by international law, you can sue in the US because breaching a contract is a violation of US law, but then the actual substance of the case is determined by international law. But, if international law just said "from here on out it is illegal to wear green" you couldn't sue people in US courts for wearing green because there would be no cause of action.
That said, many of the treaties the US has signed are now in fact US law. Either they are self executing, so just by ratifying them they because US law, or the legislature actively passed laws to execute the treaties. Not all of them though. For example, we violate the international declaration of human rights constantly, but courts have found that although we ratified it, it is not self executing, so you can't sue under it in US court. Also, we have a statute called the Alien Tort Statute that says that you can sue a non-citizen that is in the US for torts they committed that violate international law.
So it's kind of like you need a hook in US law to allow you to sue in the first place, but once you have that, the actual case is often determined by applying international law.
I should have been more clear about what I meant. Obviously you cannot normally sue someone directly in US court under the provisions of international law.
zzzz the standard Republican "I'm not a bigot, I'm just too stupid to understand that what I am doing it bigotry" defense... Does that ever work on anybody?
I really don't care whether their bigotry was created by a flat out desire to harm people that are different from them, by a desire to make themselves feel superior, or by incomprehensibly dense ignorance. Whatever their problem is, it need to be rooted out and dealt with.
and its the same old liberal defense. they don't agree with me so they must be a bigot.
so as long as the exercise of it does not infringe upon the rights of others (including those in contract, you cannot abdicate your rights).
Uh, it's more like 0.8% muslims, and their numbers are projected to double within the next 20 years. Stop making sh*t up and downplaying the truth.All this anti-Sharia nonsense is just transparent bigotry. Muslims make up 0.3% of the population of the US. Obviously Sharia law is never going to take root in our legal system. It's just an excuse for them to express their hatred of Muslims.
Uh, it's more like 0.8% muslims, and their numbers are projected to double within the next 20 years. Stop making sh*t up and downplaying the truth.