• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?


  • Total voters
    25
If I'm reading your response correctly, you believe that his religous beliefs and practice should supercede the law of the land as defined by the constitution of the state and US government. Seriously???

No, but if he wants to specify in his will that his property be divided in accordance with sharia - and the courts can figure out what he meant - then it's probably unconstitutional to not follow his wishes.
 
Uh, no.

Wanting your stuff to be distributed / disposed of after you die in accordance with a specific religious tradition isn't putting that religious tradition above the law. It is practicing that religious tradition within the bounds of the law.

No it isnt. There are certain laws that exist regarding things like wills and estate taxes that are described and mandated by law. I would for no other reason other than the fact that it is RIGHT rather my children inherit everything that I have worked for earned, and yes...been taxed for. I would prefer they get those pssessions without the government deciding somehow that it was their right to come in and tax those things yet again. Howver the law doesnt work that way. The law provides for wills.

The constitution allows for free practice of religion...but it does not allow religous 'law' to supercede state and federal law.
 
No, but if he wants to specify in his will that his property be divided in accordance with sharia - and the courts can figure out what he meant - then it's probably unconstitutional to not follow his wishes.

SO you are suggesting not that he be allowed to follow Sharia law but that he follow state law and have a will. Nothing preventing that...provided that Sharia law doesnt conflict with state and federal law. There is a reason why general "by law" wills are discouraged. They are vague and for too easily misinterpreted.
 
SO you are suggesting not that he be allowed to follow Sharia law but that he follow state law and have a will. Nothing preventing that...provided that Sharia law doesnt conflict with state and federal law. There is a reason why general "by law" wills are discouraged. They are vague and for too easily misinterpreted.

Well, I certainly wouldn't advise him to have such a vague passage in his will. Nevertheless, people do it all the time, and the courts generally try to figure out the person's intent as best they can. A state law that specifically singled out sharia for different treatment than other similarly vaguely-worded wills seems like religious discrimination to me.
 
Last edited:
I don't know enough about the details of Oklahoma's law to really have an informed opinion, but it sounds like this guy is suing because he wants his property to be divided in accordance with Sharia law. If the Oklahoma law prohibits him from doing that, then I would say yes, it is a violation of his 1st Amendment rights. A will is a legal contract, so if the courts refuse to consider Sharia law even though that is this guy's clearly expressed intent, then it certainly sounds to me like his rights are being violated.

But as I said, I don't know all the details of Oklahoma's law. I was under the impression that all it did was ban judges from citing sharia law in their decisions. If that's the case, it's probably passes constitutional muster. Stupid, yes. But nevertheless constitutional.

How much **** do you want to protect under the 1st Amendment? Everything? This is about property, and we have laws on the books about how that happens. Sharia Law has not been passed by a legislative body in the US, so how is IT Constitutional? Please explain.
 
Well, I certainly wouldn't advise him to have such a vague passage in his will. Nevertheless, people do it all the time, and the courts generally try to figure out the person's intent as best they can. A state law that specifically singled out sharia for different treatment than other similarly vaguely-worded wills seems like religious discrimination to me.

The only way it would not allow the execution of the will is if it contradicted state law...IE...allows for transfer of property and income without going through the taxation process. Hell...people have left entire estates to animals and the courts dont block it. Nothing prevents the free practice of religion...until of course the free practice of said religion starts to allow for honor killings...beheadings...etc. Of course...such practices would never be allowed in civilized countries...
 
How much **** do you want to protect under the 1st Amendment? Everything? This is about property, and we have laws on the books about how that happens. Sharia Law has not been passed by a legislative body in the US, so how is IT Constitutional? Please explain.

People have the right to specify in their wills where there property goes, and courts try to figure it out as best they can. For example, I could write in my will to divide it in accordance with the Canon law of the Catholic Church, or in accordance with the neutral arbitration of Judge Smith, or in accordance with the charter of my foundation. Assuming the courts could figure out my wishes, they would do so.

To treat "in accordance with sharia law" as different than those other things would seem to be blatant religious discrimination.
 
The only way it would not allow the execution of the will is if it contradicted state law...IE...allows for transfer of property and income without going through the taxation process. Hell...people have left entire estates to animals and the courts dont block it. Nothing prevents the free practice of religion...until of course the free practice of said religion starts to allow for honor killings...beheadings...etc. Of course...such practices would never be allowed in civilized countries...

I agree, it's never been blocked before, as long as everything is legal. But that's what this lawsuit is alleging; this new law WOULD prohibit the courts from following his wishes, point blank, regardless of the legality. If that is the case, the law would violate his freedom of religion.
 
I agree, it's never been blocked before, as long as everything is legal. But that's what this lawsuit is alleging; this new law WOULD prohibit the courts from following his wishes, point blank, regardless of the legality. If that is the case, the law would violate his freedom of religion.

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?
 
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?
 
People have the right to specify in their wills where there property goes, and courts try to figure it out as best they can. For example, I could write in my will to divide it in accordance with the Canon law of the Catholic Church, or in accordance with the neutral arbitration of Judge Smith, or in accordance with the charter of my foundation. Assuming the courts could figure out my wishes, they would do so.

To treat "in accordance with sharia law" as different than those other things would seem to be blatant religious discrimination.

The law, as written, would not do that.
 
What specific provisions of Sharia would be in conflict with the law of the land?

Equal protection under the law.

Are you really unaware that women's testimony is not worth that of a man under sharia?
 
I agree, it's never been blocked before, as long as everything is legal. But that's what this lawsuit is alleging; this new law WOULD prohibit the courts from following his wishes, point blank, regardless of the legality. If that is the case, the law would violate his freedom of religion.

If his will doesn't follow the correct forms, then his estate will be distributed according to probate law, just like any other ineffective will would be. That doesn't violate his religious freedom.
 
What specific provisions of Sharia would be in conflict with the law of the land?
Its law based on religion -- thus, all of it.
 
If his will doesn't follow the correct forms, then his estate will be distributed according to probate law, just like any other ineffective will would be. That doesn't violate his religious freedom.

Specifying a form that contradicts his religion would be a violation of the 14th Amendment. Unless it involved killing someone or stealing or something.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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:
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom