Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
September 20, 2014, 11:09:30 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: 24/7 Ventrilo Voice chat -click for instructions and free software here
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Sharia law in Oklahoma?  (Read 2410 times)
Bee Happy
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1656


Location: Between Panama city, Florida and Dothan Al.

that's me - setting a phoenix free


« Reply #20 on: November 09, 2010, 05:22:45 PM »

I'm no lawyer, but we allow plenty of international law to be considered in this country. Many of our global companies will sign contracts that specify that the contract will be adjudicated in a foreign court. So for instance, if a US company is doing business in France, it might agree to settle any disputes in the French courts. If it then tries to sue it's French partner in a New York court, the New York court should require it to use French courts. If we didn't allow that, then it would put a serious damper on our economy. One of the keys to getting foreign investment is to have a strong and stable set of laws and regulations that have a (somewhat) objective way of dealing with international law. And obviously there are plenty of US companies doing business in Middle Eastern countries.

And the thought that all muslims believe in Sharia law is more fear mongering. Sharia law is not the rule in all Middle Eastern countries and many muslims dislike it. In Egypt, for instance, people will commonly tell you that both men and women are supposed to dress modestly. Many women wear tight sexy clothing and don't wear anything covering their hair. Doing business in the middle east in the nineties, I only saw burkas on the Saudi women and in the desert. When in Rome, do as the Romans. I wore knee length skirts (all my suits were knee length anyway) and cap sleeves instead of sleeveless shirts. I could have dressed however I wanted, but it would have been impolite and impolitic.

I found Egyptians to be as nice as Midwesterners, maybe even nicer if that's possible. I've met many a loving, family oriented, kind hearted muslim. Sure there are some wacky ones, but we have those too. People are people. I'll never forget the saudi woman on a street corner. She had the whole black getup on, including a facemask! I was surrepticiously checking out her garb, but I didn't want to be rude and stare so I looked away when she looked at me. Suddenly, I realized she was checking out my garb, and trying not to be rude. We both smiled sheepishly at each other from across the street. Both feeling and doing the same thing even though we were from vastly different cultures, geographies, ethnicities, religions, etc. People are people.


The answers? you're blurring contractual law with criminal/religious law.
         no, they're wonderful, peaceful people - look at what they've done for Europe.
         I doesn't matter to me how nice they are when they want something/have to be/feel like it - there's a standing record of how they systematically seize minority control of countries one after another. I guess their tactical error was not trying to overrun all nations at once.
When I learned about taqiyya and then about abrogation I was done being fooled by a handful of seemingly nice people.
Logged

be happy and make others happy.
bigbearomaha
Guest
« Reply #21 on: November 09, 2010, 05:43:27 PM »

while it is true that Congress shall make no law and that anything not spelled out for federal powers is left to the states, the individual states constitutions MUST be in compliance with the U.S. Constitution.

In other words, they cannot make a state constitutional amendment that is specifically counter to what is in the U.S. Constitution.  This is where the loopholes and smooth talking lawyers come in on cases like this.

they will do everything they can to make it appear that U.S. Constitution has precedence or authority.

until of course, it works to their advantage for it not to.

Logged
winginit
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 262


Location: Batavia, Ohio


« Reply #22 on: November 09, 2010, 05:44:53 PM »

This bill wasn't about criminal law. Here's the synopsis that showed up on the ballot:

This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.
International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.

The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties.

Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.

Shall the proposal be approved?

For the proposal

Yes: __________

Against the proposal

No: __________
 
Logged
Bee Happy
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1656


Location: Between Panama city, Florida and Dothan Al.

that's me - setting a phoenix free


« Reply #23 on: November 09, 2010, 05:59:02 PM »

thank you for posting that wing. Shari law is already forbidden under the first amendment, as bigbear said already, states are all subject to constitutional law. The constitution is the basic foundational agreement. Christians would be immediately brought down if they used religion as contractual law (while specifying religion) shari'a IS islamic. under a separation of church and state it would mean that, yes oklahoma can't really target a religion and "ostracize" it, but Shari'a by the same token - can't be recognized under US law.
Logged

be happy and make others happy.
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15151


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #24 on: November 09, 2010, 06:43:11 PM »

Quote
they cannot make a state constitutional amendment that is specifically counter to what is in the U.S. Constitution.

but where the constitution is silent or limited the 10th applies.  the constitution does not have any direction in it about what states may or may not do about religion.  international law does not (yet) supersede the constitution.  

Quote
This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state

the state is perfectly within its constitutional right to do this.  of course, that does not mean that the courts will agree.  the courts very often go against the Constitution. they cite prior rulings and build on them.  this is a good reminder of why we want judges who are constitutinalists and not activists.  nothing chips away at constitutional rights faster than activist judges acting in the name of "fairness".

it really is not about whether or not we agree with certain laws.  the purpose of laws/constitutions, is to have rules that are not subject to whim.  if you don't like laws/constitutions, change them, do not subvert them in court.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
bigbearomaha
Guest
« Reply #25 on: November 09, 2010, 07:00:48 PM »

this is why, kathy, in that same post you quoted from me,  I did mention that lawyers will use whatever machinations possible to try to work the loopholes to make it appear as a federal constitutional issue  if it fits their agenda.

in this case, that is exactly what the oklahoma judge fell for.  Someone came in and sold her on the idea that the U.S. Constitution over rules in this case on the basis of the first amendment.

personally, as  I said before,  I think it is generally redundant to specify sharia as inadmissible into a any American court of law.  religion based laws are overruled by the federal and state constitutions.  At best, they might be admissible only as a contract such as when one agrees to use an agreed upon negotiator or the like.  even then, it sketchy at best to be allowed then.  (especially when you take into consideration those things which approve of violent behavior or false imprisonment, etc...which sharia law utilizes.)

but when a lower court even goes so awry as to accept one of the people in the case and their personal belief in what sharia allows them to do and must later be over ruled by a higher court, it is worrisome that the slippery slope has begun.

so it seems redundant at it's face for a state to need such a law, yet it seems our court system is willing to accept something that should be obviously not admissible as legal fact anyway.  Both are ridiculous scenarios yet if the latter did not happen, no one would feel the former necessary.

Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15151


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #26 on: November 09, 2010, 07:14:18 PM »

which, i think, brings us back to my point about activist judges.  we expect activist lawyers.  that's what they do.....
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
bigbearomaha
Guest
« Reply #27 on: November 09, 2010, 11:37:47 PM »

can't argue with that.

Judges are not there to make law, should only be based on law already written.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.162 seconds with 21 queries.

Google visited last this page September 12, 2014, 12:07:53 AM
anything