At least, that’s what the AP and CAIR — which has filed suit to block the newly-passed state constitutional amendment — would have you believe:
An Oklahoma Muslim filed a federal lawsuit on Thursday to block a state constitutional amendment overwhelmingly approved by voters that would prohibit state courts from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.
The measure, which got 70% of the vote in Tuesday’s election, was one of several on Oklahoma’s ballot that critics said pandered to conservatives and would move the state further to the right.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City, seeks a temporary retraining order and injunction to block the election results from being certified by the state Election Board on Nov. 9. Among other things, the lawsuit alleges the ballot measure transforms Oklahoma’s Constitution into “an enduring condemnation” of Islam by singling it out for special restrictions by barring Islamic law, also known as Sharia law.
“We have a handful of politicians who have pushed an amendment onto our state ballot and then conducted a well-planned and well-funded campaign of misinformation and fear,” said Muneer Awad, who filed the suit and is executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. “We have certain unalienable rights, and those rights cannot be taken away from me by a political campaign.”
Sure. But I’m not certain those unalienable rights include the right to have your own laws considered as a legal measure for taking away the unalienable rights of others — specifically, those described by our own Constitution.
So.
Legal experts have also questioned the measure.
Joseph Thai, a professor at the University of Oklahoma’s College of Law, said the ballot measure is “an answer in search of a problem.” He said he knows of no other state that has approved similar measures.
“There is no plausible danger of international law or Sharia law overtaking the legal system,” Thai said in an e-mail to The Associated Press. He said courts only consider international law when deciding issues involving a federal treaty, a business contract or a will that incorporates international law.
Thai said the ballot measure “raises thorny church-state problems as well” and could even affect a state judge’s ability to consider the Ten Commandments.
“The Ten Commandments, of course, is international law. It did not originate in Oklahoma or the United States,” Thai said.
Such speciousness.
The Ten Commandments, as accepted and processed through the founders and framers, shaped our law — and so isn’t “international law” in any sense other than it precedes US law; meaning that to make the argument that the Ten Commandments is international law is to commit yourself to the argument that US law is itself international law, and so can be ruled unconstitutional by this new state constitutional amendment. Which further commits you to the idea that any US claim on sovereignty is forfeited because it isn’t really its own country.
In short, it’s a ludicrous argument. Having the Ten Commandments as a referent for your own laws doesn’t make those laws international anymore than having a referent in American crime noir makes À bout de souffle an American film.
The measure is scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1. It’s author, Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs, said it was not intended to attack Muslims but to prevent activist judges from relying on international law or Islamic law when ruling on legal cases.
“The threat posed by activist judges is clear,” Duncan said. “It shouldn’t matter what the law in France or any other European country is.”
Duncan described the measure as “a pre-emptive strike” in Oklahoma, where he said activist judges are not an imminent problem. But some judges elsewhere, including U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, believe courts should look to the law of other countries for guidance when deciding cases, he said.
Ginsburg told a meeting of international lawyers in Washington in July that American judges can learn from their foreign counterparts when seeking solutions to “trying questions.”
[…]
One Oklahoma resident said he voted for the measure on Tuesday because chaos might ensue if judges were permitted to rely on international or religious laws in their courts.
“Any private organization could come in and say the judge has to rule according to our rules and regulations and overrule state laws,” Oklahoma City attorney Jerry Fent said. “How many religions could you have?”
But Laura Gorton, a college student from Oklahoma City, said she saw no need for the measure and voted against it.
“It’s not an issue here,” Gorton said. “It’s almost like an attempt to make a jab at other cultures.”
Of course, no where in this article does the AP even reference the proximate case that led to this ballot measure — namely, a ruling in New Jersey family court that a defendant’s belief in Sharia Law protected him from US law on rape. So maybe this is one reason people like college student Laura Gorton remain unconcerned.
Here. Allow me to help:
In considering the woman’s plea for a restraining order after the couple divorced, [Judge Joseph] Charles ruled in June 2009 that a preponderance of the evidence showed the defendant had harassed and assaulted her, but “The court believes that [defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”
Charles’ ruling was overturned last month by New Jersey’s Appellate Court, which ruled that the husband’s religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, “was mistaken.”
The woman’s lawyer, Jennifer Donnelly of New Jersey Legal Services, told FoxNews.com that Charles’ ruling should add to the case for a proposed Oklahoma law, which will be on the ballot in November, which would ban judges from considering “international law or Shariah Law” in their rulings.
“Those who don’t want the bill to pass say, ‘there’s really no need for it because why would a judge walk down that road of religion?'” Donnelly said.
“Clearly here, this judge did walk down that road. He may not have said ‘Shariah law.’ But I think it’s indicative that, in trying to be respectful of religion, judges venture into a very slippery slope.”
Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment was a pre-emptive strike against such rulings — and should it (ironically) withstand judicial scrutiny, could pave the way for similar amendments in states across the country.
Now if only we could get a grass-roots movement going that required judges to appeal to legislative intent when interpreting statutes, we’d really be on to something — and well on our way to correcting much of the institutionalized structural rot that serves only to veer the country (purposely) leftward…
i always rooted for oklahoma agiasnt nebraska
i just loved jack mildren![ showing my age]
and when in that movie ‘ dirty rotten scoundrels’
steve martin ran around saying ‘oklahoma,oklahoma.oklahoma’
that was funny!
why is it called the sooner state?
i always thought it was because they had the
land deal- and if u got there ‘sooner’ u’d get a better piece of land
“The Ten Commandments, of course, is international law. It did not originate in Oklahoma or the United States,” Thai said.
REVISIONS TO COMMANDMENT FIVE: THOU SHALT NOT KILL.
Strike concluding period and in its place add: “except in cases of self-defense or where mandated by duly elected or appointed authorities as defined in Section 127, paragraph 9(b) of the HUNDRED THOUSAND RULES THAT AREN’T EXACTLY COMMANDMENTS BUT YOU REALLY BETTER FOLLOW THEM OR ELSE. Failure to obey this Commandment may be punished as set forth in Section 601, paragraph 27(a) of the same document.”
I think Mr. Thai and his buddies are just pissed of at all the “Shalt Not Covet” stuff that’s in the 10 Cs, and are trying to get that stuff scrubbed out before people start to notice.
and of course the musical ‘ oklahoma’ !
oh what a beautiful morning!
what a beautiful morning indeed!
Is is just me, or did they bring up the Ten Commandments just to use it as a bludgeon against those of us who don’t want sharia law being accepted as “normal” in our legal system?
I’m deeply cynical.
The only international law that should inform OK judges:
1) That of Great Britain prior to 4 Jul 1776, including precedents in Anglo-Saxon common law originating in what is now Germany/Denmark.
2) French, Spanish, Mexican, and Republic of Texas rulings about land ownership in portions of Louisiana and Tejas now in OK.
As the Spanish and French governments that ruled over what is now OK were, to put it mildly, antithetical to things Islamic, including Shari’a, they have no place in OK law.
Oh, if the laws of the various native tribes are considered “international”, then by all means, include those in the list where appropriate.
This is remarkable in that it is objectionable to some.
So… we’re not allowed to post the Ten Commandments near courthouses because that’s establishing a religion, and we’re not allowed to reject sharia as the basis for any law because that would imply we’re rejecting the Ten Commandments?
How about this compromise: judges won’t make their decisions on the basis of the Ten Commandments, and they won’t make their decisions on the basis of sharia.
(Of course, what the reaction to this really points out is that the Usual Suspects don’t really object to religiously-based law at all; they object to laws that might maybe possibly could have come from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Sharia is OK-fine with them, and they’re pissed that the hoi polloi would block its implementation.)
I’m fine with any other laws except our own common law (and that of GB as laid out previously) and statutes and constitution(s) being excluded. Want to write a judicial opinion, I guess you’ll have to skip the Keeping the Sabbath and Making the Hajj out if it then. No sharia, no Ten Commandments…. fine by me.
BTW – can anyone show a judicial citation of or reference to the Ten as the basis for his decision?
Yeah, the objections to this new OK law are specious indeed.
Outisde of the Judeo-Christian influence taht permeates western society, I don’t how the 10 commandments influence our laws any more than does the code of Hammurabi. It;’s not like the authors of US code hade a checklist of 10 commandment conformance when they wrote law.
Those are empty arguments in a sophist flailing attempt to discredit or strike down the OK law that proactively protects it’s citizens from what happened in NJ. And if it pisses off the transnationalist/multiculturalists? Well that much better than…
Yes, to an unserious 20 something moron, it may “feel” like that, Laura. Get back to sucking cock and majoring in aggrieved victim group studies.
It’s funny, these transnationalists know all about what happens in bumfuck, egypt, but haven’t a freaking clue about an incredibly germane case in New Jersey.
Hmmm…. I wonder how Gorton would react to someone saying that the Violence Against Women Act is a “jab at other cultures” since some other cultures make it perfectly OK to beat your wife. And then, what about the 13th Amendment? In certain cultures it’s not just accepted to own slaves, it’s a mark of piety and/or wealth — is our blanket ban on it not a “jab” at those cultures?
Odd, how shallow “multiculturalism” really is.
The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause was written for exactly the sort of thing that Sharia represents.
The cognitive dissonance of the progressives trying to justify not excluding Islamic Law from our legal system must be genuinely painful.
As an Okie who could have voted on it, I went back on forth on that one, just because I don’t like putting anything that specialized in a Constitution. I think banning international and/or religious law would have been enough. I think I finally decided for it, but I didn’t make it to the booth, making it a moot point.
As for Joseph Thai, I’m a little dumbfounded. Has he ever charged someone with coveting his wife or worshiping a false idol? I was under the impression that the parts of the Ten Commandments we wanted the law to enforce we told the law to enforce. With, you know, laws and stuff.
Wait, so woman are not just chattel? This is against my religion. I keel you!!!
I guess if they want to go there, then the OK law would also bar Common Law, as originating in England/Germany.
I dunno, that whole “Thou shalt not steal or else thou shalt have thine hand cut off, thy sister raped and thy sheep violated” commandment is pretty harsh.
Poor sheep.
So – lemme get this straight – if I move to Oklahoma, I CAN covet my neighbor’s wife? Legally, I mean?
Dressing that way was just asking for it.
The 10 commandments are clearly not US law. There is some resonance, and local laws may reflect the religious past of that municipality/state, but that is not the same. The only strictures that seem to be common between the decalog and US law are the rules against murder bearing false witness and theft. Worshipping another diety, idolatry, working on the sabbath, honoring parents, swearing, coveting, are clearly legal; adultery is transitioning into legality as well.
PS: is your “More…” not working, or is it me?
THOU SHALT NOT KILL.
Just FYI, a better translation is THOU SHALT NOT MURDER.
Because there’s all this other stuff in the law of Moses that details whom and what you should kill and when.
Lefties like to use THOU SHALT NOT KILL to support opposition to the death penalty or even vegetarianism.
Which, you can argue for those positions if you like, you just can’t use THOU SHALT NOT KILL as a supporting document.
Though one time I had a leftie ask me: if, somehow, the Jews persuaded us to pass a law to prohibit mixing meat and milk or flax and wool, would it be a breach of the First Amendment (or the separation of church and state)?
To which I had to answer no. The fact that the law would also parallel a religious practice has no bearing on the Establishment Clause. Refraining from mixing meat and milk doesn’t make me beholden to any rabbi or any church.
Unless you want to prohibit all laws that are reflected in religious and quasi-religious systems, such as redistribution of wealth or single-payer health care.
In what jurisdictions does Professor Thai think the Ten Commandments have been codified into law?
There are two possible outcomes to this effort. Either the suit is tossed and amendment stands, a victory for common sense and the right of the people to govern themselves. Or the amendment is invalidated and the people of Oklahoma are put on notice that they do not govern themselves, but instead are subject to the whims of a black robed aristocracy.
I’m just waiting for violation of honoring your father and mother to result in criminal penalties.
That’ll show that teenage daughter of mine.
Though I know you’re kidding, that would never happen. To progressives, parents are there to serve them, and then be disposed of later. If you’ve ever had an aging parent in the hospital, you’ll know what I mean. My sister and I fought them hard, and got my dad out alive, but they seemed to think that because he was old he was not that important. Someone even told my sister something to the effect that she cared too much about my father. If I had been there at the time, noses would have been punched.
Honoring your mother and father means giving them an extra pain pill before telling them the hip surgery is wasteful and excessive use of state resources.
“…is wasteful and excessive use of state resources.”
– Well hell, you know….About 2 minutes after Obamadumb was passed all the Progs looked at each other and had an epithemy simultaneously, and started asking….”Who the fuck do they think is going to pay for all this cause {
I sure as hell don’t intend….I mean are they kidding….hold it…..wait…”
– So the first response to their stupid over-reach is to eliminate the old and infirm. For the real believers on the far Left like nishi, that was always the plan, and the way they intended to pay for it.
The real progressive concern about global warming is that there won’t be enough ice floes to put the seniors on before we push them out to sea! After all, if you aren’t contributing to the tax base for us to redistribute, what good are you?
“…and should it (ironically) withstand judicial scrutiny,’
Why the F do judges have any say on a constitutional amendment? Since they seem to think that someone died and left them God, how about they just skip the pretenses and rule the constitution unconstitutional.
Then we can skip the pretenses and put some of the cranky-d and squid co. products to good use!
The last place to hear the truth about the law is in a law school. From lawyers is next on the list.
“It’s not an issue here,” Gorton said. “It’s almost like an attempt to make a jab at other cultures.”
Which, if all “cultures” are equally valid, then means that it’s ok if ours jabs theirs.
Excellent question. The whole premise of judicial review is nonsense. Nowhere in the Constitution is the judicial branch given exclusive say over what is or is not constitutional. It is a right the Supreme Court claimed for the federal judiciary with Marbury v. Madison – a right that has gone largely unchallenged – and that has been heavily abused – ever since. It is high time that judicial review was challenged and disposed of.
I wonder, Danger, who really sponsored this lawsuit?
FOLLOW DA MONEY!
You say you want a revolution?
Dylan Ratigan: The Answer To America’s Woes Is ‘Obviously’ Revolution
I’m calling dibs on Rall.
I demand justice by the Code of Hammurabi!
Odd, how shallow “multiculturalism” really is.
Once you get past “America Bad!” you’re at the bottom of that pond.
Good point. From what I’ve heard, this amendment is as useless as tits on a bull, because it simply says that Sharia Law cannot administer punishments that are already illegal.
If that’s true, it’s a completely vestigial piece of law. Have I got something wrong, somehow?
Yes. You overestimate the capacity of judges to find penumbras.
Please send to professor Brian Kiteley at bkiteley@du.edu.
Thanks.
#42 Jeff: I think you meant underestimate. One can never overestimate the ability of a Judge to find a penumbra.
[…] Slart noted in a comment to my last post on the subject, this new law is “vestigial,” inasmuch as […]
Yes, correct, Mikey. My bad.