Oklahoma law overturned by federal judge!!

[gypsyman]

Well, once again our nations laws are being dictated from the bench, instead of by the people. Fed. judge Vickie Miles-Legrange put an Oklahoma law on hold for several months, because of a radical Muslim wanting to overturn a bill, that passed by over 70% in Oklahoma, to ban Shariah law for courtrooms.
Will somebody take this judge and kindly remove her head from that dark orifice of a hole she has it in, and bring her up to date.
Just the fact that Shariah law would keep her from doing what she's doing as a living, should keep her from being so stupid. But, stupid is as stupid does I guess. gypsyman

[MGMorden]

The problem is that it's a law that specifically mentions a certain religion.  That's going to fail the constitutional litmus test every time.  If they had instead just worded it so that NO religious laws could be considered rather than specifically mentioning Sharia, then they'd be fine.

By constitutional law you CAN NOT target any specific religion in legislation - either positively OR negatively.   I'm not sure what they expected in this case.

The ironic thing is that the same law that will overturn this (the 1st amendment) is the same law that makes it unnecessary.  The 1st amendment already does what this law is supposed to do without mentioning specifics.  This was nothing more than political pandering.

[Tommyt]

.  The 1st amendment already does what this law is supposed to do without mentioning specifics.  This was nothing more than political pandering.

Very well put
 "political pandering" exactly

Tommyt

[Dee]

What the original bill actually did, was clarify that Sharia Law could not SUPERCEDE Oklahoma State Law. Oklahoma was fine in what they did. A few meddling lawyers have now figured out how to make a little money while they lose the case.

[powderman]

What the original bill actually did, was clarify that Sharia Law could not SUPERCEDE Oklahoma State Law. Oklahoma was fine in what they did. A few meddling lawyers have now figured out how to make a little money while they lose the case.

Exactly right. That judge is a moron, bet she voted for bo. POWDERMAN. 

[Pat/Rick]

The downward spiral continues.

+1 Dee. The weatherman and attorneys. Getting paid even when they're wrong.

[powderman]

The downward spiral continues.

+1 Dee. The weatherman and attorneys. Getting paid even when they're wrong.

HEH. That was good. POWDERMAN. 

[yellowtail3]

Will somebody take this judge and kindly remove her head from that dark orifice of a hole she has it in, and bring her up to date. 

Dark orifice... like maybe, the Constitution?

But, stupid is as stupid does I guess. gypsyman

i think we just heard a confession!

[guzzijohn]

Once again it was a solution looking for a problem.
GuzziJohn

[SHOOTALL]

What the original bill actually did, was clarify that Sharia Law could not SUPERCEDE Oklahoma State Law. Oklahoma was fine in what they did. A few meddling lawyers have now figured out how to make a little money while they lose the case.

Dee this is the comming problem , Their religion is their law . They do not seperate the two. America will need to decide if Sharia is a religious right that can be praticed like any other religion in a peaceful fashion and not interupting others or if it is a political party trying to change American law and values . It is the largest attack on our system to date . If we don't decide quickly it will soon be decided for us.They are here and growing in population faster than other Americans. Somewhat like the Whites did when they came and displaced the Indian. 

[gypsyman]

Hey YT3, good to hear from you. Nice to know that you side with the muzzies on this. Instead of deer hunting in this country, why not head over to muzzie land and stone women or cut kids arms off when they steal a loaf of bread. Probably more fun for ya. gypsyman

[no guns here]

Oklahoma voted for it.  That's what the people want.  I don't see how the 1st amendment solves this issue at all.  Someone clue me in?  That damned judge legislated from the bench to appease a special interest group when the vast majority of Oklahoman's voted for it.  The federal government should have NO say in this at all.  It's a states rights issue.


NGH

[Dee]

ngh, it has been happening in California for decades, and the Californians just keep puttin up with it. After provin he was an idiot the REELECTED Jerry Brown for governor. Go figure that one out. Oklahoma is just gonna have to bow up, and tell the feds to kiss their southern ass.

[Pat/Rick]

Our "officials" are so eager to bring democracy to the rest of the world,  yet overlook it here. Suppose thats why nobody wants us there and just wish we would stay home??

[no guns here]

There is NO democracy in Islam.


NGH

[Hooker]

It is not unconstitutional for a state to pass such a law.
Read
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is unconstitutional for Congress to make such a law.

Pat

[powderman]

There is NO democracy in Islam.


NGH

YEP. POWDERMAN. 

[MGMorden]

It is not unconstitutional for a state to pass such a law.
Read
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is unconstitutional for Congress to make such a law.

Pat

Rights and governmental limitations identified within the constitution propagate down all levels of government.  That's the way a hierarchy works.  The states reserve only rights and abilities NOT defined within the constitution.  It's already been LONG (LONG, LONG) established that the 1st amendment applies to the states.  Tons of laws have been struck down on it's behalf. 

[Spirithawk]

It is not unconstitutional for a state to pass such a law.
Read
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is unconstitutional for Congress to make such a law.

Pat

Wanna bet? If that is so then why do Native Americans need a Government permit to practice our religion?

[lakota]

This law does not infringe on their right to practice their barbaric religion. It is meant to keep their barbarism out of the courts. They dont have a constitutional right to have the laws of their homeland applied here.

[Spirithawk]

This law does not infringe on their right to practice their barbaric religion. It is meant to keep their barbarism out of the courts. They dont have a constitutional right to have the laws of their homeland applied here.

I agree I just resent having to have a Government permit to practice my own religion in a Country based on freedom of religion. A religion that is Native to this land.

[lakota]

This law does not infringe on their right to practice their barbaric religion. It is meant to keep their barbarism out of the courts. They dont have a constitutional right to have the laws of their homeland applied here.

I agree I just resent having to have a Government permit to practice my own religion in a Country based on freedom of religion. A religion that is Native to this land.

My post wasnt directed at you and I agree with you that needing a permit from the government is complete B.S. When it come to native americans I believe there is still an active government conspiracy involved I just dont know to what end.

[KB21]

The Bill actually bans the use of Sharia Law AND international law.  It has nothing to do with banning the muslim religion, therefore this isn't unconstitutional.  What is unconstitutional is a federal judge overstepping her bounds on this and stopping this law from going through at this point.  Even in her reasoning for stopping this till further notice, she doesn't mention the 1st amendment or the constitutionality of the law.

[Spirithawk]

This law does not infringe on their right to practice their barbaric religion. It is meant to keep their barbarism out of the courts. They dont have a constitutional right to have the laws of their homeland applied here.

I agree I just resent having to have a Government permit to practice my own religion in a Country based on freedom of religion. A religion that is Native to this land.

My post wasnt directed at you and I agree with you that needing a permit from the government is complete B.S. When it come to native americans I believe there is still an active government conspiracy involved I just dont know to what end.

I knew that.  No prob and I agree that Sharia law has no buiseness in an American court. Ya don't see them practicing our laws in their courts. Each Country has it's own laws and those laws belong in that Country's courts not everyone elses.

[SwampThing762]

This is also a Ninth Amendment issue.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And, how about an 11th Amendment claim?

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

I believe the news said he was a resident of another state besides Oklahoma.

St762




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Hooker]

It is not unconstitutional for a state to pass such a law.
Read
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is unconstitutional for Congress to make such a law.

Pat

Rights and governmental limitations identified within the constitution propagate down all levels of government.  That's the way a hierarchy works.  The states reserve only rights and abilities NOT defined within the constitution.  It's already been LONG (LONG, LONG) established that the 1st amendment applies to the states.  Tons of laws have been struck down on it's behalf. 

1st amendment is a restriction on government not the people this law was passed by a vote of the people in a sovereign state. The federal government has no authority to usurp that sovereignty or disregard the will of the people.
And you have the states rights thing inside out. The federal government has only the privileges that are granted it by the Constitution all other privileges belong to the states. The Constitution is not as a job description for the government but a job restriction.

Pat

[MGMorden]

1st amendment is a restriction on government not the people this law was passed by a vote of the people in a sovereign state. The federal government has no authority to usurp that sovereignty or disregard the will of the people.
And you have the states rights thing inside out. The federal government has only the privileges that are granted it by the Constitution all other privileges belong to the states. The Constitution is not as a job description for the government but a job restriction.

The Government IS the people.  The two are inseparable.  What you're essentially saying is that if you put a complete gun ban up for popular vote and it passed then it would be fine because the 2nd amendment wouldn't apply.  That's not how it works.  If the constitution doesn't allow it then a law cannot be passed.  Doesn't matter who does the rubber stamping - it cannot exist.

As I said, this was political pandering.  Politicians wanting to look good.  The people who proposed this law KNEW very well that it would soon be struck down.  It wasn't about making the law stick - it was simply about passing it so that they can say they're doing something. 

[lakota]

Can someone please explain to me in simple terms how a US law banning international law from being considered in US court cases is a violation of someones constitutional rights?

The 1st amendment doesnt apply it wasnt a law banning a religion.

[MGMorden]

Can someone please explain to me in simple terms how a US law banning international law from being considered in US court cases is a violation of someones constitutional rights?

The 1st amendment doesnt apply it wasnt a law banning a religion.

If it had simply banned international law without mentioning Sharia it would have been fine.  Sharia has a religious component, and therefore cannot be legislated for or against.  As said though, the law was POINTLESS from the start, as the first amendment would ALREADY keep Sharia Law out of courtrooms specifically because it DOES have a religious component.

It would be as if the federal government passed a law banning cars from Montana and then Montana passed another law banning auto-racing in the sate.  There was no point as it was already not possible under existing laws.

[lakota]

Its not pointless and that is the problem. With the caliber of the politicains of today everything has to spelled out-"you can do this you cant do that"  The powers granted them by the constitution are just too vague for them to comprehend. I heard a congressman argue that the preamble is what gave them the power to pass the healthcare bill.