Court: Oklahoma can't enforce Sharia law ban By Robert Boczkiewicz | Reuters â 16 hrs ago DENVER (Reuters) - A federal appeals court upheld an injunction against a voter-approved ban on Islamic law in Oklahoma on Tuesday, saying it likely violated the U.S. Constitution by discriminating against religion. A three-member panel of the Denver-based U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the rights of plaintiff Muneer Awad, a Muslim man living in Oklahoma City, likely would be violated if the ban on Sharia law takes effect. The decision upholds the ruling of a lower federal court. "While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out ... the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual's constitutional rights," the appeals court said in a 37-page written decision. The Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations welcomed the ruling, calling it "a victory for the Constitution and for the right of all Americans to freely practice their faith." Oklahoma's "Save Our State Amendment," which was approved by 70 percent of state voters in 2010, bars Oklahoma state courts from considering or using Sharia law. The lawsuit challenging the measure was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Awad, who is director of the Oklahoma chapter of CAIR. A federal judge in Oklahoma City issued a court order in November 2010 barring the measure from taking effect while the case is under review, finding a substantial likelihood that Awad would prevail on the merits. The Council said the Oklahoma amendment is among 20 similar proposed laws introduced in state legislatures nationwide. Defenders of the amendment say they want to prevent foreign laws in general, and Islamic Sharia law in particular, from overriding state or U.S. laws. But foes of the Oklahoma measure, also called State Question 755, have argued that it stigmatizes Islam and its adherents and violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment prohibition against the government favoring one religion over another. State Senator Anthony Sykes, one of the measure's sponsors, called the decision an attempt "to silence the voice of 70 percent of Oklahoma voters. At some point we have to decide whether this is a country of, by and for the judges, or of, by and for the people." Opponents also say it could nullify wills or legal contracts between Muslims because they incorporate by reference specific elements of Islamic prophetic traditions. http://news.yahoo.com/court-oklahoma-cant-enforce-sharia-law-ban-011240179.html
We need a few Constitutional amendments ASAP. 1. No sharia law. 2. English is national language 3. Term limits for Congress/Senate 4. Bounty on lobbyists 5. Balanced budget to name a few.
So we have a Constitutional right to cut off the hands of thieves. And men have the Constitutional right to have up to four wives. Who knew? I'm surprised that decision came from the Tenth Circuit Court. Usually it's the Ninth Circuit Court that makes all the nutty decisions.
I thought I understood constitutional law pretty well, but this decision baffles me. So now it is unconstitutional to display the Ten Commandments or a cross in a courtroom or any public space, but it is also unconstitutional to bar islamic sharia "law." Both edicts flow from the supposed constitutional requirement not to marginalize...someone, whom I'm not quite sure. If sharia is a religious concept, then I don't see why it shouldn't be excluded from courtrooms just as our Christian symbols are. Isn't forcing its inclusion the "establishment of religion?" Don't Christians, Jews and atheists have the right to say in a democracy that they prefer not to be judged under the harsh and unfair doctrine of sharia law? And if it isn't religion but is law, then why doesn't the state of Oklahoma have the right to define what is and isn't the governing legal standard? If Oklahoma voted that the law of France would not be applied, is that also a violation of the Constitution? Or do the french now have less rights than muslims? It's all very baffling, at least from a legal perspective. Viewed through the perverse lens of PC world however, it makes perfect sense. Muslims have somehow achieved PC nirvana, ie recognition as an officially protected PC class, right up there with blacks, illegal immigrants and gays. The rest of us must now cater to their every demand, no matter how outrageous. It's the law or what passes for the law these days.
Perhaps you're baffled because there is no problem. No Oklahoma vote nor any other has attempted to apply Sharia law nor has anyone used any legal principles, tenets or precepts of it , nor has anyone tried or attempted to establish any ruling whatsoever from any foreign islamic nation or its culture. There is no case. You're talking emotional rubbish about muslims getting the whip hand when it's no such thing. Oklahoma has been found to have voted against this Sharia nonsense for no reason in law, but apparently even that's enough to get you into an overreaction. Isnât that what they want ?