Voters ban judges from using international law

Originally posted by Becoming

Then I guess there is no harm in them voting to ban it since it would never be allowed since its already banned from being used.

Sure there is. All the people that spent time working on this were paid by tax paying citizens. The time and effort put into debating, writing up, and passing this was all paid for. People were earning a salary from tax dollars to take part in this completely pointless effort. In a time when the people are supposedly so upset about wasteful spending in government, I see a huge problem with this. Is this what you feel the people we elect to take our money should spend our money working on?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


The problem is that America is still a majority Christian nation or that is what the majority call themselves.

Now I don't see any votes in Islamic countries allowing women under sharia laws to have equality like the men do.

In sharia law a man can divorce a women with a word and take away her children and any financial aid to her, if a man practicing Sharia law try to do that in the US it doesn't apply and that is the reason that many Islamic following men, that practice sharia law wants the US to bend to their practices, actually banning the judges from using international law gives the women marry under Sharia laws power.

reply to post by Curiousisall


Apparently its how the people of Oklahoma wants their tax dollars spent since they voted to ban it.

Unless your a resident of Oklahoma I don't understand your worries on how they decide to spend their state tax money. I don't hear any of them complaining about it.

Originally posted by marg6043
The problem is that America is still a majority Christian nation or that is what the majority call themselves.

I see. So the majority can make laws that discriminate against a minority?

Now I don't see any votes in Islamic countries allowing women under sharia laws to have equality like the men do.

And votes in Islamic countries have WHAT to do the laws in the US?

In sharia law a man can divorce a women with a word and take away her children and any financial aid to her, if a man practicing Sharia law try to do that in the US it doesn't apply

right... it doesn't apply. Us Law is US Law.

... and that is the reason that many Islamic following men, that practice sharia law wants the US to bend to their practices...

It doesn't matter what they want. They MUST follow US law. That's a given. That's already taken care of.

Read aptness' post Here

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic



Actually the "Christian" connotation was mean to be sarcastic.

Is already some states that are using international laws when it comes to issues of marriage within those that are sharia practitioners, actually I posted no long time ago the first ever case of that kind in an America court, the problem with the case was that the judge wanted to bring Sharia and Islamic experts on the court while ignoring the fact that it was an American court.

Many of the people that are foreign Islamic that practice Sharia law, follow their own version of marriage, this means getting in their place of worship and have their religious leader doing what they consider a legal binding.

But they fail to follow up with the US laws.

So when a divorce is issue by mouth, the women have no rights, usually they take the woman back to their country and do the divorce, but lately many of this women are finding that they can appeal to US laws for their benefits.

edit on 5-11-2010 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

Reply to post by aptness

No, there are judges even now, who consult international law instead of local law and the constitution. That is what this was put in place for.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Curiousisall


In Oklahoma law makers only make about $38,400 per year and that is all they get. Their expenses for their office and any staff comes out of that tiny pay so your notion that they wasted precious resources on this law are nonsense. Just thought that bears pointing out.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Exactly, when you have intrusive decisions that underscore the laws already established in the nation it will erode our nations law eventually, Sharia and Islamic laws can not be allowed to compete with Americas laws.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


I haven't heard of this happening. Are there any sources that support this? I would be very interested in reading them. Thanks.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Interesting.

I certainly hope this applies to international trade law. Do you know?

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
No, there are judges even now, who consult international law instead of local law and the constitution. That is what this was put in place for.

Judges also consult international law but not instead of domestic law or the Constitution, they have to, in fact, when they have to rule on a case in which, for whatever reason, questions regarding international law arise — it happens more frequently than most think, especially in contract and tort law cases, now more than ever, in the age of globalization.

The irony here is that this measure you are defending is itself at odds with the Constitution, which I pointed out. The supremacy clause in the Constitution (Article VI) makes it clear that all treaties signed by the United States are part of “the supreme law of the land.” The supremacy clause also makes “the judges in every state” bound to the supreme law. By ignoring international law the Courts in Oklahoma would not be in conformity with the Constitution.

Is your opposition to what I said really about upholding the Constitution?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I found this information that may be able to explain the debate between Sharia law and constitutional law in the US.

Intro to Islamic Family Law in US Courts

Who can deny sharia is creeping in the U.S. when law schools are writing case studies and researching the topic of sharia law in our courts? Below is an abstract of one such research study, the full paper does not appear to be readily available. Hat tip Dave.

American judges have been judging Muslim divorces in state courts for years, creating a body of case law that not only involves Islamic family law doctrines, but also reveals interesting insights about American Muslim marriage practices generally. This article reviews the holdings in some published cases, exploring questions of overlapping jurisdictions (state and religious law), and how enforcement of Islamic contract-based claims such as the mahr (bridal gift) have fared in American courts. The article draws from interviews with lawyers, social workers, and imams who have advised American Muslims negotiating the process of marriage and divorce in the United States. A brief survey of relevant literature, as well as some suggestions for future practice, is interwoven in the presentation.

Most of the clashing between Sharia law and America US laws is when it comes to divorces, as in Islamic law women have not rights, but in US law they do.

creepingsharia.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by marg6043
Most of the clashing between Sharia law and America US laws is when it comes to divorces, as in Islamic law women have not rights, but in US law they do.

That’s because when disputes arise over marriages the general rule to determine the validity of the marriage is a principle called lex loci celebrationis, basically, the law of the place where the marriage is celebrated should be used to determine its validity.

I know people are focusing on Sharia law or marriage disputes of muslims, because, let’s be honest, that’s what concerns them, but the same principle would apply to American citizens married in a foreign country. So what should happen when Oklahomans going to Court and the Court is barred from looking at the law in place where the couple got married?

Of course I am confident it won’t get to that because this measure is unconstitutional on two counts as I’ve previously stated.

reply to post by aptness

The supremacy clause in the Constitution (Article VI) makes it clear that all treaties signed by the United States are part of “the supreme law of the land.” The supremacy clause also makes “the judges in every state” bound to the supreme law. By ignoring international law the Courts in Oklahoma would not be in conformity with the Constitution.

What a tangled web.

...International law under "free" trade agreements stipulate that all laws in all signatory countries MUST be "harmonized" to benefit corporate globalization and to maximize profits, not to appease individual states. No cherry picking allowed.

Enjoy.

reply to post by aptness


That is one of the reason that many of the Islamic foreign sharia law followers goes back to their country of origin to divorce, what the men involved are afraid off, is the power that US courts give to women, their concern is that while they can divorce by mouth in their countries and leave the women without children and any financial aid, here in the US the law favor women.

In other words Islamic men are afraid of the new found power women under sharia laws have in the US.

Has anyone read the actual law that was just passed? It is a very simple law unto itself, very clear cut and the only objectionable thing in it, is the specific mention of Sharia in it. However, the arguments for and against it were also very clear cut, and some of which was not based on fear mongering, rather it was based on what was seen else where in the country, where a court of law did indeed make a ruling based solely on Sharia and international law, rather than the local and federal laws that could apply in the case. Though it was over turned at a higher court, it should have been enough for most people to thing and take a second look, a US court citing and using a religious law to make a ruling in a country where such rulings are considered a violation of the Constitution of the United States. This is one thing to be worried about, and thus the law was conceived and written and voted on.
Now as everyone would agree, that religious law should not apply in the courts, but then why is it that a religious organization, such as CAIR, why would they get involved in this case? After all it does not state that Islam is forbidden, has no restriction on the way that people worship, nothing at all, why get involved in a case that restricts the judges from using what laws as priority first for determining a court case, unless there is another motive behind it, that is not being revealed. It bears that we should watch and pay attention to the arguments that would be presented in that case against this law and see how it pans out.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


You are right, I posted a while back the first case that Sharia law was taken into consideration in an American court.

This is a very slippery slope, as for many years Islamic followers has been trying to do what they did in the UK here in the US to win power.

Islamic law concessions will never find a place in US constitutional laws because the way our laws are written.

I am very sure that the only reason Islam has not won more favors in the US courts is because of that and the citizens that appose to anything competing with our constitution.

reply to post by marg6043

Something for your consideration:

Oklahoma voters on Tuesday approved a measure that bans the application of Islamic law and orders judges in the state to rely only on federal law when deciding cases. State Rep. Rex Duncan, a Republican, was the primary author of the measure, which amends that state constitution. (...)

There has never been a previous case in the state in which Sharia law was applied, said Rick Tepker, the first member of the University of Oklahoma School of Law faculty to try a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Tepker called the passage of the measure "a mess" with implications unknown until a case that challenges it arises.

"Many of us who understand the law are scratching our heads this morning, laughing so we don't cry," he said. "I would like to see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments. Isn't that a precept of another culture and another nation? The result of this is that judges aren't going to know when and how they can look at sources of American law that were international law in origin." (...)

Duncan has said he knew of no precedent in the state's history in which a judge applied Sharia law. But he backed the measure, he told reporters, as a "pre-emptive strike."

This idea that Sharia law has been applied in US courts is misleading, and I suspect it originates, primarily, from the lack of understanding of our courts and laws.

What US courts have done is, whenever there’s a marriage dispute, interpret that marriage contract under the principle I previously alluded to. Courts will enforce these contracts the way they enforce any other arbitration contract. But this happens with every kind of marriage contract, it’s not particular to marriage contracts founded in Islamic principles.

Originally posted by aptness
This idea that Sharia law has been applied in US courts is misleading, and I suspect it originates, primarily, from the lack of understanding of our courts and laws.

That's why I asked for specific examples. Saying that Sharia law is being considered by some judges is one thing, but showing a real-world example is quite different.

And marg, are you trying to say that the citizens of OK voted this measure in for the benefit of the poor Muslim women who are getting divorced in their state? I think NOT! They are casting their vote against Islam, pure and simple. It's just people being led by the nose (using the FEAR that has been planted in their brains since 9/11) to strike out against what they see as the "Islamification of America".

I'm all for the rights of women, you know that, but I don't think striking out against an entire religion is the most effective way to do that. If they want to STOP consideration of any religious law when making decisions, then say THAT. Don't pick out one religion.

As far as International Law, I think aptness has covered that quite nicely. I think this measure is unconstitutional.

What is wrong with people?

This is America. We have our laws, as do other countries. If you don't like it, leave!

Why don't you people go protest mexico and their laws, or how about the middle east.

You won't do that, because myself and others have given you the RIGHT to say what you want.

Those of you who live here seem to enjoy the benefits, but still hate MY country. I don't understand it. Why stay? Oh, because you can.

We allow you to come here, but you try to change what we believe. Why is that?