It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by CynicalWabbit
How will the american public react when under "Sharia law" a woman is convicted of adultery and is sentenced to death by stoning
Or when under "Sharia law" that someone is publicly beheaded
NO - - how will those who believe in Sharia Law react to a decision made by Sharia Law.
Stoning is NOT legal by US law - - therefore is NOT legal under Sharia Law in the US.
Geeze - - this is getting annoying.l
Originally posted by CynicalWabbit
reply to post by Annee
Are you an attorney or a judge ?
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by circuitsports
Sharia Law and English Common Law can't coexist
They are NOT coexisting.
How do you get this across to someone?
Originally posted by Aeons
Precedent. That's why it matters. It creates precedent.
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by Aeons
Precedent. That's why it matters. It creates precedent.
Again. Amish and some Jewish sects have had their own laws for years.
They have not affected US law.
What precedent?
You are very creative.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
First of all, HERE is why this is unconstitutional.
The amendment was discriminatory. It calls out a particular religion and discriminates. It's pretty clear.
On 70% of the people voting for this, read my signature link. This is EXACTLY why I don't want Ron Paul to become president. He has a states rights mentality that would leave too many issues to the states and the majority in that state could pass laws to oppress the minority.
Would you be in favor of a state voting to USE Sharia law? What if Michigan voted and 60% of them voted to use Sharia Law instead of Christian Law... Are you going to support that majority? What if your state did it?
Originally posted by CynicalWabbit
reply to post by Annee
No and since you are not a lawmaker how do you know how the law would be written or perceived by the courts.
Originally posted by Aeons
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by spinalremain
This is Oklahoma Muslims being able to address their sacred laws in a court of law. How will it negatively affect non Muslims?
It won't.
But those Blue laws sure affect everyone that is not Christian.
Those laws don't exist, and where they are still on the books they are not enforced making them moot. A red-herring and a political gambit for you to defend your pet dark horse.
How do you manage to defend gays and women's rights in one sentence and the next defend a system of laws that honours neither?
Consistency. You could at least try for it.
Originally posted by Aeons
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by Aeons
Precedent. That's why it matters. It creates precedent.
Again. Amish and some Jewish sects have had their own laws for years.
They have not affected US law.
What precedent?
You are very creative.
I can't beat being down right delusional, creative to get through to the delusional is about all I've got.
Originally posted by Tgautier13
You misunderstand the Constitution.
Second of all, the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
In fact, your hypothetical "what if your state voted to adopt Sharia Law?" question is about as far-fetched and ridiculous of a presumption as that question asked last week during the GOP debates; "What if states moved to ban contraceptives?" Its an absurd, illegal notion and would never gain serious traction.
– Bans: The most high-profile state-level abortion debate of 2011 took place in Mississippi, where voters rejected the ballot initiative that would have legally defined a human embryo as a person “from the moment of fertilization,” setting the stage to ban all abortions and, potentially, most hormonal contraceptive methods in the state.
...
Nine states also passed laws making it harder to avoid pregnancy in the first place.