Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It does seem that unless he shows he is one of them completely that they will take him down with a trial. Here are all the things he has been doing wrong according to Choudary, the Muslim who will be leading the demonstration at the White House this week. That is, they will demonstrate if someone gets them a permit to do it.
Well, I am not a follower of Mr. Obama's political views. However, as far as a I am concerned I think Hell will freeze if they ever try him. Why? I see it very difficult muslims will ever control our country when they take over the U.S. I do not see the American people ever allowing that. If they do, I believe it will be a good while from now and by that time I will be buried and cozy in my national cemetary grave, take care.
Because its a silly unconstitutional law. This event has nothing to do with the alleged (falsely) spread of Sharia in the US. It's a legal reaction to a stupid and reactionary bill.
Please tell me what is unconstitutional about blocking sharia law from being used instead of our own laws. Perhaps you do not know what this is about so here is more information.
"The Oklahoma International Law Amendment was on the November 2, 2010 general election ballot in the state of Oklahoma as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The measure would require that courts rely on federal or state laws when handing down decisions concerning cases and would prohibit them from using international law or Sharia law when making rulings"
The people of Oklahoma did pass it 70% to 29%. One might argue it is not necessary but then, it was blocked by a Muslim. If Sharia law has zero chance of being used why would a Muslim bother blocking it.
Please tell me what is unconstitutional about blocking sharia law from being used instead of our own laws. Perhaps you do not know what this is about so here is more information.
Separation of powers and the free exercise clause come to mind immediately.
First off, there is no chance of Sharia being used in the way you describe. It's also a really, really bad idea for legislatures to try and tie the hands of the courts in the cases they handle. There are circumstances in which the culture of a party litigant can be relevant (NOT the law per se). This is especially true in family law cases, but can also be relevant in other cases where a litigants subjective views are at issue.
This is nothing new.
Quote:
"The Oklahoma International Law Amendment was on the November 2, 2010 general election ballot in the state of Oklahoma as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The measure would require that courts rely on federal or state laws when handing down decisions concerning cases and would prohibit them from using international law or Sharia law when making rulings"
Which is a violation of the separation of powers. The courts are ALREADY bond by state and federal law, so this whole thing is a straw man argument: a solution in search of a problem.
There is no logical reason to tie the courts' hands further by saying that they cannot look at international law when it is appropriate to do so/
That is NOT the same as adopting Sharia law. All this analysis still happens under our ordinary state and federal laws.
It's pandering to and enabling the fearmongers.
Quote:
The people of Oklahoma did pass it. One might argue it is not necessary but then, it was blocked by a Muslim. If Sharia law has zero chance of being used why would a Muslim bother blocking it.
Majority rules doesn't apply to constitutional issues. It's also irrelevant WHO stopped it.
Please tell me what is unconstitutional about blocking sharia law from being used instead of our own laws. Perhaps you do not know what this is about so here is more information.
"The Oklahoma International Law Amendment was on the November 2, 2010 general election ballot in the state of Oklahoma as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The measure would require that courts rely on federal or state laws when handing down decisions concerning cases and would prohibit them from using international law or Sharia law when making rulings"
The people of Oklahoma did pass it. One might argue it is not necessary but then, it was blocked by a Muslim. If Sharia law has zero chance of being used why would a Muslim bother blocking it.
S already answered your question, did ya miss it. Maybe someone that happened to be a Muslim knew we did not need any more stupid laws based on a ridiculous fear of something that was never going to happen to begin with.
Casper
The people proposing these bills likely know that they are both useless and unconstitutional.
They don't care, they don't expect it to ever fly. It's just political posturing and more fearmongering.
So when the courts strike them down, they can turn to the RWNJ's that they are pandering to and say "See? I tried. But those simpering muslim-loving activist judges screwed me. Vote GOP!"
S already answered your question, did ya miss it. Maybe someone that happened to be a Muslim knew we did not need any more stupid laws based on a ridiculous fear of something that was never going to happen to begin with.
Casper
Yeah...just happened to be Muslim. He also said it was unconstitutional but has yet to explain how. Maybe you would like to explain for him?
I know that 70% (nearly 700,000) of the people of Oklahoma who voted would disagree.
The people proposing these bills likely know that they are both useless and unconstitutional.
They don't care, they don't expect it to ever fly. It's just political posturing and more fearmongering.
So when the courts strike them down, they can turn to the RWNJ's that they are pandering to and say "See? I tried. But those simpering muslim-loving activist judges screwed me. Vote GOP!"
It's theater.
Hmmmm...I see nothing to explain why it would be unconstitutional.
Nearly 700,000 Oklahomans voted yes. It must have been important to them.
"A New Jersey family court judge’s decision not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him is sounding the alarm for advocates of laws designed to ban Shariah in America."
"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."
Hmmmm...I see nothing to explain why it would be unconstitutional.
Telling a judge what laws he can or cannot rely on before one even knows what the facts of the case are is not only stupid, it's a violation of the separation of powers. It violates one of the very BEST things about this country - that we have an independent judiciary.
That these bills are about Sharia law really isn't the point under that analysis. It could be anything else and it would still risk setting a very dangerous precedent that undermines the independence of the courts.
The Free Exercise analysis is a bit more complicated but I can go there if you like.
Quote:
Nearly 700,000 Oklahomans voted yes. It must have been important to them.
Irrelevant. This is a constitutional issue. Every ignorant hillbilly in Okie could want it and it doesn't mean shinola.
That is a misrepresentation of what the judge actually did. Even if correct, it doesn't mean Sharia is taking over. It means one judge in NJ was drunk on duty. And really, couldn't you find a more unbiased source than THAT?
That's why we have appellate courts.
Quote:
"A New Jersey family court judge’s decision not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him is sounding the alarm for advocates of laws designed to ban Shariah in America."
"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."
Nothing to worry about...
No, there isn't. Her lawyer is being the advocate she should be. Don't think for a second she actually believes what she is saying, because that's not her job. Arguing her client's case is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He also said it was unconstitutional but has yet to explain how. Maybe you would like to explain for him?
