Thoughts on SQ 755?

[Boarder]

This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.

International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.

The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties.

Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.

Shall the proposal be approved?
For the proposal
Yes: __________
Against the proposal
No: __________

What are your feelings on this? I'll be happy to post mine, but I don't want to taint the discussion.

Huh huh, I said taint.

[sooner_born_1960]

I'd be surprised to learn that a state court has ever relied on international of sharia law in deciding a case. But if they have, they ought to cut that out.

[saucysoonergal]

I think it is silly. The Courts in Oklahoma only follow Oklahoma Law and sometimes a little Federal stuff. This is just a knee-jerk reactionary measure. I doubt Sharia law would ever be acceptable in this great state. That being said, the electorate will vote yes.

[JohnnyMack]

I would vote against the proposal.

[Mississippi Sooner]

I'd forgotten how silly Oklahoma's state questions can be sometimes. :rolleyes:

[OUMallen]

I think this is absolutely retarded. I'm against it. Not that OK would hardly EVER rely on international law, but I don't see the inherent problem in relying on it if there's nothing else on which to rely.

Just xenophobic really, since there's no problem existing to my knowledge.



Sure, I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is I'm not. i honestly just feel that America is the best country and all the other countries aren't as good. That used to be called 'patriotism'.

[sooner_born_1960]

But since it made it's way to the ballot, I'd vote "yes", else some dip**** would think they could rely on int/sharia law to decide a case.

[Fraggle145]

Waste of time and money.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I agree with Mark

[Boarder]

Spoiler tags to not taint the discussion...

Supporters
Representative Rex Duncan was the chief author of the bill, and stated that Sharia law was a "cancer" in the United Kingdom because those courts enforced shariah. Duncan stated, "SQ 755 will constitute a pre-emptive strike against Shariah law coming to Oklahoma." Duncan also added, "While Oklahoma is still able to defend itself against this sort of hideous invasion, we should do so."

Representative Lewis Moore co-authored the bill and commented on Sharia law and how it shouldn't be used in court rulings: “I don’t think we should accept or encourage Sharia law in any way, shape or form."

Senator Anthony Sykes co-authored the bill and is on the record as saying, "Shariah law coming to the U.S. is a scary concept. Hopefully the passage of this constitutional amendment will prevent it in Oklahoma."

John Swails, who is the director of the Center for Israel and Middle East Studies at Oral Roberts University, stated the law is "pretty well solidified", however it is different from separate Islamic nations. Swails is for the measure, because "They'll tell you it provides religious freedom, but that's true only if you're a Muslim." Swails also stated that he sees that the law's supporters are beginning a campaign to have the U.S. embrace Sharia.

[Boarder]

Opponents
Saad Mohammed, director of Islamic information for the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, opposes the measure. Mohammed stated that Sharia Law coincides with about 80% of the United States Constitution. This, according to Mohammed, reflects justice and equality for all and that extremists use Sharia in a distorted way. Mohammed claimed, "Sharia is more of a protection than something used to oppress."

Razi Hashmi, executive director of CAIR-Oklahoma, said there are more pressing issues in the state that need more attention from lawmakers instead of this issue. Hashmi countered claims by Rex Duncan that the CAIR wants Sharia Law in the the state and nation. Hashmi claimed, "That’s absolutely absurd. I don’t know anybody who wants Sharia here. Where is he getting that?"

Spokeswoman for the Islamic Society of Tulsa Sandra Rana said that the question is a "non-issue". According to Rana, "I don't know why anyone feels we should spend valuable time and resources on this. There are so many other important issues that need to be addressed."

[sooner_born_1960]

Yes, it's likely as non-issue, and waste of time, but there it is, on the ballot.

[Frozen Sooner]

I refer those who think courts should never look to international law to Federalist No.82 (Hamilton).


The judiciary power of every government looks beyond its own local or municipal laws, and in civil cases lays hold of all subjects of litigation between parties within its jurisdiction, though the causes of dispute are relative to the laws of the most distant part of the globe. Those of Japan, not less than of New York, may furnish the objects of legal discussion to our courts.

However, looking to any religion for a rule of decision is patently idiotic. So far as I'm aware, it's been done once in the United States by a family court judge who was promptly reversed on appeal. This bill is a solution looking for a problem.

[Boarder]

When I first saw this sq, I was amazed such a thing was using the ink of the state election board. I wondered why there was no provision for Oklahoma remaining a sovereign state if ever invaded by Mars.

Then I got angry that voters' time is being wasted on such a thing.

Then I just felt sad that fellow Oklahomans could be so wrapped up in paranoia that they would feel such a measure is necessary.

I'm voting no. I encourage everyone to get a list of all of the state questions and read them before voting. There are some real winners this election.

[saucysoonergal]

The one expanding the Judicial Nominating Commision is silly too. It works fine as is.

[Frozen Sooner]

The one expanding the Judicial Nominating Commision is silly too. It works fine as is.

Does OK work on a limited appointment model? The nominating committee gives a slate of names to the Governor who appoints from the list, then they're subject to a retention vote?

[Mjcpr]

When I first saw this sq, I was amazed such a thing was using the ink of the state election board. I wondered why there was no provision for Oklahoma remaining a sovereign state if ever invaded by Mars.

Then I got angry that voters' time is being wasted on such a thing.

Then I just felt sad that fellow Oklahomans could be so wrapped up in paranoia that they would feel such a measure is necessary.

Sounds like you were an emotional wreck that day.

[sooner_born_1960]

He should have taken a pill or something.

[Boarder]

Does OK work on a limited appointment model? The nominating committee gives a slate of names to the Governor who appoints from the list, then they're subject to a retention vote?
Yes, 3 names.

Since inception, it is an overwhelming majority of governor picks that are the same party as the governor.

Also, the retention rate is 100%, with each year voting varying about 5-6% between the candidates. I am currently working on a project that will claim retention elections are useless shams to give the illusion that the voters are involved. It's very hard to find someone who can name a state judge, past or present.

[Boarder]

Sounds like you were an emotional wreck that day.
It was a very stressful minute.

[saucysoonergal]

Does OK work on a limited appointment model? The nominating committee gives a slate of names to the Governor who appoints from the list, then they're subject to a retention vote?

First notice it given to a vacancy. Applicants have a month to apply. The OSBI does a background check on the Applicants then the passing names go to the commission. The Commission whittles the list down to the top 3 applicants and then it goes to the Governor. The Governor usually interviews the top three and then chooses one.

In cases of Appellate Judges their name appears on the next ballot for retention. For District Court Judges regular election.

[Frozen Sooner]

Yes, 3 names.

Since inception, it is an overwhelming majority of governor picks that are the same party as the governor.

Also, the retention rate is 100%, with each year voting varying about 5-6% between the candidates. I am currently working on a project that will claim retention elections are useless shams to give the illusion that the voters are involved. It's very hard to find someone who can name a state judge, past or present.

I think there's been a couple of studied done on this already that might help. For whatever reason, I think they were discussed in my Crim Pro book.

I'm kind of a fan of the Article III model.

[saucysoonergal]

Here is a link to all 11 of our wacky State Questions on this year's ballot:

http://www.okpress.com/Websites/okpress/Files/Content/1335897/2010StateQuestions.txt

[Mississippi Sooner]

I see that term limits is still a hot topic. Just like it was 20 years ago.

[sooner_born_1960]

Thanks for the link, SSG. As I suspected, I didn't really need to read up on them beforehand. It took me as long as it took to read them, to decide which way to vote.

[Boarder]

YES NO SQ 744: Amount of money the State provides to support common schools.

Unfunded mandate, doesn't address the problem (IMO) of poor school administration, locks OK into a certain amount.

YES NO SQ 746: Voter Identification, Proof of Identity.

No problem with this one. If you read it, you either have to present an id, a voter registration card, or sign an affidavit that you are who you say you are. I thought you had to do this anyway. Pretty sure that there won't be any implanting of id chips or marks of the beast required.

YES NO SQ 747: Limiting terms of office of certain elected officials.

I don't believe in arbitrary term limits. If someone is doing a good job, let them stay.

YES NO SQ 748: Apportionment Commission changing to Bipartisan Commission on Legislative Apportionment.

No problem with this one.

YES NO SQ 750: Initiative and Referendum Designation of signature percentage base.

Extreme cognitive dissonance on this one. On the one hand, it looks reasonable. For instance, in the 1996 presidential elections, there were around 1.2M votes. In the 1998 governor race, there were 800K votes. That's a pretty big difference. This actually seems very reasonable. On the other hand, it was written by Randy Brogdon, who is insane. So, there must be something they are up to. I'll vote yes anyway.

YES NO SQ 751: Providing that the English language is the common and unifying language of Oklahoma.

Says the language of "official actions" must be English or Native American language. Then, it says there is no definition of "official action". Poorly written, unneeded, and seems to be another paranoia move against Mexicans.

YES NO SQ 752: Modifying the composition of the Judicial Nominating Commission.

Works fine as it is.

YES NO SQ 754: Providing the Legislature shall not be required to make expenditures for any function of government using a predetermined formula of any kind or by reference to the expenditure levels of any other state government or any other entity.

Gets rid of 744, if passed. Kind of stupid. And, I'm not thrilled with this line: Thus, under the measure, once adopted, the measure could not be effectively amended. Nor could it be repealed.

YES NO SQ 755: Courts to rely on federal and state laws when deciding cases forbidding courts from looking at international law or Sharia Law.

Ridiculous. A fine example of why Oklahoma is ridiculed across the nation.

YES NO SQ 756: Defines Health Care System

Defines health care system, yes. Then explains that this law will have no effect if supplanted by federal law. So, basically, this does nothing at all, except showboat. Ugh.

YES NO SQ 757: Constitutional Reserve Fund

I don't have a strong opinion on this one, but my gut says no.

[sooner_born_1960]

On 757, is that about saving money as opposed to spending it? If someone asked me if he should save 10% or 15% of his money, I'd say 15%. don't see why I would say any diffeent on the state level.

[saucysoonergal]

On 757, after the last year of furloughs and layoffs, the State sure could have used a bit more in the Rainy Day fund to help overcome the shortfalls.

I say yes on that one and agree with you on the rest Boarder.

[sooner_born_1960]

On 755, I stand by my previous post. It's a silly ballot question, but since they asked... "Yes".

[sooner_born_1960]

On 757, again. Is the Constitutional Reserve Fund the same as the Rainy Day Fund? Usually when we have a state question concerning the Rainy Day Fund, it's identified as such.

[saucysoonergal]

It is the same thing. The Constitutional Reserve Fund is the formal name of the Rainy Day fund.

[Boarder]

Ok, on 757, that 10 or 15% is apparently the maximum that can be put into the fund. As of right now, there can only be 10% put into it, but this would change it to 15%. It's not a mandate that 15% be put into it.

Under this description, I'd change to yes.

[Fugue]

I refer those who think courts should never look to international law to Federalist No.82 (Hamilton).



However, looking to any religion for a rule of decision is patently idiotic. So far as I'm aware, it's been done once in the United States by a family court judge who was promptly reversed on appeal. This bill is a solution looking for a problem.

It wasn't just a run of the mill family court case.

"Defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her "this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do."

In considering the woman's plea for a restraining order after the couple divorced, Charles ruled in June 2009 that a preponderance of the evidence showed the defendant had harassed and assaulted her, but "The court believes that [defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

[Fugue]

well, maybe in NJ that is run of the mill. :texan:

I agree with you all that it is untimely at best and silly at worst but I would still vote for it.

[Boarder]

It looks to me like that judge would have ruled the same whether or not such a law as SQ755 was in effect. It would be the man's religious beliefs in question, rather than strict Sharia law.

And, in either case, it would be promptly overturned on appeal.

[Frozen Sooner]

It wasn't just a run of the mill family court case.

"Defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her "this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do."

In considering the woman's plea for a restraining order after the couple divorced, Charles ruled in June 2009 that a preponderance of the evidence showed the defendant had harassed and assaulted her, but "The court believes that [defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

I didn't claim that it was, simply that it was a decision of a family court judge that was promptly reversed. It's universally recognized it was a horrible decision by a guy not very high on the judicial food chain.

[Fugue]

It's clearly Sharia law and just because an appellate court will overturn it for me doesn't make it acceptable to me in the first ruling.

[Fugue]

Maybe the better question then is how many of you think that Sharia law should be considered in our courts?

[sooner_born_1960]

Any courts worldwide? Don't care about any courts outside the US.

[Pricetag]

On 755, I stand by my previous post. It's a silly ballot question, but since they asked... "Yes".
They need to add a "GTFO" option in addition to yes and no.

[Frozen Sooner]

It's clearly Sharia law and just because an appellate court will overturn it for me doesn't make it acceptable to me in the first ruling.


Maybe the better question then is how many of you think that Sharia law should be considered in our courts?

The fact that there's a statute proclaiming a rule of decision doesn't mean that a trial court won't still get it wrong from time to time and be overturned on appeal. Again, we all recognize that the judge was wrong to use the rule of decision he did. That's what appellate courts are for, to correct incorrect application of the law by trial courts. My objection to the SQ isn't that courts SHOULD apply Sharia law, it's that it's unnecessary.

[saucysoonergal]

After 200+ years of applying Statutory and Common Law. I don't see any State Court co-opting Sharia law.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

After 200+ years of applying Statutory and Common Law. I don't see any State Court co-opting Sharia law.

That's hawt

[Boarder]

What about Voodoo law? longhorn law? Fleep Flop and the Flibbideedoo law?

We better safeguard against those, too.

[Fugue]

The fact that there's a statute proclaiming a rule of decision doesn't mean that a trial court won't still get it wrong from time to time and be overturned on appeal. Again, we all recognize that the judge was wrong to use the rule of decision he did. That's what appellate courts are for, to correct incorrect application of the law by trial courts. My objection to the SQ isn't that courts SHOULD apply Sharia law, it's that it's unnecessary.

In my opinion, this isn't your average "getting it wrong" and I can see how it might give people cause for concern.

[Fugue]

What about Voodoo law? longhorn law? Fleep Flop and the Flibbideedoo law?

We better safeguard against those, too.

If any of those give men a pass for raping their wives then I agree.

[Fugue]

:les: VOTE YES!

:D

[Pricetag]

What about Voodoo law? longhorn law? Fleep Flop and the Flibbideedoo law?

We better safeguard against those, too.
Don't forget about "I am the law."

http://cabonauts.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/judge_dredd.jpg

[Frozen Sooner]

In my opinion, this isn't your average "getting it wrong" and I can see how it might give people cause for concern.

The solution is sanctioning the judge, not passing a knee-jerk law. The process already in place worked.

[Fugue]

The fact that it got far enough for that a judge even considered it is troubling for me and I have no problem with this measure..

[Howzit]

Since I don't live in Oklahoma I don't have a say.

BUT, I've heard the argument about sharia law conforming to 80% of the US constitution used in other debates. I don't know the 20% to which it does not conform, but that seems like a sizeable chunk to me.

I mean, seriously? Only 20% of the constitution not conformed to is argument to not be concerned about sharia law in the US?

[Mjcpr]

Since I don't live in Oklahoma I don't have a say.

BUT, I've heard the argument about sharia law conforming to 80% of the US constitution used in other debates. I don't know the 20% to which it does not conform, but that seems like a sizeable chunk to me.

I mean, seriously? Only 20% of the constitution not conformed to is argument to not be concerned about sharia law in the US?

I don't get it. :confused:

[Fugue]

Pat wants to be stoned.

[Mjcpr]

Since I don't live in Oklahoma I don't have a say.

BUT, I've heard the argument about sharia law conforming to 80% of the US constitution used in other debates. I don't know the 20% to which it does not conform, but that seems like a sizeable chunk to me.

I mean, seriously? Only 20% of the constitution not conformed to is argument to not be concerned about sharia law in the US?


I don't get it. :confused:

Oh wait, 'sizeable chunk'.

hahahahaahahahahahaah :D

[MR2-Sooner86]

Sharia law is ****ed up five ways to the weekend but I'll be long dead in the cold ground before there are enough Muslims in Oklahoma raising hell the way they do in Europe over it.

[OUMallen]

It's clearly Sharia law and just because an appellate court will overturn it for me doesn't make it acceptable to me in the first ruling.

Oh, sorry you're unimpressed with an imperfect judge.

That was a judge terrified of violating the First Amendment. Not a judge that enjoyed forced secks.

[OUMallen]

The fact that it got far enough for that a judge even considered it is troubling for me and I have no problem with this measure..

Extreme fact patterns make for bad caselaw.


Back away from the ledge, man. It's going to be OK.

[Fugue]

Oh, sorry you're unimpressed with an imperfect judge.

That was a judge terrified of violating the First Amendment. Not a judge that enjoyed forced secks.

that may be the dumbest thing I've ever read

[Mjcpr]

that may be the dumbest thing I've ever read

Do you have Howzit on ignore? :confused:

[Fugue]

:D

[RacerX]

DAMN IT BOARDER!!!!

What about Mars?!?!?!?!?!

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I can't believe you guys are ignoring Murphy's Law

[sooner_born_1960]

I would vote that judges be required to consider Murphy's and Moore's law.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Maybe even Jude Law

[GKeeper316]

or LAS' girlfriend, Katrina Law

[Howzit]

I agree with Howzit.