PDA

View Full Version : Appeals court upholds block on Oklahoma ban on Sharia law.



Caboose
1/10/2012, 08:47 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/appeals-court-upholds-federal-block-of-oklahoma-ban-on-islamic-law/2012/01/10/gIQAfDAaoP_story.html

Anyone care to explain how this law prevents anyone from practicing Islam?
Interesting that we have been told for the last decade that Sharia law != Islam, and that American Muslims do not want Sharia... yet when Oklahoma passed this measure it was all of a sudden an attack on Islam. So now Sharia law and Islam are the same thing?

From the article:

Awad argued that the ban on Islamic law would likely affect every aspect of his life as well as the execution of his will after his death. The appeals court pointed out that Awad made a “strong showing” of potential harm.

Anyone see any problems with this line of reasoning?
Any takes?

Midtowner
1/10/2012, 10:33 PM
If he wants his estate probated according to Sharia Law and any ambiguities cleared up by a cleric, why the hell do you care?

Caboose
1/10/2012, 10:59 PM
If he wants his estate probated according to Sharia Law and any ambiguities cleared up by a cleric, why the hell do you care?

Which question were you answering? That doesn't seem to be relevant to this case.

okie52
1/10/2012, 11:01 PM
If he wants his estate probated according to Sharia Law and any ambiguities cleared up by a cleric, why the hell do you care?

Don't they have to kill some goats or something? is that cool with the ASPCA ?

Chuck Bao
1/10/2012, 11:24 PM
I just posted in another thread that this referendum was 100% certain of being shot down by the courts. Still some Oklahoma politicians pushed for it and Oklahomans voted for it. Yep, you guessed it - shot down. What a waste of time and money!

Heh! Someone said that "It’s like a law that says we absolutely ban alligators on the South Pole."

Midtowner is right. Why care if some muslim dude wants to base his will on Sharia law? Hopefully, said muslim dude is not so malevolent as to say Sharia law or suck on it and then leave the courts to decide what he actually meant and how to divide his belongings among his heirs. That would be mean.

Caboose
1/10/2012, 11:32 PM
I just posted in another thread that this referendum was 100% certain of being shot down by the courts. Still some Oklahoma politicians pushed for it and Oklahomans voted for it. Yep, you guessed it - shot down. What a waste of time and money!

Heh! Someone said that "It’s like a law that says we absolutely ban alligators on the South Pole."

Midtowner is right. Why care if some muslim dude wants to base his will on Sharia law? Hopefully, said muslim dude is not so malevolent as to say Sharia law or suck on it and then leave the courts to decide what he actually meant and how to divide his belongings among his heirs. That would be mean.

Thats all fine and good, but you havent explained how the measure is unconstitutional... neither did midtowner, or the article.

Chuck Bao
1/11/2012, 12:05 AM
Thats all fine and good, but you havent explained how the measure is unconstitutional... neither did midtowner, or the article.

Well, we didn't because you didn't ask that question before.

It is unconstitutional because that muslim dude wanted his property distributed to his heirs based on Sharia law. Assuming that his daughters decided to contest the will because of some technicality, the Oklahoma court would be barred from considering his intent based on Sharia law.

I also remember some analysts saying that the law would dissaude international companies from relocating to Oklahoma because an international lawsuit (based on international law) couldn't be filed from Oklahoma.

But mostly, it was just a stupid attempt to pander to anti-muslim sentiment in Oklahoma.

Caboose
1/11/2012, 12:08 AM
Well, we didn't because you didn't ask that question before.

It is unconstitutional because that muslim dude wanted his property distributed to his heirs based on Sharia law. Assuming that his daughters decided to contest the will because of some technicality, the Oklahoma court would be barred from considering his intent based on Sharia law.

That isn't unconstitutional. It also is a direct contradiction with what you said on the other thread.


I also remember some analysts saying that the law would dissaude international companies from relocating to Oklahoma because an international lawsuit (based on international law) couldn't be filed from Oklahoma.

That isn't unconstitutional.


But mostly, it was just a stupid attempt to pander to anti-muslim sentiment in Oklahoma.

That isn't unconstitutional.

yermom
1/11/2012, 12:29 AM
they should expand it to Mosaic Law as well

Chuck Bao
1/11/2012, 12:32 AM
Yes, the first two points could be proven unconstitutional under the right circumstances and no I am not going to think up hypotheticals for you. It is just good that this law was shot down before we had such cases.

I just threw the third point out there because I am so disgusted with some Oklahoman politicians.

Caboose
1/11/2012, 12:34 AM
they should expand it to Mosaic Law as well

Isn't it is already?

Chuck Bao
1/11/2012, 12:34 AM
they should expand it to Mosaic Law as well

Ha! The 10 commandments are prominently displayed in stone just outside the Marshall County Courthouse.

Caboose
1/11/2012, 12:38 AM
Yes, the first two points could be proven unconstitutional under the right circumstances and no I am not going to think up hypotheticals for you.

What other circumstances are there other the one currently at hand? Oklahoma passed this measure, is said measure constitutional or not? Why would you need to think up a hypothetical? You have apparently been sure this is unconstitutional for months, while somehow at the same time it has no effect on anything, yet you dont know why? Your take on this seems wildly inconsistent and fishy.

Midtowner
1/11/2012, 12:48 AM
It's been unconstitutional for months and had no effect because a Temporary Restraining Order was granted just about the same time it went into effect.

If you have to ask why it's unconstitutional, then you don't have an effing clue about the Constitution. I'm done wasting my time on folks who can't take the time to educate themselves on fairly simple issues.

Caboose
1/11/2012, 01:02 AM
It's been unconstitutional for months and had no effect because a Temporary Restraining Order was granted just about the same time it went into effect.

That is not at all what Chuck Bao was trying to say. He was saying the law itself wouldnt do anything. You suck at spinning.


If you have to ask why it's unconstitutional, then you don't have an effing clue about the Constitution. I'm done wasting my time on folks who can't take the time to educate themselves on fairly simple issues.

So, there we go. You don't know how it is unconstitutional either.

Its kind of fascinating that in a mere matter of months you have transformed in so many ways into a Jared.

Let me make it more clear, dip****. I am not "asking" why it is unconstitutional. I am flat out telling you that it its not. Phrasing it in the form of a question was just to generate conversation. If you disagree then state your reasoning and stop being such a bitch about it.

Caboose
1/11/2012, 01:04 AM
Double Post

StoopTroup
1/11/2012, 01:35 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMToQg0vSds

Chuck Bao
1/11/2012, 02:39 AM
That is not at all what Chuck Bao was trying to say. He was saying the law itself wouldnt do anything. You suck at spinning.


So, there we go. You don't know how it is unconstitutional either.

Its kind of fascinating that in a mere matter of months you have transformed in so many ways into a Jared.

Let me make it more clear, dip****. I am not "asking" why it is unconstitutional. I am flat out telling you that it its not. Phrasing it in the form of a question was just to generate conversation. If you disagree then state your reasoning and stop being such a bitch about it.

Are you sure you want to be calling people dip****s? Are you sure that you want to tell the judges that ruled on this matter that a stay is not justified? You're right that it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional. That is because a case hasn't been brought against it. Hence no constitutional question has arisen or mentioned in the news articles.

But it would be only a matter of time and there would be. The fact is that Sharia law is religious in nature. When any law has the purpose or effect of either endorsing or noting official disapproval of a religion, it effectively turns practitioners of a particular religion (or non-practitioners of an approved religion) into political outsiders. This is a big no-no according to the constitution and just common sense.

Or let me explain it to you more clearly using what one lawyer mentioned about banning aligators from the South Pole: the penguins are watching the Discovery Channel and find out that aligators are fiercesome beasts and would eat up penguins if given the chance. The penguins vote and decide to ban aligators from the South Pole altogether but the South Pole Constitution clearly states that it is survival of the fittist, regardless of fish, fowl or reptile. Yeah, this is incredibly stupid story to relay an incredibly stupid real story.

Caboose
1/11/2012, 08:13 AM
Are you sure you want to be calling people dip****s?

Yes, I am quite sure that Midtowner is a dip****. If he argues in court the way he argues on the innerwebs he is probably the worst lawyer in the state and it is no wonder he cant afford to provide benefits to his employees.


Are you sure that you want to tell the judges that ruled on this matter that a stay is not justified? Seeing that it isn't unconstitutional, Yes.


You're right that it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional.

I know.


That is because a case hasn't been brought against it. Hence no constitutional question has arisen or mentioned in the news articles.

Yes it has. It was specifically mentioned in the article I posted and in the article you posted on the other thread, not to mention from all of you internet scholars since before the meaure was even passed.


But it would be only a matter of time and there would be.

This is an interesting caveat to your argument. You are declaring this measure to be stupid, a waste of time and money, an indication of the ignorance or bigotry of the people, based solely on the fact that it would be constitutionally challenged. Valid laws are constitutionally challenged all the time. It was obvious that ObamaCare would be constitutionally challenged before it was ever voted for. Yet I dont see you calling lamenting its stupidity, what a waste of time and money it is, and that the Federal government can not be trusted to protect freedom.


The fact is that Sharia law is religious in nature.
So what? That is no more relevant than if Sharia law were based on the back of a Fruity Pebbles box.


When any law has the purpose or effect of either endorsing or noting official disapproval of a religion, it effectively turns practitioners of a particular religion (or non-practitioners of an approved religion) into political outsiders. This is a big no-no according to the constitution and just common sense.

This measure doesnt do that. It says nothing about religion and does nothing to prevent muslims from practicing Islam.



Or let me explain it to you more clearly using what one lawyer mentioned about banning aligators from the South Pole: the penguins are watching the Discovery Channel and find out that aligators are fiercesome beasts and would eat up penguins if given the chance. The penguins vote and decide to ban aligators from the South Pole altogether but the South Pole Constitution clearly states that it is survival of the fittist, regardless of fish, fowl or reptile. Yeah, this is incredibly stupid story to relay an incredibly stupid real story.

Your analogy is not applicable to this issue.
The lawyer's analogy was at least applicable but it completely contradicts what you are saying.
His point is that the law is a redundancy, he even goes so far as to say the constitution already makes Sharia Law illegal:

from your article:

“The Constitution of the United States, and the constitution of every state -- that is 51 constitutions -- already make it illegal to implement Islamic law,” said Feldman.“Just as Jewish law can’t be the law of the United States, and canon law can’t be the law of the United States, shariah law can’t be the law of the United States.”

Then he goes on to say:

“It’s like a law that says we absolutely ban alligators on the South Pole,” he said.

This is what had you hee-hawing because, silly okies, your law has no effect whatsoever! It doesnt actually do anything!

The problem here is that the challengers are simultaneously arguing against the Oklahoma measure on two points that directly contradict each other.

On one hand you (collectively) are saying it is unconstitutional because it discriminates against muslims, impedes people from freely practicing religion - although it does neither of those things. The plaintiff in this case said this measure would affect every aspect of his life, and the court agreed with him that he strongly showed it harms him.

Then on the other hand you (collectively) are arguing that the law is a stupid waste of time because it has no effect, that it is redundant, and that it in fact is already covered in the Constitution itself. Literally, you are saying that the constitution already does what the Oklahoma measure does, but the Oklahoma measure is unconstitutional. How that is even possible remains a unexplained.

How can this measure negatively affect every aspect of the plaintiffs life when it does nothing the Constitution doesn't already do?

Midtowner
1/11/2012, 08:31 AM
Let me make it more clear, dip****. I am not "asking" why it is unconstitutional. I am flat out telling you that it its not. Phrasing it in the form of a question was just to generate conversation. If you disagree then state your reasoning and stop being such a bitch about it.

The 10th Circuit disagrees with you as does just about everyone with a legal education.

From the holding:


The Larson test provides that if a law discriminates among religions, it can survive
only if it is “closely fitted to the furtherance of any compelling interest asserted.” Id. at
255.
11
Strict scrutiny is required when laws discriminate among religions because
“[n]eutral treatment of religions [is] ‘the clearest command of the Establishment
Clause.’” Colorado Christian Univ. v. Weaver, 534 F.3d 1245, 1266 (10th Cir. 2008)
(quoting Larson, 456 U.S. at 244)). “The First Amendment mandates governmental
neutrality between religion and religion . . . . The State may not adopt programs or
practices . . . which aid or oppose any religion . . . . This prohibition is absolute.”
Larson, 456 U.S. at 246 (quotations omitted).

...


To survive strict scrutiny under Larson, Appellants must show (1) a compelling
government interest, and (2) that the amendment is “closely fitted” to that compelling
interest. See id. at 246-47.


Given the lack of evidence of any concrete problem, any harm Appellants seek to
remedy with the proposed amendment is speculative at best and cannot support a
compelling interest.
15
“To sacrifice First Amendment protections for so speculative a
gain is not warranted . . . .” Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Democratic Nat’l Co., 412
U.S. 94, 127 (1973).
Because Appellants have failed to assert a compelling interest, they have failed to
satisfy strict scrutiny. Mr. Awad has therefore made a strong showing that he is likely to
prevail in a trial on the merits.


Nonetheless, we make the following observation about the “close-fit” or
“narrowly tailored” step of strict scrutiny. See Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 333
(2003) (explaining that strict scrutiny’s narrow tailoring requirement measures whether
there is a close fit between the means chosen and the compelling interest). The proposed
amendment goes further than preventing courts from “applying” Sharia law. The
amendment forbids state courts from “considering” those laws. See Aplt. App. Vol. 1 at
168. Even if the state could identify and support a reason to single out and restrict Sharia
law in its courts, the amendment’s complete ban of Sharia law is hardly an exercise of
narrow tailoring. Appellants have not carried their burden to show why the proposed
amendment is “closely fitted” to a compelling interest. See Brown, 131 S. Ct. at 2738
(explaining that the government assumes the burden to demonstrate a restriction “is
narrowly drawn to serve” a compelling interest). Mr. Awad therefore has made a strong
showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits.


Appellants admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing that they did not know
of any instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal
precepts of other nations or cultures. See Awad, 754 F. Supp. 2d at 1308; Aplt. App. 157-
58. Delayed implementation of a measure that does not appear to address any immediate -36-
problem will generally not cause material harm, even if the measure were eventually
found to be constitutional and enforceable.
We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that Mr.
Awad made a strong showing that his threatened injury outweighed any potential harm to
Appellants in granting the injunction. See Awad, 754 F. Supp. 2d at 1308.

So there you have it from the 10th Circuit. Are you saying you have a greater level of expertise than the Judges on the 10th Circuit? I guess you are. Okay, what case law supports your position that the law is constitutional? Try making legal assertions rather than conclusive, sweeping statements of generalities.

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6273.pdf

dwarthog
1/11/2012, 09:39 AM
A question for you legal types.

From the above discourse, it is illegal according to the various Federal and State constitutions to implement Islamic laws.

If I understand the premise of the ruling posted by midtowner, then being able to "consider" sharia law is one of the key issues.

If in the case of "considering" sharia law in the context of the example used above of a will, how is that used to make a judgement which avoids the constitutional limit to actually implementing Islamic law, which was used with the creation of the will?

Midtowner
1/11/2012, 01:02 PM
A question for you legal types.

From the above discourse, it is illegal according to the various Federal and State constitutions to implement Islamic laws.

It would be illegal for the Court to impose any sort of religious law or test or even decide a case because of some religious aspect, be it Shinto, Christian or Islamic.


If I understand the premise of the ruling posted by midtowner, then being able to "consider" sharia law is one of the key issues.

If in the case of "considering" sharia law in the context of the example used above of a will, how is that used to make a judgement which avoids the constitutional limit to actually implementing Islamic law, which was used with the creation of the will?

If the court isn't imposing the law, then unless some other law was violated (e.g., Sharia required an honor killing, that wouldn't be enforceable) or public policy was violated, a court could recognize a choice of laws citing Sharia Law in a contract as being valid and binding. It could even recognize a contract requiring binding arbitration by an Imam, who would use Islamic law to guide his decision, again, so long as that decision didn't violate any other laws or public policy.

An example of the public policy issue is that an antenupital agreement which required the delivery of a dowry before a divorce could be solemnized (as is substantially required by Islamic Law) would be held void because it violated public policy.

An example of how Sharia wouldn't violate public policy would be if someone wanted his estate probated according to Islamic Law, and maybe even had an Islamic scholar appointed as personal representative. That'd probably be okay.

dwarthog
1/11/2012, 01:27 PM
It would be illegal for the Court to impose any sort of religious law or test or even decide a case because of some religious aspect, be it Shinto, Christian or Islamic.



If the court isn't imposing the law, then unless some other law was violated (e.g., Sharia required an honor killing, that wouldn't be enforceable) or public policy was violated, a court could recognize a choice of laws citing Sharia Law in a contract as being valid and binding. It could even recognize a contract requiring binding arbitration by an Imam, who would use Islamic law to guide his decision, again, so long as that decision didn't violate any other laws or public policy.

An example of the public policy issue is that an antenupital agreement which required the delivery of a dowry before a divorce could be solemnized (as is substantially required by Islamic Law) would be held void because it violated public policy.

An example of how Sharia wouldn't violate public policy would be if someone wanted his estate probated according to Islamic Law, and maybe even had an Islamic scholar appointed as personal representative. That'd probably be okay.

Thanks Midtowner.

badger
1/11/2012, 01:44 PM
Since it's football season and since this is a Muslim topic, has anyone ever seen that TLC show "All-American Muslim?"

I watched the end of an episode and one guy talks about what he prayed for during his pilgrimage to Mecca. He said like others he prayed for peace and family and health, but also for the Steelers to win the Super Bowl. They didn't win right after that, so apparently his friends gave him grief. BUT, he said that as there were 4 million taking their pilgrimage with him, God couldn't get to every prayer request right away... and lo and behold, they won the Super Bowl the very next season.

I bring up this story as a reminder that not all Muslims are Jihadists hellbelt on ramming airplanes into federal buildings death to America blah blah. The ones in the Tulsa area are actually quite cool.

Frozen Sooner
1/11/2012, 02:13 PM
Then on the other hand you (collectively) are arguing that the law is a stupid waste of time because it has no effect, that it is redundant, and that it in fact is already covered in the Constitution itself. Literally, you are saying that the constitution already does what the Oklahoma measure does, but the Oklahoma measure is unconstitutional. How that is even possible remains a unexplained.


It has the purpose or effect of singling out a religion for official disapproval, marking practitioners of that religion as political outsiders.

Suggested further reading:

Santa Fe ISD v. Doe
The Memorial and Remonstrance, Madison
McCreary County v. ACLU

As Midtowner ably pointed out, a court would be prohibited from using a religiously-based law as the rule of decision anyhow unless the parties had agreed to be so bound.

There's another part of the law that isn't unconstitutional, but is uncommonly silly: the prohibition against using "international law" as a rule of decision. Suffice it to say that if I'm an international corporation looking to contract with people in Oklahoma, that's going to really make me think about what rule of law will be applied.

okie52
1/11/2012, 03:09 PM
Since it's football season and since this is a Muslim topic, has anyone ever seen that TLC show "All-American Muslim?"

I watched the end of an episode and one guy talks about what he prayed for during his pilgrimage to Mecca. He said like others he prayed for peace and family and health, but also for the Steelers to win the Super Bowl. They didn't win right after that, so apparently his friends gave him grief. BUT, he said that as there were 4 million taking their pilgrimage with him, God couldn't get to every prayer request right away... and lo and behold, they won the Super Bowl the very next season.

I bring up this story as a reminder that not all Muslims are Jihadists hellbelt on ramming airplanes into federal buildings death to America blah blah. The ones in the Tulsa area are actually quite cool.

Oh no. Are you now saying your Tulsa jihadists are better than the OKC jihadists?

Ton Loc
1/11/2012, 03:17 PM
Of all the things to pick a fight about - Why pick something as silly and inconsequential as this?

I'm guessing immigration, ows, obama, and the special needs fight that is the republican primaries isn't good enough anymore. :(

But wait, there's still time, we aren't even to page three yet...

badger
1/11/2012, 03:25 PM
Oh no. Are you now saying your Tulsa jihadists are better than the OKC jihadists?

Oh yeah. Definitely. Tulsa > OKC in all aspects, including jihadists.

okie52
1/11/2012, 03:38 PM
Of all the things to pick a fight about - Why pick something as silly and inconsequential as this?

I'm guessing immigration, ows, obama, and the special needs fight that is the republican primaries isn't good enough anymore. :(

But wait, there's still time, we aren't even to page three yet...

Work on that sense of humor...Ton Loc. It will come to you some day.

okie52
1/11/2012, 03:39 PM
Oh yeah. Definitely. Tulsa > OKC in all aspects, including jihadists.

OKC has the tallest building in OK for the jihadists to take aim at. They'll be leaving Tulsa soon.

badger
1/11/2012, 03:43 PM
OKC has the tallest building in OK for the jihadists to take aim at. They'll be leaving Tulsa soon.

That building isn't even finished yet. What's the point in jihading an empty building? Zzzzzz. They'll stay in Tulsa.

okie52
1/11/2012, 03:48 PM
That building isn't even finished yet. What's the point in jihading an empty building? Zzzzzz. They'll stay in Tulsa.

Starts being occupied in March so the mass exodus from Tulsa will occur soon. That puny Williams center will be an embarrassment for them.

Heck, there's not even a major league team in Tulsa for them to mess with. They may have already moved to OKC.

badger
1/11/2012, 03:49 PM
by the way... SALLY KERN TO THE RESCUE!

Linky (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=336&articleid=20120111_336_0_OKLAHO687647)


Oklahoma City Republican Rep. Sally Kern said Wednesday a bill she introduced last year would prohibit state courts from basing rulings or decisions on foreign laws, but does not target any religion specifically. Her bill passed the House overwhelmingly last year, but was not granted a hearing in the Senate.

okie52
1/11/2012, 03:54 PM
by the way... SALLY KERN TO THE RESCUE!

Linky (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=336&articleid=20120111_336_0_OKLAHO687647)

And Sally Kern is in OKC as is the capital. Tulsa may be vacant soon.

Ton Loc
1/11/2012, 04:02 PM
Work on that sense of humor...Ton Loc. It will come to you some day.

No te entiendo...


by the way... SALLY KERN TO THE RESCUE!

Linky (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=336&articleid=20120111_336_0_OKLAHO687647)

How does she continue to get elected?

badger
1/11/2012, 04:06 PM
And Sally Kern is in OKC as is the capital. Tulsa may be vacant soon.

Sally Kern doesn't work as hard as her male counterparts. Said so herself.

Tulsa > OKC

okie52
1/11/2012, 04:10 PM
Sally Kern doesn't work as hard as her male counterparts. Said so herself.

Tulsa > OKC

And where are they working?

OKC>Tulsa.

Chuck Bao
1/12/2012, 04:52 AM
...The problem here is that the challengers are simultaneously arguing against the Oklahoma measure on two points that directly contradict each other.

On one hand you (collectively) are saying it is unconstitutional because it discriminates against muslims, impedes people from freely practicing religion - although it does neither of those things. The plaintiff in this case said this measure would affect every aspect of his life, and the court agreed with him that he strongly showed it harms him.

Then on the other hand you (collectively) are arguing that the law is a stupid waste of time because it has no effect, that it is redundant, and that it in fact is already covered in the Constitution itself. Literally, you are saying that the constitution already does what the Oklahoma measure does, but the Oklahoma measure is unconstitutional. How that is even possible remains a unexplained.

How can this measure negatively affect every aspect of the plaintiffs life when it does nothing the Constitution doesn't already do?

Dude, it was just a very stupid and wasteful attempt for Oklahoma politicians to pander to anti-muslim sentiment. It wouldn't have any affect BESIDES being struck down by superior courts and making resident muslims feel like they are being specifically targetted against. THAT IS NOT A CONTRADICTION Go stuff yourself if you don't get it.

Tulsa_Fireman
1/12/2012, 10:04 AM
http://888debtline.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/You-Got-Served-I-ve-Been-Sued-by-a-Creditor-What-do-I-do2.gif

Where'd Caboose go?

Ton Loc
1/12/2012, 12:25 PM
Back to the football board. That's where I hide after being ridiculed.

Caboose
1/12/2012, 09:52 PM
It has the purpose or effect of singling out a religion for official disapproval, marking practitioners of that religion as political outsiders.

Except that is doesn't. Sharia Law isn't a religion and the measure applies to all other forms of cultural and foreign laws not to mention that it equally applies to non-Muslims just as much as it applies to Muslims.
The state is forbidden by the fist amendment to make laws that interfere with beliefs and opinions but they can pass laws that prohibit actions provided they are applied equally to all. Challenges against anti-polygamy laws and laws against smoking peyote were shot down on these grounds.


Suggested further reading:

Santa Fe ISD v. Doe
The Memorial and Remonstrance, Madison
McCreary County v. ACLU

As Midtowner ably pointed out, a court would be prohibited from using a religiously-based law as the rule of decision anyhow unless the parties had agreed to be so bound.

OK, that has no bearing on the constitutionality of the Oklahoma measure.


There's another part of the law that isn't unconstitutional, but is uncommonly silly: the prohibition against using "international law" as a rule of decision. Suffice it to say that if I'm an international corporation looking to contract with people in Oklahoma, that's going to really make me think about what rule of law will be applied.

A direct refutation of Chuck Bao's claim that it would have no effect.

Caboose
1/12/2012, 09:55 PM
Dude, it was just a very stupid and wasteful attempt for Oklahoma politicians to pander to anti-muslim sentiment. It wouldn't have any affect BESIDES being struck down by superior courts and making resident muslims feel like they are being specifically targetted against.

Then why does the plaintiff in this case say the measure would affect every aspect of his life, and why does the court agree?
Why are you claiming that the very court you are claiming validates your opinion on this matter is 100% wrong?


THAT IS NOT A CONTRADICTION Go stuff yourself if you don't get it.

THAT IS AS CONTRADICTORY AS ONE CAN GET. Go stuff yourself if you dont get it.

Midtowner
1/12/2012, 10:50 PM
He's back for more.

Again Caboose, give us some meat, not conclusory blabber, not name calling, let's hear some case law or a real live legal argument. i mean this...


OK, that has no bearing on the constitutionality of the Oklahoma measure.

It's just ignorant.


Challenges against anti-polygamy laws and laws against smoking peyote were shot down on these grounds.

And this is why you're just wrong... and you don't even understand why...

Frozen Sooner
1/12/2012, 11:33 PM
Except that is doesn't. Sharia Law isn't a religion and the measure applies to all other forms of cultural and foreign laws not to mention that it equally applies to non-Muslims just as much as it applies to Muslims.
The state is forbidden by the fist amendment to make laws that interfere with beliefs and opinions but they can pass laws that prohibit actions provided they are applied equally to all. Challenges against anti-polygamy laws and laws against smoking peyote were shot down on these grounds.

The law specifically mentions Sharia law, which is part of some forms of the Muslim faith, and its observance is religiously-based.. If the law said the same about Kashrut, it would be just as unconstitutional. You may think "singling out" means something other than it does. The law was obviously intended to ban the faith practices of a particular group.

The peyote challenge was to a "neutral law of general applicability." This is not a neutral law of general applicability: it SPECIFICALLY mentions a part of a specific faith. Further, the peyote case (Oregon v. Smith) and the polygamy case (Reynolds) were Free Exercise cases, not Establishment Clause cases. Different standards involved. The Free Exercise and Establishment clauses are not congruent, as case after case discusses. Beyond that, Reynolds didn't use the standard of neutral law of general applicability: that standard was announced more than 100 years after Reynolds.'

The claim that the ban applies to Muslims as it does non-Muslims is an argument courts reject again and again. "The rich and poor alike are forbidden from sleeping under bridges".


OK, that has no bearing on the constitutionality of the Oklahoma measure.

Other than the fact that the enactment showed animus to a particular faith.


A direct refutation of Chuck Bao's claim that it would have no effect.

I'm not responsible for anything Chuck says, nor he I. I think, though, he was talking about the Sharia part, not the international law part.

Frozen Sooner
1/12/2012, 11:47 PM
To give you an idea where you're going wrong on the neutral law of general applicability standard:

The Oregon case involved two guys smoking peyote. Oregon had enacted a general ban against smoking peyote. The Court held that because the law did not discriminate against members of the American Indian Church, but rather served a legitimate public interest in regulating the sale of hallucinogenic drugs, that it was a neutral law enacted with no animus against AIC members specifically and was generally applicable to the public at large. Thus, the law did not implicate the Free Exercise Clause at all (though some judges disagree and say that it imposes a rational basis standard of review, I and many scholars think that such a law doesn't implicate the Constitution at all.)

The next case to use the standard involved Hialeah, FL enacting a ban against certain specific practices that only a Santerian church practiced. Although the bans did not mention Santeria specifically, they were tailored in such a way that only the practices of the Santerian church were affected. The Court found these weren't neutral laws of general applicability, even though they didn't specifically mention Santeria. Why? Because it was obvious that intent of the city council to forbid the religious practices of Santeria: the ban was motivated by animus to their faith.

Now, again, that's a Free Exercise standard, and not an Establishment Clause standard. However, when you're tossing the Oregon v. Smith standard around, you have to understand that a putatively neutral law that's enacted out of animus to a particular faith (or even group of faiths) isn't going to meet that standard.

olevetonahill
1/13/2012, 02:08 AM
Oh Look aint it great, WE the Frozmid tag team werkin :cat:

Chuck Bao
1/13/2012, 04:27 AM
Oh Look aint it great, WE the Frozmid tag team werkin :cat:

Whatev and whoev, just so long as no religious law is imposed and Oklahoma doesn't look stupid trying it out.

Dale Ellis
1/17/2012, 04:47 PM
How about this, instead of wasting tax payers money on a trial held under Sharia Law, how about we offer to fly the parties to where ever the hell it is they're from that follows Sharia Law, they can then have their trial there under Sharia Law, then if they decide they want to comeback to the US, they can pay their way back, if not, they can stay where the hell they are.

Midtowner
1/17/2012, 04:51 PM
How about this, instead of wasting tax payers money on a trial held under Sharia Law, how about we offer to fly the parties to where ever the hell it is they're from that follows Sharia Law, they can then have their trial there under Sharia Law, then if they decide they want to comeback to the US, they can pay their way back, if not, they can stay where the hell they are.

If you really think that could happen, you haven't read the thread and don't really know what's going on here.

Tulsa_Fireman
1/18/2012, 09:57 AM
Is that a nice way of saying, "shut up, the adults are talking"?

Midtowner
1/18/2012, 01:31 PM
Is that a nice way of saying, "shut up, the adults are talking"?

Pretty much. I don't mind being condescending to those who deserve to be condescended to.

Sooner_Bob
1/20/2012, 01:32 PM
How many other similar laws have been brought forward for approval?

cleller
1/20/2012, 07:15 PM
Appeals Courts and Sharia Law have one thing in common: They can both douse themselves in pig blood and/or some creamy French sauce and jump off a cliff.