- Posts: 3444
- Thank you received: 11
That is a good point as well.daisypusher wrote: If I were litigating, I would not frame it as a religion issue (1st amendment) other than for a tactic of distraction. The stronger case can be made for equal protection under the law. Once a specific group is singled out in legislation (unless it is framed to uphold rights - like affirmative action), then that law will most likely be found unconstitutional.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
RenegadeCJ wrote:
Something the Dog Said wrote: The Oklahoma law as passed was:
"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. "
I'm confused....do you support or oppose the OK law? Why is it not ok for voters in a state to make sure an activist judge doesn't decide to ignore US law "because the defendant is Islamic", and lives under different laws?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.