OKlahoma voters reject foreign laws

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by scotty

So Christian cults who believe in polygamy and child sex and etc. etc. etc. should be given that right also ?

I believe the KKK bases their beliefs on the bible also, hmmmm.

Naw, that's just the argument I've heard over and over again. Allow the muslims exteme rights or our rights will be taken away.... when in reality, our rights are being taken away and the nut job muslims are gaining acceptance just as fast, if not faster than the homosexual community.

Rights for everyone who is NOT a real christian.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by scotty

So how do they decide which to uphold ? Do you charge the man with assault for beating his wife or let him go because its his religion ?

Considering an appeals court overturned the New Jersey case, I think they have already said that government laws overrule religious laws. The appellate court said that "the husband’s religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, “was mistaken.”"

So, that is not really an issue. Government law trumps religious law, in that case at least. The same would apply to all faiths.

http://mogallant.wordpress.com/2010/...onsensual-sex/

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Yes, the Oklahoman measure that was voted on specifically bans the application of Islamic law and orders judges in the state to rely only on federal law when deciding cases. That is is in direct violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

The 1st amendment separates church from state already, so there was no need for this measure. The fact that is specifically targets Islam makes it unconstitutional.

Actually, Sharia law was used as an example, but technically the bill only pinpoints using "International law" to decide cases. Ergo, the bill itself does not target Islam.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Considering an appeals court overturned the New Jersey case, I think they have already said that government laws overrule religious laws. The appellate court said that "the husband’s religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, “was mistaken.”"

So, that is not really an issue. Government law trumps religious law, in that case at least. The same would apply to all faiths.

http://mogallant.wordpress.com/2010/...onsensual-sex/

Ummm you might argue that the law is unnecessary but surely you are not trying to say it is unconstitutional. It is not unconstitutional to define the laws that a court would use to unless it was contrary to constitutional law.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Ummm you might argue that the law is unnecessary but surely you are not trying to say it is unconstitutional. It is not unconstitutional to define the laws that a court would use to unless it was contrary to constitutional law.

Yes, the Oklahoma law is unconstitutional. It clearly specifies a particular type of religion that it is banning. By doing that it is clearly contrary to constitutional law, namely, the 1st amendment.

Had the law simply banned the application of ANY religious laws in regards to federal or state cases, it would be fine, since it is just elaborating on the 1st amendment. But, you cannot put a redundant law on the books that so clearly goes against another law.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Yes, the Oklahoma law is unconstitutional. It clearly specifies a particular type of religion that it is banning. By doing that it is clearly contrary to constitutional law, namely, the 1st amendment.

Had the law simply banned the application of ANY religious laws in regards to federal or state cases, it would be fine, since it is just elaborating on the 1st amendment. But, you cannot put a redundant law on the books that so clearly goes against another law.

So much for the cannibals that come over and want to snack on kids meals litterally. It is legal in their religion.

Twisp is twisting in the wind again.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Actually, Sharia law was used as an example, but technically the bill only pinpoints using "International law" to decide cases. Ergo, the bill itself does not target Islam.

That is silly. It specifically mentions Sharia law twice on the measure ballot. By specifying a religion, it clearly violates the 1st amendment rule of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...ion_755_(2010)

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Yes, the Oklahoma law is unconstitutional. It clearly specifies a particular type of religion that it is banning. By doing that it is clearly contrary to constitutional law, namely, the 1st amendment.

Had the law simply banned the application of ANY religious laws in regards to federal or state cases, it would be fine, since it is just elaborating on the 1st amendment. But, you cannot put a redundant law on the books that so clearly goes against another law.

What law does it go against?

I can see "redundant", although it never hurts to clarify things. But how is it unconstitutional? It would be like passing a law that says you're not allowed to use the Ten Commandments to prove a case in court! How would THAT be unconstitutional, and how is it different from what happened here?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Yes, the Oklahoma law is unconstitutional. It clearly specifies a particular type of religion that it is banning. By doing that it is clearly contrary to constitutional law, namely, the 1st amendment.

Had the law simply banned the application of ANY religious laws in regards to federal or state cases, it would be fine, since it is just elaborating on the 1st amendment. But, you cannot put a redundant law on the books that so clearly goes against another law.

Your not making sense. If it is redundant then it can't also be unconstitutional. It does not ban religion.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Twisp

That is silly. It specifically mentions Sharia law twice on the measure ballot. By specifying a religion, it clearly violates the 1st amendment rule of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Twisp:

What appeared on the ballot was an explanation for voters. It isn't necessarily the same as what will appear in the books.

Summary of the measure reads:

"A Joint Resolution direction the Secretary of State to refer to the people for their approval or rejection a proposed amendment to Section 1 of Article VII of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma; creating the Save Our State Amendment; requiring the courts of this state to uphold and adhere to the law as provided in federal and state constitutions, established common law, laws, rules and regulations; prohibiting consideration of certain laws; providing ballot title; and directing filing."

It requires that courts rely ONLY on federal and state laws to determine cases.

Please tell me how that is unconstitutional.