Saturday, August 17, 2013

[Victims of Court Corruption] * * * Sharia Law v. U.S. Law * * *

fn:Ron Branson
adr;dom:;;P.O. Box 207;North Hollywood,;CA.;91603
title:National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
note;quoted-printable:Ron Branson=0D=0A=
National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief=0D=0A=

* * *  Sharia Law v. U.S. Law  * * *
By Ron Branson
National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief

There has arisen a fear within this country that Sharia Law, which is the Muslim's authority of law, posses a grave danger to U.S. and the Constitution. To counter the affront of Muslim Sharia Law in America, measures have been instituted among the states to prevent Sharia Law from becoming the law of their state, and declared to be the supreme law of this land.

A February 7, 2012 article of the Wall Street Journal has touched on this issue within the United States under the title of, "States Target Foreign Law." The article is printed in part below:

*   *   *

States Target Foreign Law   ....

State lawmakers across the U.S. have started 2012 with a controversial message to their judges: keep foreign laws out of our courtrooms.

Brett Deering for The Wall Street Journal


Twenty-one states are considering measures that would prohibit judges from applying the laws or legal codes of other nations in a wide variety of cases. Three states—Tennessee, Louisiana and Arizona—recently added versions of such laws to the books, while a fourth—Oklahoma—worked a similar change into its constitution in 2010.

The movement is motivated largely by a handful of organizations that claim Islamic Sharia law and, to a lesser degree, laws of other nations, are creeping into courtrooms and American life, especially in divorces and child-custody disputes. Sharia, loosely defined as a set of moral and religious principles in Islam, is woven into the legal systems of many Muslim nations. ....

*   *   *

This warfare in America is over the potential danger of Sharia Law dominating U.S. laws, which issue has now moved into our courts. As could be expected, the courts are now laying down the law over state legislatures that such laws and constitutional amendments passed by the People barring Sharia Law are unconstitutional.

The arguments made in favor of adopting Sharia Law now prevailing in the courts, is that such laws and constitutional amendments are an unconstitutional the establishment of religion. However, the State of Oklahoma counter 
that such constitutional amendment does not infringe upon anyone’s religious practices. ”It neither favors nor discriminates against any religion,” rather that it is just a law!

The court disagreed with the State of Oklahoma, notwithstanding the fact that it had a 70% approval by the People of the constitutional amendment. Such raises the question, at what point does the will of the People have meaning. For instance, could one judge overthrow the will of 100% of all the People? On this question, everyone is invited to consider our Declaration of Independence, to wit:  "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Further, consider the wording of the Initiative Process of many states, to wit; "All political power is inherent in the People. ... they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require." Calif. Const. Art. II, Sec. I.

Based upon the current decision of a Federal judge this Thursday, August 15, 2013, all judges may now consider the effects of Sharia Law upon any given case here in America. It is obvious that we are headed headlong into a Constitutional challenge between Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution as to which is the supreme law of the this land.

It appears to me that this contention in the courts favoring Sharia Law opens the door for Christian pastors and Churches standing to bring lawsuits that the Bible, as the Word of God, is the higher law, and should rule this country. Such argument would be based upon the very same argument made and ruled on in favor of Sharia Law. Thus, it is unconstitutional for any law or constitutional amendments to discriminate against the Christian doctrine that the Word of God must rule America!

Oklahoma Ban on Sharia Law Unconstitutional, US Judge Rules

An Oklahoma federal judge on Thursday struck down a state constitutional amendment that forbade its courts from considering Islamic law in judicial decisions.

By Jacob Gershman

An Oklahoma federal judge struck down a state constitutional amendment that forbade its courts from considering Islamic law in judicial decisions.

The constitutional amendment — approved by more than 70% of Oklahoma voters in 2010 — was part of a broader national push led by a handful of organizations that claim Islamic Sharia law is creeping into courtrooms. WSJ wrote about the anti-Sharia movement last year.

Because the proposed amendment discriminated among religions, Oklahoma needed to show a compelling state interest to justify it, U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange in Oklahoma City wrote in her decision.

The decision, made on Thursday, largely mirrors an earlier ruling by the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a temporary injunction against the amendment in 2010.

“Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, and for the same reasons set forth by the Tenth Circuit, the Court finds that defendants have failed to assert a compelling state interest and have, therefore, failed to satisfy strict scrutiny,” stated Judge Miles-LaGrange.

Oklahoma argued that the amendment didn’t infringe upon anyone’s religious practices.  ”It neither favors nor discriminates against any religion,” the state claimed.

The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the amendment on behalf of Muneer Awad, executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

In a footnote, the judged noted that state attorneys “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.”

Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota and Tennessee have enacted statutes to keep international laws out of the courtroom, according to Pew Research. Last month, North Carolina lawmakers approved a similar bill as well.

Those bills refer to only “international law,” though lawmakers raised concerns about Sharia in debates surrounding the measures.

Critics of foreign law bans say they’re “anti-Muslim in intent” and are vulnerable to First Amendment challenges.

Supporters of the laws often point to a 2009 case in New Jersey involving a Muslim couple who had moved to the U.S. from Morocco. A trial court didn’t consent to the wife’s request for a restraining order despite finding that her husband had assaulted her because the man believed it was his religious right to have nonconsensual sex with his wife.

After the district court granted an injunction in Oklahoma, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh weighed in, saying he was “no fan of the amendment.” But he questioned whether it was unconstitutional given that judges already may not impose religious law or take sides on religious questions.

“Even without the constitutional amendment… secular courts may not resolve questions that require interpretation of religious doctrine,” Mr. Volokh wrote.


Post a Comment

<< Home