I guess it's time for a review.
The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 1 states that ALL legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.
Section 7 of the same Article states "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it."
Section 8 of Article I says that THE CONGRESS shall have the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Article III, Section 2 says "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."
The Oklahoma State Legislature passed a Constitutional Amendment, which went on the ballot on 2 Nov and was agreed to by 70% of the Oklahomans that voted, outlawing Sharia Law in the state of Oklahoma. Two days late CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) filed a lawsuit in Federal court to overturn this amendment as unconstitutional. That's where Constitutional Law 101 comes into play. Ignoring everything I mentioned from the US Constitution, US District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange ruled AGAINST the people of Oklahoma.
It is my opinion that Judge Miles-LaGrange did not have the authority to make this ruling as US Constitution Article III Section 2 says the US Supreme Court is the court of original jurisdiction, not the US District Court. Also, as in other sections of the Constitution, if Sharia Law isn't passed by the House and the Senate and approved by the President, than under the US Constitution it IS NOT LAW.
The Oklahoma Constitution says that the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. To ammend the State Constitution, 51% of the State Delegates, 51% of the State Senate, and 51% of the voters in the state must approve the amendment. In a Nation of We the People, who is Judge Miles-LaGrange to rule against the people. She is a prime example of why We the People need to be able to terminate the employment of Federal Judges under Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution, which says "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..." She has not demonstrated good behavior.
Sharia Law is defined as "Muslim or Islamic law, both civil and criminal justice as well as regulating individual conduct both personal and moral." (http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/ShariaLaw.aspx) But Seth Freed Wessler, a researcher at the Applied Research Center in New York, in his blog, (http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/11/whack_job_battle_against_sharia_in_oklahoma.html) refers to Sharia Law as International Law. However, he's an idiot!
According to "duhaime.org", So thorough is the integration of the justice system and Church under Sharia law that Sharia courts are essentially religious courts; judges are usually local church (Mosque) officials. What happened to US separation of church and state?
Additionally, the web site states:
"In Sharia law, it is forbidden for post-pubescent women to expose their faces in public.
The use of alcohol and the consumption of pork are prohibited.
Because the governments are often theocratic, any criticism of the government is taken as blasphemy, for which the Sharia prescribes prison or death.
Sharia law is often taken to task by common law or civil law jurisdictions for the perceived cruelty and gender-bias of its content.
For example, this extract from a 2006 article published in the international law review of Loyola Law School at Los Angeles:
'In 2002, a Nigerian Sharia court sentenced Amina Lawal to be stoned to death for having a child out of wedlock; in contrast, the man named as the father denied responsibility, and as a result, the court dropped charges against him.
In another case, teenager Bariya Magazu asserted that she was raped by three men and became pregnant as a result. Because she had sex outside of marriage, a Sharia court sentenced her to one hundred lashes, even though seven people corroborated her story. The men accused of the rape received no punishment.
The extreme bias against women is apparent in sentences of adultery or fornication under Sharia. A woman is convicted simply by becoming pregnant, but a man is not condemned unless four people can testify that they witnessed the normally private acts of adultery or fornication.
Countries such as Nigeria impose flogging, stoning, or severing off a hand ... all of which are deterrent punishments for serious crimes mentioned in the (Koran).'
Some other common features of Sharia law, some taken from the Koran, some from subsequent legal texts:
•While in public, women must cover their faces with a Hijab. (In the case of Nancy Pelosi, this would be a good thing.)
•Men can have up to four wives and can divorce (called talaq) at their option. If they do not divorce their first wife but just abandon her, she is obliged to carry on as a married woman and cannot seek out another spouse without risking the traditional punishment for adultery: stoning. Stoning is done in public by first wrapping a person in a blanket and burying them in a deep hole exposing their head and the population gathered around is invited to throw large stones at the adulterer, the size of which Sharia law prescribes, and a sentence always fatal.
•The penalty after a fourth conviction of a homosexual act is death. (So much for "don't ask, don't tell".)
•Adoption is not allowed. Adults can become guardians of the children of others but not the legal parents through adoption.
•Sharia law prohibits dating and marriage between a Muslim and a non-Muslim and it is practically impossible for a Muslim (even a recent convert) to renounce the Muslim faith.
•Any abandonment of the Muslim faith is itself a serious crime (apostasy) with severe punishment.
•Sharia law has a stringent evidentiary requirement for eye witnesses, preferably from men. Convictions for crimes cannot be based on circumstantial evidence alone.
•Vagrancy can carry tough penalties such as jail and caning.
•Generally, a person alleged to have violated Sharia laws in the states governed by them would not be pursued, or apprehended, in states not governed by Sharia laws.
•Many states which implement Sharia law have blasphemy statutes which punishes by prison or death any person who such as preaching Christianity or the distribution of Christian items. (President Obama would probably like this.)
If any portion of the United States allows Sharia Law, that would be a slap in the face to every American. However, if the courts say that Sharia Law may be applied to Muslims in the United States, than as a Christian, I want to repudiate secular law and be judged only by the New Testament.
God Bless Oklahoma.
Gunner Sends
No comments:
Post a Comment