As usual, another liberal judge is legislating from the bench. The people of Oklahoma overwhelmingly passed Question 755 this past November, which is a State Constitutional Amendment that prohibits the courts from using international law or Sharia law in their decisions. The amendment reads as follows:
"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."
There is a great difference between Sharia, Catholic Canon Law, Hebrew Law and Hammurabi's Code. The Catholic and Judaic Laws are specific and written laws involving their own religious courts, judges and penalties. These laws also recognize the authority of a nation's court upon all people within that nation. Sharia is based upon the writings in the Qu'uran and the teachings of the prophet Mohammed, and subject to extremely broad interpretations. Countries under Sharia Law enforce it upon all people of that country irregardless of their religious affiliations. International law is loosely interpreted to include the laws of any other nation, treaties, pacts and agreements between various nations and/or peoples. Courts in the United States refer purely religious law question to among the specific religion involved (i.e. - Catholic or Hasidim). They by Constitution mandate, cite only Federal, State or Local enacted laws and defer religious cases back to the involved religious court.
For example, a divorce may be granted in an American Civil Court to a spouse and legally recognized. The spouse is therefore eligible to remarry under U.S. law. However, under the spouse's specific religion, the divorce may or may not be religiously recognized or granted. The spouse may not be able to remarry within there original religion, but they are eligible to remarry under another accepting religion and/or an American court/justice of the peace. This is true "Separation of Church and State".
Under Sharia Law, the religion IS the state, there is no separation of one from the other. The interpretation of Sharia Law is as vast and varied as the political ideologue of the ultra conservative as compared to that of the progressive liberal. There are no written unified codes and penalties, structured courts or specified procedures to elect/select judges under Sharia. One Iman will declare Jihad is an inner personal journey of peace and redemption. A different Iman will declare Jihad is a bomb laden vest, promise of Heaven with 20 virgins and the death of any Non-Muslims. Each will claim they are enforcing true Sharia.
Citing international law is equally confusing when one judge may rely on the laws of Spain in a case and a differing judge may cite the laws of Cuba to overturn the previous judges decision. Now, if this doesn't convince you that U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange made a really bad decision with her injunction, consider, she completely ignores Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, the "Supreme Law of the Land" clause. Muneer Anwad and the Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR) in their petition cite the First Amendment, "Prohibiting the free exercise" of religion clause. The logic, is that the amendment creates the impression that Islam is a religion that is a threat to the country.
I say, "What?" No where does the amendment prohibit the free exercise of Islam. It does prohibit the enforcement of Islamic Sharia law within the American court system and upon ordinary citizen of non-Islamic faith. Question 755 re-enforces Article VI of the Constitution. It narrowly specifies Sharia Laws and international laws, which progressives have slowly and insidiously been attempting to use to co-opt the American legal system. It is tacit that freedom of religion exists as long as the exercise of that religion does not cause harm or undue hardship to others. Can that be said of all forms of Sharia Law?