Kansas governor Sam Brownback has signed into law a state measure that would not allow any foreign law to be considered by judges that conflict with the rights that exist under US law, Kansas law, or the US Constitution. Sounds reasonable to me. Nevertheless, the Council on American Islamic Relations promises to challenge it in court saying it is discriminatory against Muslims and Shariah law.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/26/kansas-gov-signs-measure-blocking-islamic-law/
"So you see, Your Honors, any law that limits US law to US law and the US Constitution is in my view unconstitutional."
First of all, Kansas, like other states attempting to pass such laws, knows that they face challenges from CAIR. That is why the Kansas law does not mention Sharia or any other law specifically.
Critics scoff at any notion that the more troubling aspects of Sharia could ever take precedence over the US Constitution, for example, our right of free speech (The hudud part of Sharia contains penalties for blasphemy-death, as well as for apostasy.). Yet, at least two current Supreme Court justices have spoken in favor of considering "international law" or other foreign laws in reaching their decisions. As we speak the 56-member-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference is attempting to get the UN to force all members to enact legislation against so-called "Defamation of Religions". The State Department, specifically Hillary Clinton, is cooperating with the OIC in that endeavor. To what extent we don't know because her meetings with OIC in Istanbul and Washington have been held behind closed doors. In addition, don't forget that in so-called free and democratic Europe, free speech as we know it does not exist-just ask Geert Wilders. In Great Britain, local Muslim communities already have their Sharia courts to deal with civil matters. The camel's nose is under the tent. Radical voices like Anjem Choudary and related groups like Islam4UK, Islam4Belgium and Islam4Holland already feel they have license to demand full Sharia law in those countries.
And they think over the long term, it can also be accomplished here in America. What is interesting to note is that while CAIR is fighting these laws to stop the pro-Sharia movement on the legal front here, they and other organizations like the Islamic Circle of North America are putting on a full court PR drive to sell Sharia to the American public as a benign religious code that is perfectly in harmony with the US Constitution. In many respects it is, but I would invite the reader the examine the portion called hudud, in which punishments are spelled out for "crimes against God". This is where you will find the death penalty for such "crimes" as homosexuality, apostasy, adultery, and blasphemy. Once you become familiar with those aspects of Sharia, you will understand what this is all about.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that many US Muslims are silently applauding efforts like Kansas' to pass such legislation.
3 comments:
Sounds redundant to me.
But it doesn't matter if it IS prejudicial to Sharia. Sharia has no legal standing anyway. So no adherent of Sharia is deprived of anything that would otherwise be available to him/her.
Which is another way of saying that the law is utterly redundant.
Siarlys--I also get behind when postings go back a few days to “older posts”. Will post briefly here re the Clinton subject the other day. I heard one like the Clinton/Jane Fonda one, admittedly a while back, which went something like you can tell when the world is really changing when the world’s best/most famous golfer is black, the world’s best/most famous rapper is white, and Bill Clinton finally went to Vietnam.
And I don’t believe I know the Albright one off the top of my head. Off topic, I do know the (very bad) one about the difference between O.J. Simpson and Christopher Reeve.
On the Kansas law, I am not convinced that it matters if it is in fact redundundant, or that it is necessarily a bad thing. There is a fair, even significant, amount of redundancy in most if not all branches and all levels of government which does not appear to work any extreme hardship, if any at all, on either the country or the people, and it might be good to cover all the bases.
One potential problem area I can see is in the courts, particularly in the life-appointed Federal judiciary. Perhaps you cannot, but I can easily envision U. S. “activist judges” who, in the interests/support of “globalization” and “inclusion“ (and other buzz/weasel words as well), would rule that some of the more egregious elements of Sharia law, at least as far as my inperfect understanding of it goes, were acceptable.
The mere fact that this has not yet happened is no guarantee that it will not at some future date. Call me paranoid if you must, but as Gary noted, and which has not yet been refuted, at least two current Supreme Court justices have spoken in favor of considering "international law" or other foreign laws in reaching their decisions. All you need is three more at most, less that if someone takes a wild header, and there you go, depending on who is doing the nominating/appointing. Perhaps improbable, but most certainly not impossible.
Seems to me this is something like State laws relative to immigration, in that this only adds a little bit of “insurance” to the equation. A Federal law to this effect would probably be even better.
I do think you are paranoid on this one. Paranoia about unlikely events gives an undeserved credence to the ignoramuses who advocate them.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, never a liberal, has indeed said it is appropriate to consult international law, and standards in foreign courts. It should be understood that this is, at best, persuasive authority, not mandatory authority. No judicial opinion is mandatory on the U.S. Supreme Court, except its own precedents, which it can revisit, but must do so explicitly.
The court is bound by the language of the constitution and, when engaged in statutory interpretation of a law that does not violate the constitution, by the intent of the legislative branch in passing the law.
These are distinction justices understand, even if pundits and spokesmen for ICNA do not.
One of Kennedy's first opinions after Reagan nominated him for the court was to argue in support of Allegheny County, PA, sponsoring a prominent creche display in the main lobby of the county building. On that basis, one might think he would be amenable to elevating religious law to some sort of constitutional recognition. But neither he nor Thomas, Scalia or Alito will do that for Islamic law, only, if at all, for Roman Catholic canon law. I am more worried about that possibility, but I think it is very unlikely to happen.
The facile argument that the Kansas law denies "equal protection" to Sharia bears a modest resemblance to the argument that marriage laws deny "equal protection" to same-sex couples. I believe the equal protection argument is a twisted perversion of Fourteenth Amendment language in both cases. But, there are reasons it can't simply be jumped from gay marriage to Sharia.
A same sex couple is not a body of law. It is a private human association. Sharia is not a body of people, to the extent it has any claim to be law, it is a body of laws and jurisprudence. This is not even apples and oranges, but something more like apples and gravel.
The First Amendment says that congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion. The Fourteenth Amendment applies that restriction to the states. Sharia is a body of religious law. Accordingly, it has no status that any court in the USA can accept, rely on, enforce, apply, or consider as modifying legal rights and liabilities established by existing legal codes.
Justices understand these distinctions, even if people objecting to their decisions don't. There are limits to how widely the most activist judge can range to reach a desired result. Sharia having some sort of legal standing is well outside those limits.
Of course ICNA desires for Sharia to be legally enforceable law in the United States. They consider it the only valid basis for human law, anywhere, anytime. But they can't have it here. Too bad. Let them prattle about what their lawyers may file. They can't win.
Post a Comment