This is a GQ question but given the subject matter figured better here (mods feel free to move if I guessed wrong).
So, was just reading this short bit and cannot decide if there is really anything to it.
Opinions? Chuckle worthy or more?
I’d say it shoots for being cute and is just dumb. The Ten Commandments are part of our own culture, from the country’s very founding and earlier. Also, they are not laws in this country. It is not illegal to pray to “false” gods, or tell your parents to go to hell. Some of them, we’ve adopted as laws, like Thou Shalt not Kill. But that is justifiable on its own, not because it is a commandment.
Someone needs to rescue the Oklahoma legal system from the threat of international perfidy. I, for one, fear the influence of the **Magna Carta **destroying our legal system as it now stands. It’s apparent that Oklahoma’s has ceased to exist.
Actually, that is the point. It is not “cute,” it is accurate.
Laws against murder are prevalent in all societies, including ours. That means that the Decalogue is irrelevant to any argued case in which we have legislation prohibiting specific acts such as murder or theft. What the law should mean, however, is that if a judge makes a ruling and cites the Decalogue to support any part of his opinion, (supporting blue laws, interpreting prohibitions against adultery in ways that are not clearly denoted in enacted law, insisting that children owe some fealty to parents, etc.), then he is in violation of the new law. As long as the people of Oklahoma are comfortable with that situation, that is fine. To the extent that they actually want their judges to drag in aspects of the Decalogue, they have hamstrung themselves–which those of us who prefer to separate church and state find amusing.
That’s not what my parents said when I was fifteen.
What about English common law? Is that out now?
The actual text of the amendment is:
So the common law is expressly included, and Sharia law is excluded twice (presumably to be on the same side.) I suspect that in practice this amendment will have a negligible effect on the law in Oklahoma: Sharia law would never have been applied in that state, and any international law is likely to come in through federal courts, which are not affected by this nonsense.
Ah, so it’s just a swipe at Islam then? One day, politicians will grow up. Maybe that date will be the 12th of Never.
The Ten Commandments are not part of our criminal code. If a judge tried to cite it in his ruling, it would not stand up to appeal. This new law changes nothing in that respect.
Neither is Sharia law so why explicitly ban it?
Because people are stupid?
I don’t know if the backers of this were really afraid that Sharia law was on the horizon, or if it was a way of getting certain people out to vote.
I find this bit:
The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures.
potentially troubling. As one example, Hadley v. Baxendale is a case every first year law student studies, and is pretty basic to that area of practice.
In some other countries, laws have been passed which allow Muslims to opt for conducting their affairs under Sharia, as long as nothing actually violates the local laws. AFAIK, this is strictly civil law, not criminal, and I’m not sure how or whether this affects the local courts.
In a few high-profile cases, courts, including (exclusively?) the U.S. Supreme Court, have quoted foreign law and/or international law in decisions on matters where precedent is lacking in U.S. law. In such cases, it’s only used as an example of how others have thought about the issue, and not as controlling law. Nonetheless, it caused some uproar.
I suspect that Oklahoma’s new law is a reaction to these developments, with a pinch of xenophobia and a sprinkle of ignorance. (“OK, make that two sprinkles – hell, let’s just dump in the whole box!”)
Our new health care law has a provision that if you can show a historical conscientious objectors status (for lack of a better word…not sure of the actual wording) you can exempt yourself from the mandated insurance purchase. While the law does not single out any particular religion or group Sharia law prohibits the purchase of insurance. So, if you follow Sharia law you can opt out of buying insurance that everyone else has to buy (after jumping through a lot of bureaucratic hoops which I suspect is no simple matter).
The Legislative Bodies in Oklahoma are occasionally overcome by illusions of competence. Bless their hearts, they do mean well.
That’s a bit of stretch although it might be technically true. The person seeking exemption will have to show a history of rejecting insurance and loans. So, no car loans, no car insurance, no home mortgage, etc. I don’t see a lot of people being able to do that. And just to be clear, there is no one version of “Sharia Law”, so it’s incorrect to say “Sharia law prohibits ‘x’”.
Still, the HCR bill is a federal law, not a state law.
It is in the law. How you “prove” such status to the government sufficiently for them to give you a pass I have no idea and am willing to bet it is a pain in the ass.
Complicating the matter is there are ways to get loans and insurance and investments that comport with Sharia law (whatever that means). So, it is not as simple as saying you never had a loan but rather that you never had a loan that was forbidden by your religion.
And yeah, I realize it is a federal law but I think the relationship between what the feds do and what the states do as regards health care is a complex one (i.e. the feds say “X” has to happen but how you do “X” is up to the state). I am not sure where the lines are drawn.
It’s only complex if you want to make it complex. Fed law trumps state law, as long as fed law is constitutional. OK can ban anything they want, but if the feds say they must to “x”, then they must do “x” unless the SCOTUS says otherwise.
There are many states challenging the HCR bill, but it’s not going to go down on the basis of OK banning Sharia law. That’s just silly.
I agree and if I seemed to suggest that I didn’t mean to. I suspect if an OK court ever delivered a decision that rested on this new law it’d promptly be overturned by a higher court.
This OK law is not worth the paper it is written on. It was going to be stillborn before the first vote was cast. Big waste of time, money and effort (except perhaps to get voters to the polls as you mentioned).
Yes, this had to be some huge scare tactic to get out the wing nut vote. I have no doubt that many Americans think there is some conspiracy to adopt Sharia law. I guess that’s what happens when you elect a crypto-Muslim as president.