# Oklahoma's Banning of International Law and Its Relation to Business **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 6, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722 "2010-11-06T18:51:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/61 "2010-11-10T20:03:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not sure about this claim. Who would have standing? > [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Someone who set their will up to be adjudicated using sharia law, maybe? Wouldn’t the First Amendment prevent the courts from taking a substantive position on the issue anyway, then? _Presbyterian Church in US v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church_, 393 US 440 (1969): > [@](#): > > Thus, the First Amendment severely circumscribes the role that civil courts may play in resolving church property disputes. It is obvious, however, that not every civil court decision as to property claimed by a religious organization jeopardizes values protected by the First Amendment. Civil courts do not inhibit free exercise of religion merely by opening their doors to disputes involving church property. And there are neutral principles of law, developed for use in all property disputes, which can be applied without “establishing” churches to which property is awarded. But First Amendment values are plainly jeopardized when church property litigation is made to turn on the resolution by civil courts of controversies over religious doctrine and practice. If civil courts undertake to resolve such controversies in order to adjudicate the property dispute, the hazards are ever present of inhibiting the free development of religious doctrine and of implicating secular interests in matters of purely ecclesiastical concern. Because of these hazards, the First Amendment enjoins the employment of organs of government for essentially religious purposes. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/62 "2010-11-10T20:08:06Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Throughout this thread, it has been pretty clear that the rules jeopardized by the recent Oklahoma amendment are those of contract law. I doubt that you will find a case of an Oklahoma driver contracting with a New York driver to have an accidental collision. D’oh! :smack: You’re right, of course. Guess I was thinking back to all those crazy hypotheticals we worked through in my Conflict of Laws class, which often used car accidents involving cars and drivers from a number of jurisdictions. However, the Conflict of Law rules for car accidents don’t work for contracts, as you correctly note. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/63 "2010-11-10T20:22:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not sure about this claim. Who would have standing? Since I am approaching this from the layman’s standpoint, and you are the expert, why don’t you tell me? How does this law pass the Lemon Test? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/64 "2010-11-10T20:36:11Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Throughout this thread, it has been pretty clear that the rules jeopardized by the recent Oklahoma amendment are those of contract law. I doubt that you will find a case of an Oklahoma driver contracting with a New York driver to have an accidental collision. [/QUOTE] Not so, **tomndebb**. Those are the examples that the posters have been giving, but the [Oklahoma International Law Amendment](http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_International_Law_Amendment_(2010),_Constitutional_changes) is much broader and applies to all legal disputes that come within the judicial authority of the courts of Oklahoma, at least to my read: > [@](#): > > B. Subsection C of this section shall be known as the “Save Our State Amendment”. > > C. The Courts provided for in subsection A of this section, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Oklahoma Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia Law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international or Sharia Law. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/65 "2010-11-10T20:48:24Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Since I am approaching this from the layman’s standpoint, and you are the expert, why don’t you tell me? How does this law pass the Lemon Test? Before we can even begin to ask that question, we must first confront the issue of: who can ask the question? Federal courts will not decide an issue unless there is an actual case or controversy associated with it. This is a constitutional requirement. It’s not enough, then, for someone to say, “This law banning all handguns violates the Second Amendment!” He must also be able to say, “I personally tried to buy a gun, as is my Second Amendment right, and was denied.” Note that it’s not enough for him to say, “I want to buy a gun at some point in the future, and I know this law will stop me.” He has to be able to point to an actual injury, some real problem, to give him the _standing_ to sue. In this case, it’s not clear to me who might have standing. Since you said it will be stuck down before it’s ever applied, I asked about standing, since the essence of standing is that it be applied _first_, and then the person who is aggrieved by its application sues. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/66 "2010-11-10T20:49:02Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Not so, **tomndebb**. Those are the examples that the posters have been giving, but the [Oklahoma International Law Amendment](http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_International_Law_Amendment_(2010),_Constitutional_changes) is much broader and applies to all legal disputes that come within the judicial authority of the courts of Oklahoma, at least to my read: The amendment applies to all law. However, the point noted in this thread has been that only contract law is expressly affected by the law, (with a separate point I will address below), since criminal law and most non-contract civil law is already covered under the U.S. Constitution and common law. The separate situation is that the courts are now proscribed from invoking other, outside law in their decisions, (as in the matter of International Law mentioned in this thread or the Ten Commandments mentioned in a separate thread). However, this is not really a change in practice. The references to International Law have been invoked for the purpose of providing context and inspiration for new rulings, but they have never been permitted if they contradicted U.S. or common law. They have merely allowed some judicial commentary on a ruling. This will not really change, (although, just to rile up the bigots that promoted this amendment, I would be delighted to see some sharp lawyer argue that a sentence had to be overthrown because a judge now invoked the Bible while applying the sentence). ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/67 "2010-11-10T20:51:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > [QUOTE=Cisco] > > I can’t see how this passes the Lemon Test. It will be stricken from the books before it is ever applied to one real life situation. Not sure about this claim. Who would have standing? [/QUOTE] Well, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations has obtained a temporary injunction in Federal District Court to prevent the provision from coming into force, so they appear to have convinced a judge that they have at least some claim to standing. State Attorney General appears to be challenging his standing. The Matter will come on for hearing in two weeks’ time: [Judge Puts Hold on Oklahoma Anti-Shariah Amendment](http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2010-11/judge-puts-hold-okla-anti-shariah-amendment). ---
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/68 "2010-11-11T00:28:24Z")
Eugene Volokh on standing: > [@](#): > > Nonetheless, it seems to me that the weight of circuit opinion, and the implications of the Supreme Court’s Valley Forge case, point against standing; and the Catholic League majority was mistaken in trying to distinguish those cases on grounds of the supposed specificity and localism of the condemnation of religion (since those grounds, even if relevant to the substantive question, aren’t relevant to the standing issue). Catholic League is of course binding in the Ninth Circuit, but I suspect that the Tenth Circuit would not follow the view of the Catholic League majority. The suspicion is not a certainty, partly because the Tenth Circuit cases I cite found standing by stressing the need for direct contact, rather than rejecting standing because of the absence of direct contact — it’s possible that the Tenth Circuit would conclude that direct contact is sufficient but not necessary for standing, or adopt the distinction urged by the Catholic League majority. Still, I would think that in the Tenth Circuit the likely result would be no standing in the Oklahoma case. Follow the link for a more complete analysis: > **[Standing to Challenge Laws that Allegedly Endorse or Disapprove of Religion -...](https://volokh.com/2010/11/10/standing-to-challenge-laws-that-allegedly-endorse-or-disapprove-of-religion/)** > > I blogged yesterday about the Oklahoma anti-sharia amendment case, and suggested that the plaintiff may not have the legally sufficient standing to challenge the law. Among other things, I wrote: 1. The plaintiff argues that the amendment is... ---
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2010, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/69 "2010-11-11T00:42:17Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > In terms of private law, though, the sad fact, as you or other Americans may regard it, is that _stare decisis_ rules: like decides like, and one common-law country cannot insulate itself from the decisions of another. A common law country can insulate itself from the decisions of another. Statutory and constitutional law overrules common law decisions. Oklahoma just insulted itself (leaving aside the dumbass Sharia provision that may get the law overturned.) ---
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/70 "2010-11-11T00:52:08Z")
I wonder if there is an argument that the amendment violates the contract clause. The amendment could certainly substantially impair a contractual relationship. Oklahoma does not appear to be remedying a general problems. (Is there any evidence that Oklahoma courts are basing decisions on international or foreign law?) Finally, even if that is a problem, the law does not appear to appear appropriate to purpose since the law is so broad. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2010, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/71 "2010-11-11T06:46:01Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > The USA isn’t a commonwealth country. No disrespect, but if you don’t know the difference between “common law” and “commonwealth” perhaps you ought to learn it before participating further in legal debates. For your own sake. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2010, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/72 "2010-11-11T16:30:38Z")
> [@ruadh](#): > > No disrespect, but if you don’t know the difference between “common law” and “commonwealth” perhaps you ought to learn it before participating further in legal debates. For your own sake. Sorry, while I quoted you and responded to you, i was more actually replying to whoever it was that was talking about Australia and Canada earlier. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2010, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/73 "2010-11-11T19:37:57Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > Sorry, while I quoted you and responded to you, i was more actually replying to whoever it was that was talking about Australia and Canada earlier. It was probably me. Regardless, I’ll say it again: membership in the Commonwealth has nothing to do with common-law decisions and precedents. If you somehow got hung up on the fact that the examples mentioned (Australia and Canada) are members of the Commonwealth, then you can substitute two countries that use a common-law legal system but are not members of the Commonwealth: the USA and the Republic of Ireland. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/74 "2010-11-12T00:11:08Z")
Quoth **Pierrot** : > [@](#): > > Oklahoma just insulted itself Also true, but I think you meant to say “insulated”. ---
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/75 "2010-11-12T01:54:31Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Quoth **Pierrot** :Also true, but I think you meant to say “insulated”. That’s what I get for using swype. ---
**Author:** ![Ionizer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5daacb/32.png) [@Ionizer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ionizer)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/76 "2010-11-22T23:02:45Z")
An update to the situation found [here](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20101122/us-islamic-law-lawsuit/) for those having interest. Looks like Judge wants more time for the complexities (in so many words), so the restraining order is extended until Nov 29. An interesting thing in the article is about the bill’s primary author, former Representative Duncan and how he, in 2007, refused to accept (as a gift) a Koran from an OK Governor’s council (from the article) _explaining that "most Oklahomans do not endorse the idea of killing innocent women and children in the name of ideology_". Anything comment I make on that shit is best left to Pit, but does give a bit of background on mentalities at work (imho). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722.md?page=3)