used by judges to decide cases. Not only Sharia law but also the judges are not (were not, according to OK lege and voters) to consider international law in making rulings.
Some unintended things would come of that in my opinion, with impacts to businesses (who do business internationally), other religious precepts that are respected in arbitration and civil areas, and Native American rights ("legal precepts of other nations and cultures") that do not offend law. By the definition, it could be said that the Ten Commandments (voted to be posted on OK state grounds otherwise) and English Common Law are outters.
So this may be what Muslims and Native Americans (and Jewish and international business and some other people and practices) have in common in Oklahoma. Now you might wonder how this (would have) impacts us (water, rights, Texas, etc.). It does (if they get the measure back on, as some are hoping). Maybe more about that later.
The Oklahoma law (State Question 755, passed by 70%, but stopped before certification) has a permanent injunction, the last I heard or read. At least seven other states (mostly Southern plus Utah) have proposed laws similar and two more have some limited regarding outside law. And Newt wants it to go federal.
It (that amendment put up in Oklahoma by representatives and passed by voters but stopped by courts) is not constitutional.
Unless what a lot of pretend conservatives want to do is accomplished and that is to change the parts of the constitution that get in the way (like the Bill of Rights, Establishment Clause).
On the other hand, those who scoff at the worries of many who wanted such an amendment, or who thought they did, badly constructed, short sighted, unconstitutional as it may have been, are too quick to dismiss and mock every concern behind it (such as U.S. sovereignty, rule of law, keeping government out of religion ((well maybe not that one)), domestic terrorism, violence against women and girls justified through religion).
(Maps may be clicked to enlarge for improved viewing)
Some unintended things would come of that in my opinion, with impacts to businesses (who do business internationally), other religious precepts that are respected in arbitration and civil areas, and Native American rights ("legal precepts of other nations and cultures") that do not offend law. By the definition, it could be said that the Ten Commandments (voted to be posted on OK state grounds otherwise) and English Common Law are outters.
So this may be what Muslims and Native Americans (and Jewish and international business and some other people and practices) have in common in Oklahoma. Now you might wonder how this (would have) impacts us (water, rights, Texas, etc.). It does (if they get the measure back on, as some are hoping). Maybe more about that later.
The Oklahoma law (State Question 755, passed by 70%, but stopped before certification) has a permanent injunction, the last I heard or read. At least seven other states (mostly Southern plus Utah) have proposed laws similar and two more have some limited regarding outside law. And Newt wants it to go federal.
It (that amendment put up in Oklahoma by representatives and passed by voters but stopped by courts) is not constitutional.
Unless what a lot of pretend conservatives want to do is accomplished and that is to change the parts of the constitution that get in the way (like the Bill of Rights, Establishment Clause).
On the other hand, those who scoff at the worries of many who wanted such an amendment, or who thought they did, badly constructed, short sighted, unconstitutional as it may have been, are too quick to dismiss and mock every concern behind it (such as U.S. sovereignty, rule of law, keeping government out of religion ((well maybe not that one)), domestic terrorism, violence against women and girls justified through religion).
(Maps may be clicked to enlarge for improved viewing)
