Saying No to Sharia: Montana To Pass Historic Anti-Foreign Law Legislation
Yay Janna. I'll have to high five her next time I see her.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
If one researches court decisions a case can be built that federal law is foreign to state law, although the fedgov and its media lapdogs will deny it is valid.
Granted, it will take a very courageous state governor and legislation to return the power of self government to the state and the sovereign people.
What struck me about this was a man saying that given the choice of whether to follow US laws or shariah regarding polygamy, he said shariah! He needs a hard boot back to where he came from! He can enjoy 20 wives there if that's what he wants. NOT HERE!
Point of fact: Has anyone else noticed the term "Progressive" is a misnomer? The politics of envy have not change, even a little bit, since William Jennings Bryant first championed the idea of how unfair it is for the rich and middle class to leave the rest behind.
Calling Statists "progressive' just aids the destruction of our language and our civilization.
In the second case I cited, the judge dismissed the case based on the victim's behavior. that is not a proper application of US law
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/32...
I do not know if this fits your bill, but... how far this has actually gone I do not know. It looks like when sharia has been cited for the most part it has been overturned... so far.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/adv...
And...
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/01/...
A google search using the keywords "american court cites sharia" turns out 58,500 results with many similar stories...
Islam is both a religious AND secular code at the same time. It can't exist simultaneously with the Constitution while maintaining equal validity, because BOTH systems claim the right to jurisdiction in a variety of cases. For order to be maintained, all parties within a nation must be beholden to one and only one system of legal governance. I really don't see this being that difficult of an issue to understand.
While I wish that some "Abdul" will come along and "reform" Islam, I'm not holding my breath. I think it will require something spectacularly convincing or outright obliteration to turn them from their ideological course.
I agree that it would be wonderful to see, I just don't see it happening as of the result of internal pressures within the Islamic faith. I'd love to be wrong, however.
And just between us, neither does the book of Revelation.
they can be my guest.... is this not designed to
preclude the use of Sharia law in Montana? -- j
Teh US Constitution is completely consistent with Common law. All state laws must be consistent with US Constitution. I will not discuss what actually happens, just what the law says. There is nothing inconsistent in this bill with the US Constitution. The point of the law is to push back against activist judges who are blatantly ignoring the Constitution. Give an example of an unintended consequence when the law is clear the US Constitution will trump?
You appeal the case anyway.
Confusion in the law set sail a long time ago, aided and abetted by lawyers at every turn.
Contract law and criminal law are completely different matters. Contracts are between two independent parties and the legal system is only being used to arbitrate a dispute wherein "satisfaction" is the outcome. And as you pointed out in the example, both parties are explicitly agreeing on which set of law has jurisdiction in the matter.
Penal law deals with crimes - disputes between the public at large and the acts of individuals who contravene social norms established as law. The key to understand, however, is that the "public" - the "plaintiff" in a criminal case - has already agreed on which legal system holds jurisdiction in criminal matters: that of the US Constitution and where that is expressly barred, the individual State Constitutions. Sharia has no jurisdiction and this law is simply clarifying that.
In contract law, why do the parties go to court? For enforcement - strict performance or monetary satisfaction. But that assumes that the contract itself is enforceable AND that the legal body so petitioned maintains PRIMACY of jurisdiction. If you void either of these two conditions, the court's opinions similarly fail. What this bill establishes is supremacy and primacy of US and State Constitutions, holding ALL others as inferior.
In criminal law, the parties are inherently agreeing that the "law of the land" is precisely that: the law as established by the governing body of those citizens (in this case citizens of the United States residing in Montana) and NOT some foreign entity like the UN or any religious body. It's the reason why Iran ignores UN resolutions mandating it not pursue a nuclear weapons program. Iran views those "laws" or mandates as being inferior to its sovereign laws!
And no, our commercial system does not rely on foreign law to function. Again, contract enforcement is restricted by jurisdiction - US law has no reach outside our borders! All we can do is penalize _other_ activities (preferably of the offending entity) here in the United States as a penalty offset. A US court can not issue an enjoinder of specific performance against a commercial entity outside of the United States - all they can realistically do is incur a monetary penalty to be exacted through import fees, duties, penalties, or other mechanisms so as to render monetary satisfaction in lieu of specific performance. Or general embargos which entice the foreign nation to impose some remediation on the offending business so as to reduce harm on others within its jurisdiction. However, to do so it must embargo future commercial endeavors within the US. If the company stops doing business in the US, enforcement is effectively stymied.
As to whether or not a problem must exist before preemption measures may be undertaken, I would propose the following for consideration: Laws against murder are preemptive in nature so as to dissuade the behavior in the first place. Requiring a murder to take place before putting into place a law against such I think you will agree is not only ridiculous, but would result in a never-ending game of catch-up. To complicate that further, where common law - especially contract law - relies so heavily on precedent, it is very much worth our time to keep such precedents free and clear from the ambiguity and legal chaos resulting from a jurisdictional disagreement, wouldn't you agree?
So regardless of whether the law is reactive or proactive, it addresses the potential for a severe problem which has the potential to undermine sovereignty itself. Even if there were some factor involved that acted as a restraint on trade (which by-the-way I fail to see), I can't see any amount of trade being valuable enough to cede sovereignty over, but apparently we differ in that opinion.
Second, what is the "potential for a severe problem" that we are talking about? Do you really think that any U.S. jurisdiction is on the cusp of adopting Sharia law? What is the evidence supporting that fear? What next, a law forbidding black helicopters and contrails? Seriously, I think the advocates for this law need to show a problem before they promote a "solution" that threatens some unintended negative consequences. Don't you think?
Finally, I think it ironic that on this site we should be arguing about the right of individuals to choose their forum for dispute resolution and the substantive rules by which their dispute would be judged versus the "sovereign" rights of the state governments.
The reason I brought up enforcement in the first place is because in contract law, that's what you are ultimately concerned with. By doing business with a company of another nation, you are already ceding the fact that if you do not sue them in their own country, enforcement of any judgement is going to be dubious. But one thing I thought about last night was the problem that businesses are trying to have it both ways here: they are trying to force their own legal agreements onto a court system that may not be familiar with the laws in play. That sounds to me like the business is creating their own problem and then trying to claim that the judiciary system is responsible!
When you take a case to court, you attempt to influence the venue so as to increase your chances of a preferred outcome, but it isn't an outcome of verdict only, but of verdict AND enforcement that is key. If you as a business ham-string yourself by choosing a venue which is positive but where enforcement is dubious, shouldn't you just acknowledge that up front when dealing with the risk of any potential contract? And what about in instances where the law specifically biases justice in favor of one's own nationality or religion, such as in the case of taqiyyah under Sharia? What about in China where bribes are the modus operandi of business?
Further, why would you want a judge or attorneys adjudicating or arguing a case according to laws they are not familiar with? What about in instances where the laws dictate the jury structure and composition as well as the rules - as in Sharia? To attempt to force these conditions upon an unprepared legal system does not seem wise to me.
I want to give business as much free rein as possible, but I think there must also be reasonable expectations on the business' side. If you want minimal government, that is going to come with the limitations of jurisdiction and enforcement. It can't be both ways.
"Do you really think that any U.S. jurisdiction is on the cusp of adopting Sharia law?"
Yes. England already has a problem (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/...). Canada took the proactive stance Montana is taking (http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/sharia-law...). To say that it is not a danger is naive at best. Again, I go back to the problem of precedent - ESPECIALLY in contract law. It's MUCH better on the legal system to establish good precedent for use than to have muddied waters. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is (I think) a particularly apt metaphor in this instance.
"I think it ironic that on this site..."
Perhaps. I actually see it as of paramount importance. If we are to limit government's role and use the judiciary as our primary mode of dispute resolution via lawsuits, I think it behooves us to make sure the ground rules are stable. That means that we must have control over the rules, ie sovereignty. Businesses engage in business according to the rule "caveat emptor". That they should simultaneously expect security seems a bit two-sided to me.
You seem to think it not "wise" for anyone to choose the substantive law of another forum. In fact it can be very wise if you are familiar with the law in that forum. Also, it eliminates confusion and litigation concerning which forum's substantive law will apply. It also creates uniformity if you are doing business in a number of different jurisdictions. For instance, American Express and Costco have an exclusive agreement regarding use of credit cards at Costco locations. Both companies do business in all states (I think). When disputes arise regarding card/credit use in individual locations the parties find it to their advantage to have a single forum's substantive law applied. Without knowing I'm willing to bet there is a choice of law provision in their agreement. They think it "wise." It should be up to them.
You mention issues like jury composition and rules of procedure. These are procedural rules and cannot be borrowed by a choice of law provision. If venue is proper the rules of the forum control those issues. The choice of law provision only controls substantive law. I apologize if I had not made that clear.
A word on precedent. A statue is not precedent, it is the law itself. Precedent is the doctrine whereby the common law is changed incrementally by court decisions with later decisions rely upon prior ones to fit new factual scenarios. Among other virtues, it allows predictability so that individuals may conform their behavior to the law knowing that it is unlikely to change radically. This statute is potentially disruptive because of its breadth (remember, it is not limited to Sharia law) and threatens existing contractual relationships previously relied upon by many parties. This goes against one of the virtues of law by precedent.
Martian law is influenced by Areophany.
Three cheers for Montana and the others. Next question do they have a recall law?
it was written? -- j
statue on a hill on the east side of the city -- maybe
that's where it was written? -- j
p.s. photo::: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of...
that said if mohamed kills his daughter for doing something that is against the law from where he came (muslim ville) but he did it on USA soil he must be tried under the existing laws of the USA just like charlie brown would be.
There's all sorts of unintended consequences with these laws.
On one hand it is awesome to see states standing up for themselves like MT and AZ.
One the other hand it is unfortunate to see laws have to be struck to guarantee the freedoms we are already supposed to be guaranteed.
makes this trickier than I ever thought. . Argh. -- j
He needed killin' is still a legal defense.
don't go -- scary that we're going that way. -- j
of women, and the severing of limbs or digits for
certain crimes, appear to be the drivers, it would
seem -- so all we need to do is make an exception
of the contract law provisions needed, right? -- j
In the United States, the Catholic Church maintains courts of Roman Catholic Canon Law to hear matters under Canon Law - like Catholic annulment of marriage, disputes between a priest and his bishop, etc. Jews have similar bodies that consider matters in the Jewish faith that are subject to Jewish law -- marriage, divorce, conversion, etc. These courts do not interfere with US law or with the application of US law. They affect only those who agree to be bound by them. Why should Muslims not be afforded the same privilege? A Muslim group in Texas has instituted the first Shariah court in the US, designed to hear matters that, for those who accept the jurisdiction of Shariah law, are subject to Shariah law. I see nothing wrong with that, provided that it be understood that the findings of the court are not enforceable under the law of the place.
attempt to ban it ... appear to be the interpersonal
things like subjugation of women ... contract law
within sharia has not been publicized, has it? -- j
Some state done beat Bama first? Ah dunno.
Please scuz while ah goes ter cling to muh Bible n' muh guns.
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/und...
Here are the fundamental tenets of Sharia:
he Shariah protects these necessities in two ways: firstly by ensuring their establishment and then by preserving them.
Religion: To ensure the establishment of religion, Allah Most High has made belief and worship obligatory. To ensure its preservation, the rulings relating to the obligation of learning and conveying the religion were legislated.
Life: To ensure the preservation of human life, Allah Most high legislated for marriage, healthy eating and living, and forbid the taking of life and laid down punishments for doing so.
Intellect: Allah has permitted that sound intellect and knowledge be promoted, and forbidden that which corrupts or weakens it, such as alcohol and drugs. He has also imposed preventative punishments in order that people stay away from them, because a sound intellect is the basis of the moral responsibility that humans were given.
Lineage: marriage was legislated for the preservation of lineage, and sex outside marriage was forbidden. Punitive laws were put in placed in order to ensure the preservation of lineage and the continuation of human life.
Wealth: Allah has made it obligatory to support oneself and those one is responsible for, and placed laws to regulate the commerce and transactions between people, in order to ensure fair dealing, economic justice, and to prevent oppression and dispute.
Needs and Comforts: Needs and comforts are things people seek in order to ensure a good life, and avoid hardship, even though they are not essential. The spirit of the Shariah with regards to needs and comforts is summed up in the Qur’ān,
People should red and study Sun Tsu and the Art of War.
"Know your enemy and know yourself and you will always be victorious."
Unless you read and understand from their perspective you cannot even begin to fathom the pure EVIL of the basic fundamental COMMANDS within Islam.
People in this country are in for a VERY rude awakening if we fail to protect OUR constitution and OUR laws.
in the news last week -- the fact that the "Qur’ān"
requires that honesty be modulated in order to
achieve the required results. . . the ends justify the
means, in other words. . . that is pure Democrat
ethics, from my experience. -- j
about sharia law. . . and, also, things like the ends
justifying the means -- not contracts, unless my
adversary would like to cut off my thumb because
I grabbed his daughter from the path of a truck,
saving her life. . . and the artificial graciousness
currently being given to Islam gives rise to that fear. -- j
p.s. it seems difficult to tell whether BHO is Shiite
or Christian, most days.......
law countries ... stonings for adultery, e.g.
BHO's religious beliefs tend to guide current
u.s. foreign policy.
I have a Christian friend from whose thumb was
cut off for some strange reason -- mostly that
he is Christian, I believe.
the encroachment of foreign or international law,
on gun ownership as another example, scares
many of us here. -- j
I agree with everything you say here.
"You seem to think..."
I merely pointed out the pitfalls that come from suing in a venue that may not necessarily have final jurisdiction. (FYI - Costco just dumped AmEx and went with Mastercard, but again, this is all US-based. If you want to make your point, you really need to cite an extra-US case.) I do agree that the choice should be up to them, but that they also have the responsibility of going in with their eyes wide open and both parties are benefited by a stable legal environment. If I am a judge and I start citing Nigerian tribal law in a US Court, neither party is going to be very happy with me - unless one is Nigerian.
"You mention..."
There is a reason why the US Constitution mandates a "jury of peers" and the right to confront one's accuser. Those provisions do not necessarily exist in other nations' laws. Sharia itself specifies a certain court makeup (no females) and certain rules (must be at least three witnesses, etc.). While I understand what you are trying to say, it is inconsistent to claim simultaneously that venue is not subject to the rules even when the laws are. It is the entire legal system that must be consistent.
"A word on precedent..."
True, but in contract law, statute is very rarely present to rely on, unlike in criminal law. Almost all contract law is based on precedent - thus the establishment of such should not be taken lightly.
I understand your concern about the potential disruption to existing contract relationships and agree that it is a legitimate concern. However, I weigh it in comparison to the concepts of #1 sovereignty and #2 legal consistency (including precedent) and look at what would be more disruptive: suddenly having to worry about unknown laws being thrown in the mix in a legal preceding, or being locked into a known set of rules. I choose the stability.