Sharia law: A threat to our Constitution, yes or no?

[tailfins]

Civil law still follows the laws of the United States. Otherwise, we could have couples choosing to have their disputes by other countries laws should they choose to. Certainly they can agree to place whatever they want within contracts, but the contracts must pass muster based on US law. Similar to companies who put all kinds of crap in non-compete contracts, of which the majority are found to be null and void as they don't stand within the law. They can place Shariah in there, but no court in the land should uphold it as it wouldn't be within US law. Civil or criminal, law is law, and in the USA it should and must be US law.

I like the way Georgia has handled that. The small claims limit is $15,000 and you can sue for restraint of trade if a company tries to short circuit your livelihood with enforcement of an illegal non-compete.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You forgot "sand niggers". You may as well go all the way.

I did not forget, I do not use that term but obviously you do. Have fun with it. Just put the broad brush down and clean your own dirty hands.-Tyr

[Missileman]

Civil law still follows the laws of the United States. Otherwise, we could have couples choosing to have their disputes by other countries laws should they choose to. Certainly they can agree to place whatever they want within contracts, but the contracts must pass muster based on US law. Similar to companies who put all kinds of crap in non-compete contracts, of which the majority are found to be null and void as they don't stand within the law. They can place Shariah in there, but no court in the land should uphold it as it wouldn't be within US law. Civil or criminal, law is law, and in the USA it should and must be US law.

Not so fast! Did a little more digging.

http://www.volokh.com/archives/archi...08_02_09.shtml

American courts are governed by American law, but American law has long provided that parties to contracts can provide for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (such as arbitration). American law has likewise long provided that some contractual disputes would be resolved with reference to foreign law, especially when the law is expressly provided for by the contract. It doesn't matter whether the arbitration or the foreign law is secular or religious -- secular and religious rules are treated basically equally, on the principle that the parties' contractual choices should be honored unless some extraordinary circumstance makes it unfair to do so.

[jimnyc]

Not so fast! Did a little more digging.

http://www.volokh.com/archives/archi...08_02_09.shtml

American courts are governed by American law, but American law has long provided that parties to contracts can provide for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (such as arbitration). American law has likewise long provided that some contractual disputes would be resolved with reference to foreign law, especially when the law is expressly provided for by the contract. It doesn't matter whether the arbitration or the foreign law is secular or religious -- secular and religious rules are treated basically equally, on the principle that the parties' contractual choices should be honored unless some extraordinary circumstance makes it unfair to do so.

First off, arbitration is generally outside of the law, and only an idiot would agree to such a circumstance, but let's look at the entire writing that you didn't provide:

And of course the application of Sharia law was indeed a perfectly normal matter. American courts are governed by American law, but American law has long provided that parties to contracts can provide for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (such as arbitration). American law has likewise long provided that some contractual disputes would be resolved with reference to foreign law, especially when the law is expressly provided for by the contract. It doesn't matter whether the arbitration or the foreign law is secular or religious -- secular and religious rules are treated basically equally, on the principle that the parties' contractual choices should be honored unless some extraordinary circumstance makes it unfair to do so.

One could argue that American courts shouldn't be able to apply religious rules because of concerns about excessive entanglement of the government and religion. But even if that's so in some situations, it wouldn't apply when a court is merely asked to confirm an arbitration award rather than to applying the religious rules in the first instance, and it also wouldn't apply when the religious rules are part of the law of a foreign country (such as Saudi Arabia).

Now maybe Sharia law is more likely to be unfair than other systems in certain circumstances; and doubtless some people feel strong social pressure to enter into contracts endorsed by their cultural group. But people feel various kinds of pressure to enter into various kinds of contracts. American law usually enforces the contracts despite talk of pressure and unfairness. There are exceptions, but they are indeed exceptions, and the rule is enforcing contracts. Yet the skies haven't fallen, nor do they seem likely to fall even if more contracts end up being arbitrated or otherwise evaluated under Sharia law.

So it is so in some situations, but wouldn't apply when a court is merely asked to confirm an arbitration...

But anyway, so you are arguing that you think Shariah Law being injected into American courts should be acceptable? Even if used as regular law in the past, do YOU believe this should continue and at times Shariah should outweigh American law? Maybe it has been used before, and I know that, as I have already provided examples myself - but my argument is that it SHOULDN'T be used, as it simply isn't American law. I'll also argue that Oklahoma, and a few other places that discussed it, are on the right path when they say they would like to ban any attempt to use Shariah Law in our justice system.

Lastly, if we do allow foreign law, or religious law, into our courts, then why would we ban local religious law? What if Christians, Jews and other religions would like contracts, arbitrations, domestic disputes and such decided based on what their religious texts favor? I find it ridiculous that ANY religion should change the outcome of ANY case involving the law, and even more ridiculous if we allow foreign law into our courts. If we do that, we might as well do what many fear, start allowing the UN to make laws and taxes on the American people.

[red states rule]

Jim, I am sorry but I can't resist psoting this. I do hope I have offended those who think we need to change America so we make the Muslims happy

[Missileman]

First off, arbitration is generally outside of the law, and only an idiot would agree to such a circumstance, but let's look at the entire writing that you didn't provide:



So it is so in some situations, but wouldn't apply when a court is merely asked to confirm an arbitration...

But anyway, so you are arguing that you think Shariah Law being injected into American courts should be acceptable? Even if used as regular law in the past, do YOU believe this should continue and at times Shariah should outweigh American law? Maybe it has been used before, and I know that, as I have already provided examples myself - but my argument is that it SHOULDN'T be used, as it simply isn't American law. I'll also argue that Oklahoma, and a few other places that discussed it, are on the right path when they say they would like to ban any attempt to use Shariah Law in our justice system.

Lastly, if we do allow foreign law, or religious law, into our courts, then why would we ban local religious law? What if Christians, Jews and other religions would like contracts, arbitrations, domestic disputes and such decided based on what their religious texts favor? I find it ridiculous that ANY religion should change the outcome of ANY case involving the law, and even more ridiculous if we allow foreign law into our courts. If we do that, we might as well do what many fear, start allowing the UN to make laws and taxes on the American people.

I'm saying that a US court is bound to enforce the TERMS of a legal contract and if those terms include disputes being settled in accordance with Sharia law, it is totally appropriate for the US court to do so. This has nothing at all to do with Sharia law and criminal matters. IMO, there is an implied agreement to live by US law (criminal) when you decide to live here.

[jimnyc]

I'm saying that a US court is bound to enforce the TERMS of a legal contract and if those terms include disputes being settled in accordance with Sharia law, it is totally appropriate for the US court to do so. This has nothing at all to do with Sharia law and criminal matters. IMO, there is an implied agreement to live by US law (criminal) when you decide to live here.

Bound? Contracts are disputed and found invalid every single day. The key is "legal contract". I don't think the majority of courts will find using foreign law to be legal. Just as I found a few cases where it was used, as have you, they should be overturned on appeal, and I can guarantee you that the SCOTUS would sure as shit not find foreign law legal in US courts.

Criminal law is our law - as is civil law.

[Missileman]

Bound? Contracts are disputed and found invalid every single day. The key is "legal contract". I don't think the majority of courts will find using foreign law to be legal. Just as I found a few cases where it was used, as have you, they should be overturned on appeal, and I can guarantee you that the SCOTUS would sure as shit not find foreign law legal in US courts.

Criminal law is our law - as is civil law.

I'm not talking about some shmuck walking into a court demanding a Sharia trial. I'm talking about two parties, sitting down and hammering out a contract that they both agree to. I haven't seen anything yet that says it would be an illegal contract.

[red states rule]

I'm not talking about some shmuck walking into a court demanding a Sharia trial. I'm talking about two parties, sitting down and hammering out a contract that they both agree to. I haven't seen anything yet that says it would be an illegal contract.

[jimnyc]

I'm not talking about some shmuck walking into a court demanding a Sharia trial. I'm talking about two parties, sitting down and hammering out a contract that they both agree to. I haven't seen anything yet that says it would be an illegal contract.

Couples do this all the time and call it a "pre-nuptial agreement", and everyday some of them are found to be invalid, and for the majority of them it is because they don't stand up to be a legal and valid contract based on US law. It's the same with these contracts, and if some judges think otherwise, it SHOULD be this way, and this is why many wants laws to keep Shariah from being used here in any capacity.

What if a Catholic woman marries a Muslim man, like my friend has. They're still going strong... Anyway, she does in fact agree to and signs a contract - you think it should be held up as valid? In some instances, a woman can't even initiate the divorce. In some instances she MUST return home, as law forbids her from living alone. In many cases physical abuse is allowed. Watch the below video to learn about all the wonderful rights a woman gets in divorce, and other civil matters. If a woman agrees to and enters into a contract containing this stuff, you think a US court should uphold it?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Oqzb7ikEoU4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm not talking about some shmuck walking into a court demanding a Sharia trial. I'm talking about two parties, sitting down and hammering out a contract that they both agree to. I haven't seen anything yet that says it would be an illegal contract.

No, what you are talking about is allowing Sharia law to get a foothold in our Judicial system. You are doing this knowing Sharia law is religious law and most of it is in direct opposition to our Constitution and established Rule of Law. In essence you appear to say to hell with America and its established institutions , lets give Sharia law a try . That to me is insanity , deception and a complete lack of patriotism on your part, that you may fail to think it is does not counter the reality of the matter IMHO.
It is a very serious threat to our Constitution , your foooooolishnes in denying that means nothing to any rational and honest American!
That foothold was allowed in Britain and now its in dire straits , about to go under!-Tyr

[Missileman]

Couples do this all the time and call it a "pre-nuptial agreement", and everyday some of them are found to be invalid, and for the majority of them it is because they don't stand up to be a legal and valid contract based on US law. It's the same with these contracts, and if some judges think otherwise, it SHOULD be this way, and this is why many wants laws to keep Shariah from being used here in any capacity.

What if a Catholic woman marries a Muslim man, like my friend has. They're still going strong... Anyway, she does in fact agree to and signs a contract - you think it should be held up as valid? In some instances, a woman can't even initiate the divorce. In some instances she MUST return home, as law forbids her from living alone. In many cases physical abuse is allowed. Watch the below video to learn about all the wonderful rights a woman gets in divorce, and other civil matters. If a woman agrees to and enters into a contract containing this stuff, you think a US court should uphold it?

<iframe height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Oqzb7ikEoU4" frameBorder="0" width="560" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

Show me a written contract between your friends that includes the specifics you listed line by line...I guarantee it doesn't exist.

One of the biggest problems we have in our legal system is not holding people to what they've agreed to. Take athletes for example. Sign a four year deal for X amount of dollars and then hold out for more money two years in.

And let me clarify...the Sharia considerations would not be able to violate US law.

[tailfins]

You cannot sell ordinary meat as Halal:

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/news/1997/washlamb.htm

[Missileman]

No, what you are talking about is allowing Sharia law to get a foothold in our Judicial system. You are doing this knowing Sharia law is religious law and most of it is in direct opposition to our Constitution and established Rule of Law. In essence you appear to say to hell with America and its established institutions , lets give Sharia law a try . That to me is insanity , deception and a complete lack of patriotism on your part, that you may fail to think it is does not counter the reality of the matter IMHO.
It is a very serious threat to our Constitution , your foooooolishnes in denying that means nothing to any rational and honest American!
That foothold was allowed in Britain and now its in dire straits , about to go under!-Tyr

Do me a huge favor, fuckhead! Don't try to re-word what I've written into this ignorant strawman of yours. Let's meet somewhere you son of a bitch and I'll show you how patriotic I am. Who the fuck do you think you are to question my patriotism? Seriously...where and when?

[tailfins]

Do me a huge favor, fuckhead! Don't try to re-word what I've written into this ignorant strawman of yours. Let's meet somewhere you son of a bitch and I'll show you how patriotic I am. Who the fuck do you think you are to question my patriotism? Seriously...where and when?

Don't argue with an idiot: Onlookers won't be able to tell the difference.

I will elaborate by telling you what corporate mentors say: Don't fight with an asshole. All everyone watching will see is two assholes fighting.