The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20101108_11_0_OKLAHO357431 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20101108_11_0_OKLAHO357431)

I don't know how this can amount to anything but a direct slam to Islam and bad press for Oklahoma.  Why does SQ 755 specifically mention Islam?  I agree that no religion should be the direct basis for any secular court decision.  However, haven't we already covered this in the US Constitution?  Doesn't the normal separation of church and state cover this already?  What was the motivation for proposing this amendment?
As for the international part, is that not a given?  US laws supersede international laws in US courts. Period.

Welcome to the new reality that state laws if they interfere with federal laws, even if it benefits the the security  of the state, can be overturned in the circuit court of appeals, and will probably be sent to the US Supreme Court for a decision as to the validity of the law.

Motivation was to get the RWRE all riled up to come out and vote for it.  I told you several of these questions would be challenged.  I figured this would be the first.

That isn't a new reality, bud. It's been that way since the 14th Amendment established the primacy of federal law over state law.

The 14th Amendment ,


Acts, Bills, and Laws, Citizenship Rights - 1868

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Passed June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.


http://federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm
 (http://federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause)

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=389 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=389)

I'd like an explanation of how this stupid law "benefits the the security  of the state"?

And Federal Law trumping state law has been around awhile, it's in the Constitution, Article VI, Section 1, Clause 2. The Supremacy Clause:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding

Where's the fire? 

The judge merely entered a temporary restraining order blocking the Secretary of State from certifying the election result until a hearing can be held on whether to issue a temporary injunction pending a trial on the merits.  The sole purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status quo so that the issue doesn't become moot before it can be heard.  There has to date been no ruling on the merits of the plaintiff's claims or even on the thresh-hold question of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction.  As I have said before, I doubt the plaintiff has standing to bring the action.   There's a lot left to happen before a judgment on the merits is issued.  Everyone needs to calm down and let the process work.

I read the Court's minute order and docket on this case. The only filing on the docket is Awad's complaint and memorandum. The state/Board of Elections has not yet filed a written response. There was a hearing held and the Court found that Awad had met the "factors" for a TRO. No injunction, preliminary or otherwise, has been entered. Cynical is right imho at this point.

Swake is also right twice. The law is stupid and in his reference to the Supremacy Clause in the constitution.

Guido,

Wouldn’t you agree that a very strong constitutional argument will be made that by mentioning Sharia Law specifically, and that Sharia Law specifically being the religious law of a particular religion that this law is in clear violation of the 1st Amendment?

1St Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Off hand, I do not know. Unfortunately I am too busy to do any real research into this. I will say that specific religions  have been targeted for practices unique to that religion (i.e. polygamy and LDS/Mormon, and perhaps religions that reject medical care as a rule and children/incapacitated being deprived medical care). As for Sharia, I simply do not know what the particular hang up the authors of this legislation had with that faith which would answer your question. Is it that women are not treated equally as men? Is it that homosexuals are persecuted and subject to execution? And no, that is not hyperbole.

You're making the mistake of painting everything labeled "sharia" with the brush of the extremists. Iran is extreme. The Taliban were incredibly extreme, some other nations are not, yet still use sharia. It's like how here in our own country there is significant disagreement among Christians on how exactly the Bible should be interpreted regarding homosexuality. The difference is in degree, not kind.

That’s kind of my point. Laws certainly can ban the activities  of adherents of a religion that society finds wrong or distasteful. For example polygamy or stoning. But this law mentions a particular religion’s rules by name and bans it’s religious rules outright in total.

I’m all for banning large parts of the activities that strict applications of Sharia seem to demand, but this is banning Sharia in general and by name, not banning specific actions.

I will be interested to read the briefs in this case, if I can get a hold of them. I will report back what I have learned. For now, here is an article that touch on some of the issues that are issue here. I can tell ya this smile ain't simple.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/free_exercise/index.aspx

As I understand it, there is no separation between religion and state for Sharia Law.  That makes it difficult to say whether we would be restricting religious law or the law of a foreign country.

That is indeed the case in some predominantly Muslim countries, but not by any means all.

The fact that some predominatly Muslim countries choose to ignore that part of Sharia Law isn't much different than the Reformation vs. the Roman Catholic Church a few years ago.

I am just glad that, for now I hope, the voters were wrong on this one.

I also think the voters were wrong on almost everything else last Tuesday as well. I am used to being in the minority. I haven't voted for a congressman who won in 22 years.

It used to be "safe" to vote Republican in local elections.  Your candidate almost never won, you could complain about the way things were being run and that you had the right to complain because you voted.

I might have to start voting Democratic.   ;D

Republicans have ran Tulsa for almost my whole lifetime.

We have only had one democratic Congressman in fifty years.

Six of the last ten Mayors were republicans. Six of the nine city councilors are republicans.

Two of the three county commissioners are republicans. The county officers, including sheriff, assessor, clerk, treasurer and district attorney are all republicans.

Of the 18 state representatives with Tulsa County in their district, only five are held by the democrats and one of those, seat 66, went to the republicans last Tuesday.

I have been outvoted before.

You forget our former Democrat Senator, David Boren.  I voted for him.  But you know me, I vote my candidates like race horses: I almost always pick a winner.

I really have given more thought to the issue of straight party line voting.  I wish that were not allowed in balloting.  I realize taking this option away might not keep someone from voting for every R or D on a ballot but at least it might force some voters to become a little more aware of the candidates they are about to elect. 

There are a couple of people I work with who said they did straight party-line.  I think it's a waste of a vote and resulted in the state losing some great administrators in some commission races, and it sounded like Priest was a great AG candidate.  While I appreciate the conservative undertone to the elections, I think blindly voting for one party or the other really rips off candidates and the rest of the electorate who actually think about who and what they are voting for.

I also think commission, sheriff, and auditor races don't need to be partisan.  I honestly cannot see any logical reason to have elected Doak, Jones, or Costello other than the national sentiment trickled into state elections.  If these commissions were non-partisan, I have a feeling the outcome would have been different.

Just imagine how it might end up if the straight party voting was taken out, along with any indication as to the party.  Just put the office they are running for, and the names of the people in alphabetical order.

Jim Jones was more than enough.  I know Mike Synar's district got the north edge of Bixby but I thought it also got some of southeast Tulsa too.

What were the local statistics in the early 70s?  It seemed like mostly Democrats to me.

It would make a candidate run on issues particular to the office they seek instead of spouting off party-line platitudes in their advertising.  It might acutally require that a candidate understand what the job entails and might get more people to pay attention to things like unpaid tax liens in a candidates past or present.

Being pro-life, pro-gun, and endorsed by the Tea Party doesn't make one whit of difference in whether or not someone is ready to serve as the sheriff, insurance commissioner, labor commissioner, county commissioner, or state auditor.  It's simply trying to get the voters to identify with you even if you are completely ill-suited for the job you are running for.

A lot of this Sharia uproar came about from a telecom company dispute with a contract in a Muslim country.  Something soured and their 'sour grapes' started a movement.

The contract specifically stated and was agreed to that all contract disputes are to be interpreted under Sharia law.  Kind of like when I enter into a contract, the terms specify that it is to be interpreted under Oklahoma law.  Well, they didn't like it after the fact so tried to change the outcome.  (Sounds like the RWRE....)