Hey Oklahoman's. What's the "Sharia Law"? And why is it on today's ballot?

3peet · Nov 2, 2010

Look I know I'm from California where the legalization of weed is on the ballot. We're working on restoing gay marriage. (both of which I have no problem with,btw) But the Sharia Law?? You guys over there are seriously voting on whether or not to allow a portion of this law into your state's constitutuion?

Wow. How did it even make it this far? I'd think I'd see this out in Cali or in NY and I'm sure it'd get tossed out the window. But Oklahoma??

Help me understand.

jcheckers · Nov 2, 2010

STATE QUESTION NO. 755 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 355

This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It
would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It
forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia
Law.
International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations
and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other.
It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.
The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also
include international agreements, as well as treaties.
Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.

SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO

BTW, I voted Yes...

soonerdawg1 · Nov 2, 2010

i supported the measure as well

i'm sure every state has a question or 2 on their ballots that might make a nonresident scratch their head.....

punter · Nov 2, 2010

soonerdawg1 said:
i supported the measure as well

i'm sure every state has a question or 2 on their ballots that might make a nonresident scratch their head.....

When did you move back from Arkansas?

soonerdawg1 · Nov 2, 2010

about the time i disappeared for 90 days lol

KennyB · Nov 2, 2010

Great Law and it looks like it easily passed.

punter · Nov 2, 2010

soonerdawg1 said:
about the time i disappeared for 90 days lol

90 days! Did you move by covered wagon?

Santo · Nov 2, 2010

Whilst I don't object to the specific case of Sharia law, the wording of this proposition in rejecting International Law in general is a bit of a stupid idea.

US law is itself based on English common law, so if a new case (let's say internet/new media related) comes up that hasn't been debated at higher levels of the US system, but has been resolved by the High Court / Law Lords in the UK, you are forbidding judges from considering that precedent, which is unrealistic no matter what the state constitution says. The only thing this will do is create more routes of appeal = more money for lawyers.

quantumleap · Nov 3, 2010

Santo said:
Whilst I don't object to the specific case of Sharia law, the wording of this proposition in rejecting International Law in general is a bit of a stupid idea.

US law is itself based on English common law, so if a new case (let's say internet/new media related) comes up that hasn't been debated at higher levels of the US system, but has been resolved by the High Court / Law Lords in the UK, you are forbidding judges from considering that precedent, which is unrealistic no matter what the state constitution says. The only thing this will do is create more routes of appeal = more money for lawyers.

While US law is based on English common law, the country was founded upon too much interference by England. I can see a benefit to not considering issues resolved by High Court/Law Lords in the UK. People in the US do not want to be influenced by specific English laws any more than people in California don't want to be influenced by laws passed in Alabama. I see this as quite natural.

This is not to say they cannot come to the same conclusion as laws passed in England. It simply states that the influence of laws passed in England are not held in any regard. People in England have a different perspective on how things should be run. Why should that be considered in Oklahoma?