Court Blocks Implementation

Oklahoma voters approved by 70% a constitutional amendment to apply laws of the US in their decisions and banned them from drawing on Islamic Law or other foreign laws, an appeals court said the "ban discriminates against Islam'. A Muslim community leader has the right to challenge its constitutionality, a federal appeals court said.

The court in Denver upheld U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange's order blocking implementation of the amendment. The case now returns to federal court in Oklahoma City to determine the constitutionality of the proposed amendment.

Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Oklahoma, sued to block the law from taking effect, arguing that the Save Our State Amendment violated his First Amendment rights.

"This is an important reminder that the Constitution is the last line of defense against a rising tide of anti-Muslim bigotry in our society, and we are pleased that the appeals court recognized that fact," Awad said. "We are also hopeful that this decision serves as a reminder to politicians wishing to score political points through fear-mongering and bigotry."The amendment read, in part: "The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law."

State Senator Anthony Sykes, who led the Senate effort to get the measure on the ballot, said Tuesday he would continue to fight to lift the injunction. "The federal appeals court in Denver attempted to silence the voice of 70 percent of Oklahoma voters," Sykes said in a statement. "At some point we have to decide whether this is a country of by and for the judges, or of by and for the people. How far will the people let them go? This ruling is right along with legalizing abortion and forced busing of school children."

Backers argued that the amendment intended to ban all religious laws, that Islamic law was merely named as an example and that it wasn't meant as a specific attack on Muslims. The court disagreed.

Awad argued that the ban on Islamic law would likely affect every aspect of his life as well as the execution of his will after his death. The appeals court pointed out that Awad made a "strong showing" of potential harm.

"When the law that voters wish to enact is likely unconstitutional, their interests do not outweigh Mr. Awad's in having his constitutional rights protected," the court said.

The case now returns to federal court in Oklahoma City to determine the constitutionality of the proposed amendment.

"Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution states that, "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States…" "shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law."

The courts again are overstepping their boundaries. America has a Constitution and laws. Why would a court say it is unconstitutional for American courts to use only American laws?

Comment here and email us at YourVoice@speaknowconservatives.org.

Moms, Dads, Grandparents need a place to vent about the direction our government is taking? Go to MomsAndDadsBeHeard and speak out. Be part of bringing our Great country back.