Political correctness forces them to call it a ban which would prohibit judges from applying foreign laws in their courtrooms, but everyone knows it’s a ban on sharia law, which has already been used by judges for their rulings in several states in at least 50 cases involving Muslims.
Buzzfeed Thirteen states have introduced similar anti-foreign law bills in 2017, and nine states already have the law on the books. The U.S. Constitution already forbids the use of foreign law, but apparently, there are many judges who ignore that.
Assembly of Muslim Jurists of AmericaAMJA’s goal: replacing our Constitution with sharia law:
The enablers of radical Islam in government, academia and the media regularly dismiss warnings about sharia law creeping into American judiciaries.. They have either never heard of, don’t want to know about, or don’t want you to know about AMJA. Learn more here: mainstream-american-muslim-jurists-blueprint-for-undermining-americas-legal-system
The Center for Security Policy conducted a study of the American judicial system and found an alarming trend of more and more cases being decided using Shariah law, documenting at least 50 cases in which judges used Sharia law in their decisions. See: Shariah in American Courts: The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System
In one instance, the study reported on the case of a New Jersey woman who filed for a restraining order against her husband because of spousal abuse.
Both wife and husband are Muslim and from Morocco. The husband began physically abusing the wife only three months of marriage. His abuse was so extensive that she sustained injuries to her entire body including her breasts and pubic area. The husband told the wife that under Islamic law, he had authority over her body and could have sex with her any time he desired, whether she wanted it or not, and on multiple occasions he physically forced himself on her in an abusive manner and against her will.
“The trial court refused to issue a final restraining order against husband finding that, although husband had harassed and assaulted wife, husband believed it was his religious right to have non-consensual sex with his wife and that belief precluded any criminal intent on the part of husband.”
Montana lawmakers are close to passing a bill aimed at preventing Islamic law from being used in court cases, based on claims Muslims in America are trying to subvert the US Constitution.
While the bill, SB97, does not single out Islamic law in its language — it aims to prohibit “the application of foreign law” — much of the discussion surrounding the bill on Monday focused on Shariah law, according to the Associated Press.
“If you go back and listen to the testimony of the proponents of this bill in both the House and Senate, the legislative intent is crystal clear that it targets one religion,” Democratic Rep. Ellie Hill Smith of Missoula told the AP. “That this was a Shariah law bill. It’s what every proponent had talked about.”
The state House passed the bill by a vote of 56-44. The bill must now go through a final vote, and if it passes, will go to on to Montana Governor Steve Bullock for signing.
Many advocates see this bill, and those like it, as unnecessary and redundant because their provisions violate the Constitution of the United States. (But that hasn’t stopped several judges from using sharia law in their decisions involving Muslims as below)
In 2017 alone, thirteen states have introduced similar anti-foreign law bills, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Nine states already have laws that prohibit foreign law. Over 120 similar bills or amendments aimed at preventing Sharia law from being applied to US courts have been submitted in state legislatures since 2011.
David Yerushalmi, an Arizona lawyer, through his group, American Laws for American Courts (ALAC), has provided the defining template for many anti-foreign law or anti-Sharia bills around the country. Montana’s bill SB97 appears to have similar passages, to ALAC bill templates, as well as identical portions from other anti-foreign law bills across the country that likely also drew from ALAC’s template.
Sun Herald In North Dakota, a bill to prohibit judges from applying foreign laws in their courtrooms interferes with religious freedom and unfairly targets Muslims, leftist and Muslim opponents of the measure told lawmakers.
But Republican Rep. Kim Koppelman, the measure’s primary sponsor, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that it doesn’t target any religion and doesn’t violate the state and U.S. constitutions. Proponents call the bill “American Laws for American Courts.” More than a dozen similar measures are being considered in other states. Opponents have referred to them as anti-Sharia bills and say they are fueled by anti-Islamic sentiment.
Jennifer Cook, policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota, said the bills are “susceptible to constitutional challenge.” “There is significant evidence on the record that the intended purpose for the introduction and passage of such laws is to single out the Muslim faith and deny religious freedom to those people who follow Islam,” she said.
The GOP-led North Dakota House approved the measure in February. The full state Senate will debate the bill later, after it gets a recommendation from that chamber’s judiciary committee.
There are nine states—Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Tennessee—that prohibit the use of foreign law in their state courts.
In 2017, thirteen states have introduced legislation on the subject. The table below lists the legislation.
|Arkansas||HB 1041||Protects the rights and privileges granted under the Arkansas constitution and the U.S. Constitution. Declares American laws for American courts.|
|Connecticut||HB 5547||Concerns the application of foreign law in the state. Protects Connecticut citizens from the application of foreign law.|
|Idaho||HB 94||Adds to existing law to prohibit the application of in Idaho courts in certain instances.|
|Indiana||SB 16||Relates to application of foreign law. Provides that a court may not apply, enforce, or grant comity, res judicata, claim preclusion, or issue preclusion to a foreign law, ruling, or judgment if doing so would violate the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the state of Indiana. Relates to provisions in contracts or agreements that provide for the choice of foreign laws.|
|Indiana||SB 56||Relates to application of foreign law. Provides that a court may not apply, enforce, or grant comity, res judicata, claim preclusion, or issue preclusion to a foreign law, ruling, or judgment if doing so would violate the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the state of Indiana. Relates to provisions in contracts or agreements that provide for the choice of foreign laws in interpretation.|
|Iowa||HB 223||Relates to the application of foreign laws and constitutional rights; includes effective date provisions.|
|Kentucky||HB 40||Establishes legislative intent that the rights of an individual afforded under the constitutions of the commonwealth and the United States take precedence over the application of any foreign law in any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. Defines specific terms. Construes waivers of constitutional rights. Provides exceptions for corporate entities. Prohibits choice of venue outside of the commonwealth or United States to preserve the constitutional rights of the person against whom enforcement is sought.|
|Kentucky||HB 131||Establishes legislative intent that the rights of an individual afforded under the constitutions of the commonwealth and the United States take precedence over the application of any foreign law in any judicial or quasi judicial proceeding. Defines specific terms. Strictly construes waivers of constitutional rights. Provides exceptions for corporate entities.|
|Maine||HB 631||Addresses the application of foreign law in this State with the goal of protecting American citizens’ constitutional rights when foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines are applied in judicial and administrative tribunals.|
|Missouri||HB 299||Specifies how courts may rule in contractual disputes involving the law of other countries.|
|Montana||SB 97||Prohibits the application of foreign law in state courts. Relates to courts. Relates to federal government. Relates to state government.|
|Oregon||SB 479||Prohibits courts from applying Sharia law.|
|South Carolina||HB 3188||Prevents a court or other enforcement authority from enforcing foreign law in this state from a forum outside of the United States or its territories under certain circumstances.|
|Texas||HB 45||Relates to the application of foreign laws and foreign forum selection in this state.|
|Texas||HB 498||Relates to the application of foreign laws and foreign forum selection in a proceeding involving marriage, a suit for dissolution of a marriage, or a suit affecting the parent-child relationship in this state.|
|West Virginia||HB 2769||Relates to the preservation of rights guaranteed by the West Virginia Constitution and the United States Constitution when deciding the comity of a legal decision in a foreign country.|
Read more here: Original Post Here http://www.barenakedislam.com/2017/03/23/montana-and-north-dakota-are-two-of-many-states-legislating-to-ban-sharia-law/ by BareNakedIslam Originally posted on http://www.barenakedislam.com