are they kidding. do they think we would even consider this. we doin't have any laws for any other country or religion so why them. this is the united states of america, not some low life county with no morals or respect for human life. they can go to hell!
Randy - 13 years ago
If I can go to Iran and be tried under the US constitution, then Sharia law should be allowed here. Otherwise if you want Sharia law, go live where it is practiced.
Doc Ditrich - 13 years ago
Again, Greg Eubanks has stated the case accurately and succinctly. Nothing more be said other than to add further support for the law of this nation and its constitution. It's the best game in town folks!
vera - 13 years ago
The above comments say it all but ask yourself if you believe in stoning women to death, honor murders and no rights for women? That's sharia law. If muslims do not want to assimilate into American culture Karachi awaits you. I will be happy to volunteer a one way ticket to all clerics and advocates of sharia who insist on usurping our Constitution. My Delta sky-miles are also waiting for those interested in practicing sharia in Saudi , but not here in America. That 's an open invitation for all judges here as well who even entertain the idea of Sharia law.
Terri Johnson - 13 years ago
Greg Banks has made a eloquent and well stated reply.
Thank you, Greg.
America always has been and I hope always will be different from other countries.
I do not agree with 'adjusting' our legal system to comply with Sharia Law.
If a person of Muslim faith doesn't like the American system of law then they should move to a country that practices Sharia Law.
Greg Eubanks - 13 years ago
Let me add that my previous comments are my opinion and should not be considered any endorsement of, or call for any actual physical or professional action, threat, or all else related to Former Justice Ginsburg and any other officials related to government and legal interpretation of American law. I merely included Former Justice Ginsburg due to an interview in which, to the best of my memory, (Hey, after all, this is on the fly and without time to effectively source.) she appeared to suggest that it would be acceptable to consider application of foreign legal decisions when making modern constitutional interpretation. As an American citizen she is free to state or publish her own opinions.( As am I.) That said, I do not in any way or manner intend any personal and professional slight or disparagement of her character. I do believe that more weight should be accorded the Oath of Office sworn by any and all officers of our government and that they should seriously consider their actions against that standard. However, my previous comment appeared to suggest that she did, in fact, commit such a violation. I did not, and do not, intend any such interpretation. That said, I offer my apology to The former justice if she took any offense. It was not so intended. I do disagree with any such legal practice. However, that is purely an intellectual and historically based disagreement that I would not withdraw.
Greg Eubanks - 13 years ago
Sharia Law should absolutely not be considered in any United States criminal proceedings. However, such an assertion does not apply solely to Sharia law. No United States court should consider or apply any law or decision originating from a society, culture, or religion not directly concerned with the authorship/derivation of our constitutional system of laws and other such legal authority. I , of course, include any present legal decisions or statutes that do not stem directly from the same historical legal and cultural lineage responsible for the Constitution of The United States of America and all laws thus derived. In other words, Muslim culture, habit, laws, or religious practice should not obliquely, or directly impact the actual conduct of our courts and binding decisions from there issued. Yes and in a "shout out" to former judge Ginsburg, modern french legal philosophy should not hold any precedence unless applied to Louisiana's Napoleonic Code based law. Any such practice is contrary to sworn oath of office ("I will protect and defend....") and should therefore be judged unsound and rendered moot. After all, it is difficult to assert protection and the defense of The Constitution if adding unlegislated foreign practice and law to it's fabric.
are they kidding. do they think we would even consider this. we doin't have any laws for any other country or religion so why them. this is the united states of america, not some low life county with no morals or respect for human life. they can go to hell!
If I can go to Iran and be tried under the US constitution, then Sharia law should be allowed here. Otherwise if you want Sharia law, go live where it is practiced.
Again, Greg Eubanks has stated the case accurately and succinctly. Nothing more be said other than to add further support for the law of this nation and its constitution. It's the best game in town folks!
The above comments say it all but ask yourself if you believe in stoning women to death, honor murders and no rights for women? That's sharia law. If muslims do not want to assimilate into American culture Karachi awaits you. I will be happy to volunteer a one way ticket to all clerics and advocates of sharia who insist on usurping our Constitution. My Delta sky-miles are also waiting for those interested in practicing sharia in Saudi , but not here in America. That 's an open invitation for all judges here as well who even entertain the idea of Sharia law.
Greg Banks has made a eloquent and well stated reply.
Thank you, Greg.
America always has been and I hope always will be different from other countries.
I do not agree with 'adjusting' our legal system to comply with Sharia Law.
If a person of Muslim faith doesn't like the American system of law then they should move to a country that practices Sharia Law.
Let me add that my previous comments are my opinion and should not be considered any endorsement of, or call for any actual physical or professional action, threat, or all else related to Former Justice Ginsburg and any other officials related to government and legal interpretation of American law. I merely included Former Justice Ginsburg due to an interview in which, to the best of my memory, (Hey, after all, this is on the fly and without time to effectively source.) she appeared to suggest that it would be acceptable to consider application of foreign legal decisions when making modern constitutional interpretation. As an American citizen she is free to state or publish her own opinions.( As am I.) That said, I do not in any way or manner intend any personal and professional slight or disparagement of her character. I do believe that more weight should be accorded the Oath of Office sworn by any and all officers of our government and that they should seriously consider their actions against that standard. However, my previous comment appeared to suggest that she did, in fact, commit such a violation. I did not, and do not, intend any such interpretation. That said, I offer my apology to The former justice if she took any offense. It was not so intended. I do disagree with any such legal practice. However, that is purely an intellectual and historically based disagreement that I would not withdraw.
Sharia Law should absolutely not be considered in any United States criminal proceedings. However, such an assertion does not apply solely to Sharia law. No United States court should consider or apply any law or decision originating from a society, culture, or religion not directly concerned with the authorship/derivation of our constitutional system of laws and other such legal authority. I , of course, include any present legal decisions or statutes that do not stem directly from the same historical legal and cultural lineage responsible for the Constitution of The United States of America and all laws thus derived. In other words, Muslim culture, habit, laws, or religious practice should not obliquely, or directly impact the actual conduct of our courts and binding decisions from there issued. Yes and in a "shout out" to former judge Ginsburg, modern french legal philosophy should not hold any precedence unless applied to Louisiana's Napoleonic Code based law. Any such practice is contrary to sworn oath of office ("I will protect and defend....") and should therefore be judged unsound and rendered moot. After all, it is difficult to assert protection and the defense of The Constitution if adding unlegislated foreign practice and law to it's fabric.