Stupid is as Stupid Does

[jennem.livejournal.com]

Oklahoma recently passed a constitutional amendment that prohibits courts in that jurisdiction from relying on foreign law.

Specifically, the measure amended Article 7, Section 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution to say:

“The Courts . . . when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Oklahoma Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia Law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international or Sharia Law.

Setting aside the constitutionality of such a measure, is it smart?

Consider the scope of the ban. Judges aren't just prohibited from considering international (or Sharia) law when considering the constitutionality of a law. They're prohibited from considering foreign (or Sharia) law, period.

Foreign law comes up all the time in the state and federal court system. Hell, state and federal courts often interpret and apply foreign law when conflicts of law and choice of law principles point towards the application of such laws.

Got a contract that stipulates that the laws of the United Kingdom apply? Sorry. Not in Oklahoma. The courts are now forbidden from interpreting or applying the laws of the United Kingdom to your contract. What about a contract that stipulates a foreign forum for all legal disputes? Sorry. The provision prohibiting state courts from addressing the legal precepts of other nations or cultures potentially precludes courts from enforcing such provisions. Enforceability of foreign judgments, enforceability of arbitration awards, the doctrine of forum non conveniens, principles of personal jurisdictional. The amendment impacts all of these in ways that could negatively affect Oklahomans and their ability to obtain legal relief within the borders of their own state.

The amendment created a host of legal problems to avoid the boogeyman. What the hell were you thinking, Oklahoma?

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I suppose if we want to Godwin the thing.

But seriously, you see this in the same vein of rank anti-Semitic nonsense?

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

without really entering godwin-land, I do wonder how people would have reacted if the law was created to not recognize Jewish Law or Christian Law as a result of what is written in the Old/New Testaments.

It would probably cause a lot of pro-life people difficulty to know that the courts don't acknowledge the Christian concept of a soul when determining the legality of abortion and/or birth control, or how religions acknowledge marriage WRT considering the legality of gay marriage.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You're probably right, but at the same time, there's no danger in Christian law creating the types of results that Sharia or international law is creating, either.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

there's no danger in Christian law creating the types of results that Sharia or international law is creating

I question that. Uganda is using "Christian Law" when pushing for new laws to jail and/or kill homosexuals (source (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/10/27/uganda.antigay.bill/index.html)).

And, based on that article, it's American Evangelicals who are the ones behind those laws (" This is a mostly Christian country where local and international, particularly American, evangelicals hold great sway. Together with Ugandan politicians and preachers, they have lobbied for greater punishments for gays."). So if we're looking for a religion trying to inject itself into local politics in a way that creates the dangerous scenario that the OP's law is trying to prevent, it turns out our own country is one source of the problem, as well.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That's Uganda. I'm pretty sure we're a little more stable and have better checks and balances than they do currently.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

That's Uganda.

Yes, but aren't we talking about how other countries are engaging in law based on X, and that we must take a proactive stance to prevent those laws from entering here?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No, we're talking about international laws having an undue influence on the judicial process here.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

You: "there's no danger in Christian law creating the types of results that Sharia or international law is creating"
Me: "Uganda..."

It is possible that I misread what you were saying, and you meant that there is a threat of Sharia/International Law creating "the types of results" that are being created here, as opposed to how they work worldwide.

But, at the same time, you also said that "we're a little more stable and have better checks and balances," which seems to call to question how Sharia/International Law is created [bad] results [here], since we have such a stable system with better checks and balances.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It is possible that I misread what you were saying, and you meant that there is a threat of Sharia/International Law creating "the types of results" that are being created here, as opposed to how they work worldwide.

Yes, I was speaking domestically. Reading back, that was me being unclear.

But, at the same time, you also said that "we're a little more stable and have better checks and balances," which seems to call to question how Sharia/International Law is created [bad] results [here], since we have such a stable system with better checks and balances.

Well, my reading of your comment was that we could become another Uganda. My point was solely to say that the danger of that is extremely low.

[langostino.livejournal.com]

Yes. Yes I do. The current climate re: Islam really does scare me, and it scares me because of the parallels I see to pre-Nazi Weimar Germany. I'm not saying that this law is a Nazi law, so it's not quite a Godwin; I'm saying that it reads a lot like some of the precursors.

When you have a member of the Texas State Board of Education saying that his problem with the current history books is that they have a "pro-Islamic bias", what I think is of the rhetoric about purging German universities of "Jewish science" and "Jewish mathematics".

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Jesus Christ, stop these infuriating attempts to compare apples to monkey puzzles. Weimar-era Germany had seen two communist putsches, and Nazism was for the longest time a Bavarian party. Does the name Kurt Eisner give a hint as to why Red-Baiting had a little more power there than elsewhere? This is the latest rendition of the Yellow Peril, not the gateway to Kristallnacht, Babi Yar, and Auschwitz. The USA is too disorganized for that kind of thing, as the last outbreak of genocidal violence was 1890.

[langostino.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying that anything like that is going to happen here. I'm only pointing out similarities in the rhetoric itself. I really don't think anything like a Nazi takeover is going to happen.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yes. Yes I do. The current climate re: Islam really does scare me, and it scares me because of the parallels I see to pre-Nazi Weimar Germany. I'm not saying that this law is a Nazi law, so it's not quite a Godwin; I'm saying that it reads a lot like some of the precursors.

When you have a member of the Texas State Board of Education saying that his problem with the current history books is that they have a "pro-Islamic bias", what I think is of the rhetoric about purging German universities of "Jewish science" and "Jewish mathematics".

Your paranoia is noted, I suppose. It sounds crazy, to be blunt, but hey.