Jennem (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
jennem.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2010-11-10 08:19 am
jennem.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2010-11-10 08:19 am
Entry tags:
Stupid is as Stupid Does
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:
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?
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?
no subject
Why must you even ask?
no subject
Yes, unless someone is going to claim non-denominational laws are incapable of being offensive.
Why must you even ask?
Because I was curious.
no subject
no subject