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

[dwer.livejournal.com]

no, there's not. There's a secular argument for good hygiene, perhaps, but not against the activity.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Then you're willfully ignoring the argument. Again.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

no, I'm not. If anyone willfully ignoring anything, it's you ignoring the fact that anal sex can be just as safe as vaginal or oral sex.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

"Can be."

And what does that mean?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

that there's no health risk to doing it so long as you're protecting yourself. Just like with vaginal or oral sex.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So you see no different risk between sticking something where it biologically belongs and sticking something where there's probably poop. All other things being equal.

This, again, is what you're arguing? That sticking something into poop is just as safe as not sticking something into poop.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

no. You're arguing in a fashion that requires you to accept that people won't take basic hygienic or safety-related steps. Hint: it's not the mid-80s anymore. People use condoms.

You have utterly failed to make a coherent argument against anal intercourse.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

When you've somehow shown the problem with the argument, then you can talk about whether it's coherent. Not before.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

lulz. And this is where John Stewart would say that I was trying to de-legitimize you, because you refuse to comprehend the world the way everyone else does.

And where I tell John Stewart he's fulla shit.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Well, no. Although I suppose he would probably take offense to you abandoning any pretense of caring about the argument for whatever you're on about. Then again, you've essentially admitted earlier that this isn't about good faith discussion for you, so should I bother?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

lol. I care about the facts that you refuse to acknowledge and have made no coherent argument about.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

When facts to acknowledge are present, sure.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

sigh.