My proposal for Banning Sharia Law in the US

[cthulu2016]

I think we should amend the constitution to ban government establishment of religion.

And because banning Sharia law is such an important issue, we should move that amendment to the top of the list and call if the First Amendment.

[PDJane]

1. Thank you. I needed that.

[cthulu2016]

13. You are quite welcome!

[MineralMan]

2. Great idea!

I'm for it 100%. Oh, wait...

[Fumesucker]

3. I doubt you could get the necessary amendment through the process...

It wouldn't be popular at all..

[cthulu2016]

6. Quite true

I doubt more than about ten states would ratify the First Amendment today

[Zorra]

4. It's time to implement a national policy of separation of church and state, for sure. nt

[longship]

5. As if we all here don't know what laws you want enshrined.

Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. (just to make sure I am on the right side of things -- it's good to safe, rather than sorry.)

Good post, cthulhu2016.

[Initech]

7. That's already in the constitution.

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

Of course the uber religious fuck nuts in this country are too dumb to realize that. If we're gonna ban Sharia law - which we should - that should also apply to all religions.

[jberryhill]

8. Question

If you and I have a contract in which we say:

"All disputes under this Agreement shall be submitted to binding arbitration by a Shaman who, upon consultation with the Spirits of the Dead, shall be final."

You and I get into a dispute, we put it to the Shaman, and he decides that you owe me $10,000.

Under your proposal, will the Federal Arbitration Act uphold our right of contact if you later say, "That's bullshit, I'm not paying?" and will I be able to get a court order attaching your assets and wages?

Thank you.

(and, for completeness, during the action I bring against you under the FAA, the Shaman testifies, "I consulted with the Spirits of the Dead, and was advised by them to issue the arbitration decision against Cthulu".)

[cthulu2016]

10. Wouldn't be establishment, so sure.

I understand what you are saying in your question, and agree, that these attempts to prevent courts from looking at foreign law would make a lot of jurisprudence impossible.

(I am dying to see an extradition hearing where the judge is not allowed to use foreign law as the basis for any aspect of his decision!)

[jberryhill]

11. ...or collateral challenges to foreign judgments

....which involve applying 14th amendment "due process" considerations to foreign legal determinations of jurisdiction.

This is much more common:

You are sued in a foreign court. You don't show up. The foreign plaintiff invokes the Hague Convention to obtain enforcement in a US court. You show up in the US court in order to challenge the jurisdiction of the foreign court in the first place.

What the US court then does is analyze the foreign court's jurisdiction *as if* it were applying the rules of extraterritorial jurisdiction that a US court would apply in the same circumstances. If the US court then determines that the foreign court's jurisdictional decision would have satisfied the due process considerations of a US court in the same circumstances, then a US court will enforce the foreign court judgment.

Honestly, the people that push this stuff are simpletons.

[treestar]

12. And hopefully they never realize that judges can take judicial notice

of foreign laws. That will have to be stopped!

[ThoughtCriminal]

9. With all the GOP rush to ban "Sharia Law"

they are unwilling to admit that the First Amendment already covers this. They don't have a problem with religious law - as long as it's their religion.