Go to Naut's Tidbits & Snippets
- Add a comment
- Go to And in New Jersey: Court places Sharia Law before Criminal Law…
Re: The Constitution, in this case, is stronger and more explicit than
"the separation of church and state". The Constitution and the Constitutional laws passed by Congress are "the supreme law of the land" which the judges must rule in favor of:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Therefore, even if a law was passed by Congress adopting Sharia law, it would not be made "in Pursuance" of the Constitution. The First Amendment is part of the Constitution, by the process of Amendment, so a Congressional law is only part of the supreme law of the land if it is made in pursuance, and not contradictory to it. The First Amendment reads, in part:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
If Congress made a law adopting Sharia law, that would be an establishment of religion and a prohibition of its free exercise -- because even Muslims would not be free in their exercise of Islam -- thereby violating the First Amendment and, by Article VI quoted above, the judges in every state are bound to rule against it in favor of the Constitution.
posted by
cpklapper
on September 13, 2010 at 5:49 PM
| link to this | reply
Read this the other day when you wrote it and it kind of made me sick to think of all this that you write about and share with us, and the way it elicits comments that irritate each other. But, one can't ignore it. It just will grow behind the back until it overwhelms the "ostrich".
posted by
TAPS.
on September 13, 2010 at 11:11 AM
| link to this | reply
It is going to do the exact opposite of what the judge thinks! How cowardly on the part of the judge! Shelly
posted by
sam444
on September 12, 2010 at 7:43 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
Which goes to prove that judges can be brain dead. What the heck he doesn't think Americans are in harm's way anyway? He's a schmuck and thank God for the appellate judge.
posted by
WileyJohn
on September 12, 2010 at 9:51 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
I don't know which is worse to turn a blind eye to this sort of thing or to use the Southern part of the United States as a whipping boy for all the bad as I read in gapcorns post, and as I often see in print. I live in a town of only 6 to 7 thousand people. We have a large population of scientists we are at the back door of NASA. We have at least 2 Rhodes Scholars that I know and we are not unusual. People tend to lump all the South into one bucket. I am not Baptist but those I know do not advocate slapping anyone.
Also we have all sorts of Christian community outreaches for those women or men who need help or have been or are being abused. I speak first hand i am part of it. We find a lot of those from the North East to be rude, ill mannered and set in their ways, but we don't go lumping everybody into the mold.
posted by
Justi
on September 11, 2010 at 1:29 PM
| link to this | reply
6T I think Pat B calls the shot on this case correctly. BC-A, Bill’s RJLst
posted by
BC-A
on September 11, 2010 at 1:28 PM
| link to this | reply
I'm glad to read that this decision was overturned! Yikes!
posted by
FormerStudentIntern
on September 10, 2010 at 6:14 PM
| link to this | reply
I agree with Pat-B on this one. Down in the Southern part of the USA, when I was trying to raise money for a Women's Shelter, I was told time and time again - by good ole boys of the Southern Baptist variety - that "most women deserve to be slapped around once in awhile." Rape within marriage, even within American law, is tough to prove and it's a rare judge in certain parts of our country who will rule in favor of the wife (unless, as Pat said, her injuries send her to the ER).....Mal
posted by
gapcohen
on September 10, 2010 at 11:39 AM
| link to this | reply
In this case, the Christian men could say the same: it is written in the bible that women are to submit to men. Ain't it? Good thing that some of us humans are more enlightened than others....
posted by
auslander
on September 10, 2010 at 10:38 AM
| link to this | reply
naut
What the heck are they thinking???!! Put the soldiers in harms way......hmmmm......aren't they there already? Did he mean that they may be shot at?
posted by
TIMMYTALES
on September 10, 2010 at 9:49 AM
| link to this | reply
Islamic tradition aside, it's almost impossible in this Christian nation
for a prosecutor to win a rape conviction against a husband when the wife is his accuser. Often she must have bruises, broken bones, there must be savage evidence of crimes against her. Such a breach of trust in a marriage doesn't stand alone, it's part of a pattern of control and domination, of which forced sex is only one facet. A wife may submit to avoid pain, even attend church with her perpetrator and pretend nothing is wrong. It takes a lot of courage to stand up in court, to admit her humiliation, to face consequences that could include loss of her children and rejection by her own family and friends.
posted by
Pat_B
on September 10, 2010 at 5:05 AM
| link to this | reply
Whatever happened to the separation of religion and state? The Muslim laws are not our laws... Neither are the Bhudist or the Jewish or Christian for that matter. When someone is assaulted and he takes his agressor to court the judge can not tell him that he has no case because being a Christian he had to turn the other cheek... and the police can not give Jews that drive on Saturday tickets because they are not supposed to drive on their Shabbat. That is so ridiculous! and to blame his silly rulling on his fear of retaliation on our soldiers in Afganistan is even worse... If we start doing things because we are afraid of what those barbarians will do, they have won already and we women might as well start wearing berkas... Unbelievable! Be well NAut xoxoxo
posted by
Sinome
on September 9, 2010 at 8:32 PM
| link to this | reply
What must be seen as first - the choicken or the egg?
The logic of the judge in the first instance sounds right cos he didn't have the criminal intention that is part of the package of establishing a crime.
But this is where we need to go on impact. For the woman it was a rape....or was she a Muslim woman who must not consider it as rape because of the particular thinking?
Ah, ah, a thin thin line indeed....
posted by
Straightforward
on September 9, 2010 at 7:50 PM
| link to this | reply