Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Clearly looking to solve a terribly pressing problem, Oklahoma voters will vote on -- for, inevitably -- a referendum to outlaw the use of international law or Sharia law in court rulings in that state.
State Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs, authored State Question 755, which requires state courts to rely only on federal and state laws when deciding cases, and forbids courts to consider international law or Sharia law. It will appear on the Nov. 2 general election ballot.
Hoo boy, that's a serious problem in Oklahoma. Are Oklahoma voters electing a lot of radical Islamic judges who want to impose Sharia law these days? Are Oklahoma governors appointing a lot of Bin Laden clones to the appeals courts in that state? I doubt there's ever been a single Muslim judge in the entire history of Oklahoma, and if there was I would bet a hell of a lot of money that he or she never even thought of using Sharia law to decide a case.
Duncan said he proposed the constitutional change because federal judges are increasingly embracing the idea that federal courts should look to international law to settle U.S. cases.
Except they haven't. In a few cases, the Supreme Court has referenced international law in a ruling, but in no case have they made a ruling based on international law. And this referendum would have no effect at all on federal judges anyway, so Duncan is doing nothing at all to stop it. And of course, that has nothing at all to do with Sharia law.
Another example of pure, unadulterated demagoguery. And you can bet it will work.
Politics
Comments
Can those questions be amended? That needs "and biblical law" added.
Posted by: Mu | July 22, 2010 9:36 AM
That is absolutely mind-boggling. I would bet piles of money on the idea that there has never been a US case decided on (or even influenced by) Sharia law, or a state case decided by international law. International law might be reference for some international federal cases, but US precedent on those issues would still control. The closest I can think of is some constitutional or torts cases discussing old English common law, as a sort of historical-originalist approach, because our common law was directly derived from that.
If mindless blowhards don't have enough real issues to complain about, they inevitably invent some.
Posted by: Wesley | July 22, 2010 9:41 AM
But Biblical "law" would be just fine, of course....
Posted by: WMDKitty | July 22, 2010 9:45 AM
Mu @ 1:
My initial reaction was to disingenuously offer an amendment prohibiting the application of 'all laws outside the jurisdiction of Oklahoma including all religious laws such as Sharia'.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 22, 2010 9:49 AM
I think they should vote to outlaw the use of Martian law, too. Just in case.
Posted by: Personal Failure | July 22, 2010 9:51 AM
Not sure if any prosecutions have been made using this, but , Okieland did not recognize an International Driving permit when i lived there 5 years ago.
Posted by: ElJay | July 22, 2010 9:52 AM
Rex Duncan, in my opinion is the biggest Media Whore in the state.
He has promoted many laws in Oklahoma that is HARMFUL to the state and it's citizens.
And for what? Media attention!
Posted by: Rod | July 22, 2010 9:55 AM
So if someone can show a law is part of sharia, they can get off?
Posted by: rpsms | July 22, 2010 9:57 AM
Curses! Our plans have been foiled yet again! But we'll get you next time, Rex Duncan! Next time! Mwahahahahahaaa!!!
Posted by: The Global Islamic Movement to Impose Sharia Law | July 22, 2010 9:58 AM
You would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those pesky legislators!
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 22, 2010 10:12 AM
state courts need to deal with international law whenever one party to a suit in them is abroad or from abroad, don't they? what happens the next time some deadbeat canuck tries to hide from his child support payments in OK?
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | July 22, 2010 10:17 AM
Butbutbut... Republicans are AGAINST useless, pointless, ineffective legislation! Just ask 'em!
Posted by: Chuck C | July 22, 2010 10:19 AM
It puts the rational people in Oklahoma in a tough position when they go to vote.
If they vote in favor of the referendum, they'll be rewarding this pathetic behavior by the legislators. But if they vote against it, the legislators will use it as justification for their actions- See! I told you there were people who wanted to impose Sharia law!
Posted by: Jordan G | July 22, 2010 10:21 AM
When they say "international law" do they mean laws that are in effect in other countries but not in the US or do they include international treaty obligations?
Since tribes are considered -- legally -- sovereign nations, does this mean that OK will then say that they don't have to recognize the jurisdiction of the 20+ reservations?
Does this mean that OK is going to become an international tax shelter, since they aren't going to feel that they should cooperate with other governments asking them to disclose financial statements due to crimes committed in their own nations?
I can see problems with this.
... and why link international law with Sharia law? Are these going to be two ballot questions or just one (it seems unclear to me from the quote)?
Posted by: Umlud | July 22, 2010 10:39 AM
What's funny is that, from my reading, this actually does nothing. The way it works in the UK (IIRC) is that both parties agree to arbitration by a third party that promises to rule based on Sharia law. You're still free to have your local Imam rule on your private dispute based on Sharia law, which I think is the only way it happens in Western countries.
Posted by: Tacroy | July 22, 2010 10:49 AM
So, Duncan is so upset that federal courts are (not really) relying on international law that he wrote a resolution to prevent state courts from applying international or sharia law?
Huh?
Posted by: greatbear | July 22, 2010 10:58 AM
Oklahoma and Chad both welcome Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.
Posted by: Heinrich | July 22, 2010 10:58 AM
So this means Oklahoma women need not worry about being legally compelled to wear burkas when they leave home. However, this means public stonings may be out of the question, which may frustrate the Christian Dominionists.
Posted by: wheatdogg | July 22, 2010 11:09 AM
Many private contracts have choice-of-law clauses saying, for example, that disputes under the contract will be decided under the law of [fill in the blank]." This is commonly used when the parties are of different nationalities and the place in which the dispute arises is adventitious. The usual purpose is to refer the case to a body of developed law on the subject. In a dispute over a contract for marine insurance, for example, both parties are better off with the law of England rather than the law of Bolivia, or Oklahoma. No disrespect to Bolivia or Oklahoma, but England has been at it a while and Oklahoma is land-locked. With rare exceptions, courts routinely enforce choice-of-law clauses that parties have freely bargained for. If private parties want a dispute to be resolved under sharia law, that's their business.
Taken literally, Oklahoma courts won't be able to enforce common choice-of-law clauses, even if they refer to "civilized" systems of law. The alternative will be to spell out the substance of relevant portions of sharia law, or English maritime law, or what have you, as explicit terms of the contract rather than using the convenient reference to a system of law. Same result, more words, more lawyers' fees. That's just dumb.
Posted by: CJColucci | July 22, 2010 11:10 AM
CJColucci, #19:
Is there any relevant Federal law on this? I would have thought that anything involving international parties would be a subject of Federal Law, which would take precedent over state law.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 22, 2010 11:15 AM
I wish them well, right up until an Oklahoma entity tries to get an international judgment or contract enforced. This looks like it would void all contracts under (for instance) Mexican law -- which might be more than a bit inconvenient for Oklahomans who have something coming to them under those contracts.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 22, 2010 11:30 AM
CJ @19: I completely forgot about such choice-of-law clauses. You're right; if actually applied, this would completely abolish such common and legitimate practices. Hell, if the bill says "state law" to reference only Oklahoma law, how will state courts deal with such jurisdictional issues from other states?
That being said, I doubt courts would interpret it that literally or broadly, supposing it passes; or, if they do, they could easily strike it down. I imagine there would be some serious constitutional concerns if Oklahoma seriously tried to ignore all laws besides federal and Oklahoma law.
Posted by: Wesley | July 22, 2010 11:35 AM
Considering how the Right has been pumping up the rhetoric in OK lately, what makes you think that they would want to accept the authority of Federal law? After all, the US Government is currently being run by a Kenyan.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 22, 2010 11:46 AM
Lemme guess. It's christiano-heterophobe day on dispatches! How did this happen?
Posted by: jokester | July 22, 2010 11:48 AM
State Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs, authored State Question 755, which requires state courts to rely only on federal and state laws when deciding cases, and forbids courts to consider international law or Sharia law. It will appear on the Nov. 2 general election ballot.
Hmmm. Didn't know there were Islamist activist judges. Thanks for the heads up, Rex.
Posted by: KennyG | July 22, 2010 11:56 AM
Surely the laws of the Hebrews count as international law.
Likely this could be challenged since it calls out Sharia law and not other religious laws.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | July 22, 2010 11:57 AM
Source: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_International_Law_Amendment_%282010%29,_Constitutional_changes
Biblical law is clearly out, since it is the law of another "culture". This is going to be one big mess for Oklahoma. The discussion about Sharia law is a distraction. The prohibition against international law is going to ruin a lot of things. Think about all of those Cancun weddings that will now be invalid in Oklahoma, which means those couples can't get divorces, filed married tax returns, etc.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | July 22, 2010 12:15 PM
I feel ever so much safer now. That I don't live in Oklahoma, that is.
As a Georgia resident I have often been comforted by the existence of Alabama and Mississippi. It's nice to know there are other theocratic hellholes where the majority of residents' thinking never moved beyond the 12th Century, such as in Arizona-Kansas-Oklahoma (Arikansahoma?).
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | July 22, 2010 1:03 PM
Well this should improve Oklahoma's stand on human rights tremendously.
Gay marriage is against Sharia law, now it will be legal in OK.
Posted by: Rob Jase | July 22, 2010 1:09 PM
In other news, no official court proceedings can be held in tlhIngan Hol.
Posted by: BaldApe | July 22, 2010 1:19 PM
I think this law as written is unconstitutional. The tenth Amendment allows people to retain for themselves certain rights, that includes the right to limit their conduct to certain practices, including Sharia law (in so far as it does not conflict with the US Constitution) and choice of venue as in comment #19.
I think it is also a violation of Amendment #1 by entangling the state with Sharia law.
To the extent that some Muslims are authorized by the state to perform marriages, that authorization derives in part from Sharia law.
Posted by: daedalus2u | July 22, 2010 1:19 PM
The word "conservative" is starting to mean "hysterical overreaction".
Posted by: Taz | July 22, 2010 1:30 PM
Like I said, this won't actually do anything much. The wording applies only to the Oklahoma court system, and not to third party arbitration. Although the courts themselves cannot rule based on Sharia law, they can say "look, you signed a contract that says this will be enforced as per Sharia law as interpreted by such and such an arbitration group, so go talk to them".
Signing a contract saying "I agree to be bound by [some other system of law]" is perfectly legal in the United States, with some caveats.
Of course, if it does apply to third-party arbitration, corporations are going to have a much harder time in Oklahoma - they won't be able to put "you must agree to settle any disputes through third party arbitration" in their contracts.
Posted by: Tacroy | July 22, 2010 1:50 PM
I say let these idiots use their energies to turn in viscious circles on crap like this.
Why not let them vote? It is meaningless, except inside their paranoid conspiratorial imagination.
Posted by: DuaneBidoux | July 22, 2010 2:14 PM
English common law is rather frequently cited for matters relating to Constitutional issues, as well as issues of American common law where there have not been many cases here. Here's a US Supreme Court case that was recently back in the news, and it expressly relies on English common law to reach its conclusion.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
"The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.' 124 U.S. 478 , 8 Sup. Ct. 569."
The United States already has separate religious courts. The best known are the ecclesiatical courts of the Catholic Church and the beit din of the Jewish communities, which rule on such things as the religious effect of a civil divorce. But their conduct is protected by the First Amendment, and no one can be forced in the government courts to submit to them.
Posted by: RobNYNY1957 | July 22, 2010 2:31 PM
The Tenth is a dead letter. Go ahead and find the last time it was cited in any binding case law.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 22, 2010 2:49 PM
I agree. This is unconstitutional. Another area where international law comes up is, for instance, cases involving allegedly stolen property that was stolen outside the US, then brought here. You have to use the laws of the place it was allegedly stolen to determine if the posessor obtained good title.
Posted by: Ace of Sevens | July 22, 2010 2:55 PM
The Tenth Amendment was just the basis of a ruling in Federal Court in Massachusetts:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/massachusetts-doma-decision.pdf
"That DOMA plainly intrudes on a core area of state sovereignty — the ability to define the marital status of its citizens—also convinces this court that the statute violates the Tenth Amendment."
I think most legal scholars are doubtful that this reasoning will be upheld on appeal, but the Tenth Amendment is not quite a dead letter yet.
Posted by: RobNYNY1957 | July 22, 2010 3:04 PM
I wonder if the unconstitutionality (is that a word?) is exactly the point? Imaging the Republican talking points when this gets overturned: "Supreme Court upholds Sharia Law!"
Posted by: BKsea | July 22, 2010 3:05 PM
Quite so. The courts already cannot use Sharia law. That's because it simply isn't the law - unless of course it first be enacted as State or Federal law, at which point this amendment would cease to prohibit it anyway. In fact, the only actual effect I can find would be that it explicitly has a clause instructing courts to ignore relevant law of other states if it includes Sharia law. If, somehow, some state were to decide to enact Sharia law, Oklahoma courts would cease to honour the laws of that State, triggering a seemingly blatant violation of the "Full Faith and Credit" clause.
Posted by: DaveL | July 22, 2010 3:06 PM
I guess there go's the ol Magna Carta and the 10 Commandments---Damn !
Posted by: MarkOKC | July 22, 2010 3:17 PM
No, because American culture is built around Biblical law.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 22, 2010 3:24 PM
Parties to contracts are largely free to select the law that will govern the contract (with variations among the states). For example, many letters of credit are by mutual agreement governed by the Uniform Customs and Practices for Documentary Credits, which are not law in any country. But courts generally enforce the choice. If parties to a contract agreed to the provisions of Sharia law that govern interest payments, I don't see how a court could constitutionally decide that Sharia would not be honored if other religious laws would be honored in the ame situation.
Of course, most contracts relating to religious matters are unenforceable, but a lot of religious law covers non-religious things. For example, companies that falsly claim to produce kosher food can be subject to civil and legal charges. No doubt the same applies to Hallal food, or could. And even divorce agreements stipulating that a child will be raised in a specific religion are generally enforceable, I believe. (Not my area of law, though.)
Posted by: RobNYNY1957 | July 22, 2010 3:26 PM
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 22, 2010 4:43 PM
In the past the targets were Catholics and Jews, particularly the former. Al Smith and JFK were going to be taking orders from the Pope and bishops would writing laws, that sort of thing. Not just an American tacti, the Unionists cry of "Rome Rule" still resonates today.
Not defending it or saying we shouldn;t oppose this nonsense of course. Just reminding people that its an old tune with a lot of different lyrics.
Posted by: EKoh | July 22, 2010 4:46 PM
There there are tons of international conventions, like the Warsaw Convention, which governs liabilities after airplane crashes and other matters related to air travel. International Postal Convention, even the Geneva Conventions. This law could conceivably leave Oklahomans without a remedy in a lot of areas of law, at least in Oklahoma state courts.
Posted by: RobNYNY1957 | July 22, 2010 4:51 PM
RobNYNY1957, #46:
I believe that the examples you cite are all treaties ratified by the US Senate, and so any provisions enforceable by state courts are technically US law.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 22, 2010 4:57 PM
Why was I not told of this? Since when have we been following the Geneva Convention?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 22, 2010 5:51 PM
Sharia law and what the Fundies want to foist on people are
the same damn thing except for the burkas.I bet however that many of the Wing nuts wish that they came up with the idea of burkas before the Muslems.
Posted by: Paen | July 22, 2010 6:43 PM
Will this work in the other direction? Should citizens of other countries, who have never been to the US, be subject to US law? The US govt. seems to think so. Free Marc Emery! "Extraordinary Rendition" has been all about exactly this issue. Maybe the Oklahomans can get the US govt. to change their ways. I sure hope so.
Posted by: Roland | July 22, 2010 11:33 PM
Isn't this the same state that voted to make women undergo a mental exam and view a high tech ultra-sound while having doctors withhold information about the fetuses health, in order to have an abortion?
I would think they would embrace sharia- maybe they just don't want to call it that, but the concepts are the same.
Posted by: staceyjw | July 23, 2010 1:03 AM
Presumably, Jewish relgious courts will also be banned from arbitrating property and custody issues arising from divorces.
Posted by: Ian Gould | July 23, 2010 3:24 AM
I don't see how. Jewish "courts" are simply part of the binding arbitration system. Any state court would simply be approving an arbitrated settlement, not deciding any question on the basis of Jewish law.
Posted by: DaveL | July 23, 2010 6:47 AM
Given the relative prevalence of Christian and Muslim judges, I would have thought a more appropriate law, and one that is more likely to have any relevance would be to prevent state courts from applying biblical law when making judgements.
Posted by: G.Shelley | July 23, 2010 8:36 AM
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/07/sharia-islamic-law-in-new-jersey-court-muslim-husband-rapes-beats-sexually-abuses-wife-judge-sees-no.html
I am from Oklahoma and strongly believe we need a law like this! Read the link I just posted & you'll see that it is coming!
Posted by: Kat | July 25, 2010 1:33 PM
This is a worthy referendum. Shariah is not about religion, it is about a parallel legal system. Look beyond your state's borders, and check out what has happened in the UK, Germany, France, Netherland, etc. Good job, OK -- lest you want to start calling yourselves 'dhimmi'.
Posted by: BAW | July 27, 2010 12:20 PM
BAW wrote:
Oh sure, because those countries have constitutions identical to ours, right? Right? Some of those nations also have holocaust denial laws; that does not mean we're going to get one. The First Amendment prohibits such laws, just like it prohibits the imposition of Sharia law.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 27, 2010 12:25 PM
Re: this New Jersey case. You have to search the entire country to find one idiot judge who made a ridiculous ruling -- which, by the way, was overturned immediately. That's it? That's your evidence that Sharia law is about to overtake America?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 27, 2010 12:29 PM
It's not about the fact that so far YOU can't see any evidence of Sharia law being applied. The fact is there has been an instance or two. It's about the fact that it's coming. Look what's happening at Ground Zero - those people want the USA to be "more" Sharia compliant. Hand them a copy of the Emancipation Proclimation and kick them in the ass. NO WOMAN can possibly allow the words Sharia Law to seep into our culture. Every state should be taking steps now. Don't be a fool like those who voted Obama and now look how unhappy you are. Don't underestimate.....ever.
Posted by: imakansasgairl | July 27, 2010 12:57 PM
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!
Posted by: JJE | November 5, 2010 10:52 AM