Montana Democrat Governor Allows Sharia Law in State Courts

[bigwave]

Montana Democrat Governor Steve Bullock vetoed legislation that would ban Sharia Law from state courts.

It was Islamophobic legislation.
US News reported:

Gov. Steve Bullock vetoed a bill that would have banned Shariah and other foreign laws from being used in Montana courts, saying Thursday that the measure would “upend our legal system and debase what we stand for as Montanans and Americans.”

Montana was one of the 13 states considering legislation seeking to prevent the use of foreign law in state courts. While the bill’s focus was not on Shariah law, some supporters specifically spoke out against the religious law used in some parts of the Islamic world.

Some Republicans sided with Democrats in opposing the measure but could not block it from going to the governor.

“There is absolutely no need for this bill,” Bullock wrote in his veto message, adding that the proposal could add to the “nationwide surge in hate crimes.”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/montana-democrat-governor-allows-sharia-law-state-courts/

[gregp]

Here we go he's probably in sharia practicing  towel wearing don't get me started

[Man_Kind]

What an F'n sheet head !!!

Sorry it's Monday !!!

[markb57]

he needs to be drug out and hung immediately!

[Shabibilicious]

Sharia law is not the law of our land, therefore there's no need for a bill banning that which means nothing in the Montana courts system.....come down off the ledge people.  It's all going to be just fine.  We're talking about Montana for Pete's sake.  

GO RV, then BV

 

[markb57]

it's because it's "Montana", is where the problem is. Who would have thought a low population state would even entertain the idea. The governor, vetoing this bill puts the idea out there that maybe sharia is ok. He should have set precedence and signed the law in. Just like Texas did.

[gregp]

1 hour ago, markb57 said:

it's because it's "Montana", is where the problem is. Who would have thought a low population state would even entertain the idea. The governor, vetoing this bill puts the idea out there that maybe sharia is ok. He should have set precedence and signed the law in. Just like Texas did.

Agreed. Too much Hollywood in that state. Not what it use to be. 

[gregp]

1 hour ago, Shabibilicious said:

Sharia law is not the law of our land, therefore there's no need for a bill banning that which means nothing in the Montana courts system.....come down off the ledge people.  It's all going to be just fine.  We're talking about Montana for Pete's sake.  

GO RV, then BV

 

That was hobummers attitude. 

[bigwave]

12 hours ago, bigwave said:

the measure would “upend our legal system and debase what we stand for as Montanans and Americans.”

I hope people get their head out of the sand and quick!!!

[nstoolman1]

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/america-sharia-law.html

 

Once the nose of the camel is under the tent  

[tankdude]

4 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

Sharia law is not the law of our land, therefore there's no need for a bill banning that which means nothing in the Montana courts system.....come down off the ledge people.  It's all going to be just fine.  We're talking about Montana for Pete's sake.  

GO RV, then BV

 

I'm on the same sheet of music on this one. Article VI, Clause 2 (also called the Supremacy Clause), establishes the US Constitution as “the supreme law of the land,” making it impossible for any foreign law to supersede American law.  It is utterly impossible for sharia to “take over” America. That's basic civics from high school - or at least it was for me.

Sharia law is not even a recognized international law.

 

[Jim1cor13]

17 minutes ago, tankdude said:

I'm on the same sheet of music on this one. Article VI, Clause 2 (also called the Supremacy Clause), establishes the US Constitution as “the supreme law of the land,” making it impossible for any foreign law to supersede American law.  It is utterly impossible for sharia to “take over” America. That's basic civics from high school - or at least it was for me.

Sharia law is not even a recognized international law.

 

 

Well said TD. Just the mention of this issue by media gets the desired reaction and the fears that go with it.

 

[pattyangel]

Impeach him.   What government official could not know Article VI, Clause 2, also called the Supremacy Clause.

Tankdude looks like the governor needs a refreshers course in the United States Constitution.   

1 hour ago, Jim1cor13 said:

 

Well said TD. Just the mention of this issue by media gets the desired reaction and the fears that go with it.

 

Yes, Jim1cor13, the media's tactics are working hard to keep the fear up front. 

[pattyangel]

[pattyangel]

[tankdude]

2 hours ago, pattyangel said:

Yep - that would be the 1st Amendment...but then again that also applies to Halakha, Dharmic law and Ecclesiastical law - to name a few.

 

[Texstorm]

Get a frickin rope ! I can tolerate any Muslim that abides by the law of our land. Now if you're a Muslim and don't agree ! Get the hell out ! 

 

[Shabibilicious]

16 hours ago, pattyangel said:

Impeach him.   What government official could not know Article VI, Clause 2, also called the Supremacy Clause.

Tankdude looks like the governor needs a refreshers course in the United States Constitution.   

Yes, Jim1cor13, the media's tactics are working hard to keep the fear up front. 

Tank just proved that the Montana Governor made the right decision and you think he should be impeached....why?  Tank also inadvertently proved that Texas made a frivolous, knee jerk reaction by passing a similar law for no foreseeable reason than to thump it's chest.  

GO RV, then BV

[BJinMontreal]

Shabs - ever hears the saying - give someone an inch and they'll take a mile?

One mile down some road, some town will decide to enforce Sharia Law because the inhabitants are no longer 100% American citizens, or even 50% American born and bred, but are in fact 75% or more muslim because brain-dead judges and lawmakers don't want to be known as being politically incorrect and hurt anyone's feelings and allowed these migrants to come freely to the U.S. without asking for any identifying papers or passports !!!

 

[Shabibilicious]

7 minutes ago, BJinMontreal said:

Shabs - ever hears the saying - give someone an inch and they'll take a mile?

One mile down some road, some town will decide to enforce Sharia Law because the inhabitants are no longer 100% American citizens, or even 50% American born and bred, but are in fact 75% or more muslim because brain-dead judges and lawmakers don't want to be known as being politically incorrect and hurt anyone's feelings and allowed these migrants to come freely to the U.S. without asking for any identifying papers or passports !!!

It's still completely irrelevant......U.S. Constitution 101.    No inches have been given, so no mile will be accumulated.  

GO RV, then BV

[umbertino]

21 hours ago, pattyangel said:

That's obvious and nobody ( intellectually honest at least) could disagree with that

[nstoolman1]

41 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

It's still completely irrelevant......U.S. Constitution 101.    No inches have been given, so no mile will be accumulated.  

GO RV, then BV

 

I'll post this again.

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/america-sharia-law.html

 

It may not be law but if one judge adjust the law to fit a persons cultural beliefs and it is against the Constitution then inches have been given. How soon after will the mile be given. You can't retry a person  once they have been found not guilty

[BJinMontreal]

Totally agree nstoolman1 - up here in the Great White North we've already seen Sharia Law creeping into schools and municipal governments ... because heaven-forbid someone should upset a poor immigrant hell-bent on destroying everything Christian it encounters in the name of their religion!!!

 

Shabs - when they took the Lord's Prayer and religion out of schools - that was the first inch!!!!

[tankdude]

I'm siding with Shabbs on this one - Sharia law will never be used in the US courtrooms - specifically because of Article 6 and the First Amendment.  I personally think that this is a big "tail wagging the dog" situation. 

Don't get me wrong - Islamic extremists are as worrisome to me as anyone - especially since I and my family would be a prime target for one of them. I have fought to defend this country - and I'm a strong Constitutionalist. With that being said - we again have to look at the First Amendment. 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Our court system has to manage the tensions in our society between strong secular and religious principles. It can be a slippery slope. I hope our system can continue to keep a balance between church and state. We have to remember that the United States is Christian in a cultural sense, not a legal one.

And on a side note in the case of S.D. v. M.J.R.  cited at http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/america-sharia-law.html .  The ruling was overturned by the New Jersey Appellate Court in 2010.

 

 

[RV ME]

On 4/10/2017 at 8:15 AM, Shabibilicious said:

 

On 4/10/2017 at 1:25 PM, Jim1cor13 said:

 

 

On 4/10/2017 at 5:23 PM, tankdude said:

 

After looking at some of SCOTUS decisions regarding protecting the Constitution, I believe some have more confidence in 5 black cloaked judges than I do.  This is obviously the States reaction to the run amok federal government.  There are multiple examples of what I would call malfeasance rendered by SCOTUS to cause concern of an ever growing in power federal government.

 

Even though the 10^th Amendment was one of the originals, it has been ignored and been gotten around since 1824 when SCOTUS invoked the interstate commerce clause to decide an intrastate (note intra, not inter) dispute in GA. They reasoned that since the commerce in GA could affect commerce in other states, the interstate commerce clause applies thereby rendering the 10^th pretty much a moot amendment.  An enumerated Amendment; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” has been overruled by one line in Article I that says the federal government has the power “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;” and this has been used as precedence for more federal control ever since.

 

The 1^st clearly stipulates that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”, yet over the years the Court has vacillated between the free exercise clause and the establishment clause, sometimes ruling in favor of religious freedoms and sometimes against.  It got to the point that it took an act of Congress in 1978 to restore the religious liberties guaranteed in the 1^st to American Indians that SCOTUS previously ruled as Constitutional to restrict (i.e. peyote use, and possession of eagle feathers).  If their rights were already “protected” by the Constitution, why did it take an act of Congress to restore these rights?

 

During the Gorsuch hearings Sen Waters (D. CA) expressed her concern of having him approved was because he would decide cases based strictly on the Constitution.  That should be the requirement, not cause for concern.  Since Waters voted against Gorsuch but for Sotomayor and Kagan, does that mean she was assured that these two Justices would not decide cases based on the Constitution, but on something else?  Is this what Sotomayor meant when she said during her confirmation hearing that an Hispanic would judge cases differently?  We already have one Justice who has proclaimed she looks at foreign laws when deciding cases, and that is one too many reasons not to put your faith in SCOTUS for upholding the Constitution.

 

The Bill Of Rights was written expressly for the purpose to enumerate the Peoples rights, and concluded with “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  The federal government has been trying to erode these rights since shortly after the ink was dry.  I can find no fault with any of “the people” or the “States” for doing everything they can to protect these rights from what the federal government might do in the future.