Alabama Passes “No Sharia” Amendment To State Constitution

Well this must have been important or it wouldn't have made it to ballot.

Alabama voters have said yes to a State Constitutional Amendment that addresses "Sharia" law apparently.

Don't know any details.

Must the old "Alabamee Whamee"

Alabama is a beautiful state with a population that is largely rooted in common sense and patriotism, “clinging bitterly” to their traditional American values. That might be seen as a negative in some areas of the country, particularly in the Northeast, DC, or West Coast liberal cesspools, but in Alabama, it’s a source of pride. They still understand what it means to be an American, what representative government is and they reject the socialism, the political correctness and nanny state that many of the “enlightened” among us have chosen to embrace.

In the elections of Tuesday, in which the Republican victories issued a cease and desist order to the socialist fundamental transformation, the people of Alabama also stood up for the sanctity of America’s judicial system and against the trend to internationalize or subdivide our laws based upon the views of those subject to them.

The citizens of Alabama spoke by passing a constitutional amendment which prohibits the use of any foreign laws in state courts. The amendment was sponsored by Republican state Sen. Gerald Allen, a Baptist deacon.

Alabama Passes “No Sharia” Amendment To State Constitution

It Must Be the RED Wave !!

Will this be the start of the

Christian Theocracy Movement?

a reply to: xuenchen

All they did waste money, time, and paper. The supreme court will shoot that down so fast their heads will spin just as soon as someone complains about it.

Alabama is one of the poorest states in the Union an yet they waste time and money on things like this. Granted education in Alabama is terrible as well so I suppose politicians can get the people to forget they do nothing to improve life in one of Americas most impoverished states by telling them the evil muslims are coming so lets stop them. This is like creating a law that stops Mongolian Law to be used in Alabama. At some point the people who live in these poor southern states have got to get tired living in poverty and ignorance and do something about it.

I'm confused how can foreign laws be upheld in US courts?

a reply to: MrSpad

At some point the people who live in these poor southern states have got to get tired living in poverty and ignorance and do something about it.

Move to Tennessee?

originally posted by: DisIllusioned PatRiot
a reply to: xuenchen

All they did waste money, time, and paper. The supreme court will shoot that down so fast their heads will spin just as soon as someone complains about it.

Not all things religious are protected under the First Amendment. If you had a religion that dictated that babies are to be sacrificed, well, that's not protected under the First Amendment. Many portions of Sharia law would be shot down by the other amendments and especially the 8th Amendment which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments".

Agreed overall though as all they did was waste time, money and more to prohibit many things that would've been knocked down as unprotected for any--regardless of whether its a religious belief or not. Hiding behind a religion does not make an illegal act legal--just ask the Mormons about that one.

Here's a few questions to ask yourself--if much of Sharia Law would be prohibited, regardless of religious affiliation, by federal laws and constitutional amendments, then what was the point of making this amendment? Were there individuals living in the state of Alabama that were trying to practice Sharia Law and then stoned somebody to death for adultery, which then went without pursuit or prosecution by the local and state government or even the FBI? No? Then it's silly but it was probably silly with a point.

My guess is the point was to make the constituents within Alabama feel good that something positive had been done in their state to fight Sharia Law and Muslims. It does a double plus good in both providing the people of Alabama a (false) sense of victory against a perceived nemesis and makes that government of theirs look shiny in the process.

Good job, Alabama!

originally posted by: xuenchen
Well this must have been important or it wouldn't have made it to ballot.

Alabama voters have said yes to a State Constitutional Amendment that addresses "Sharia" law apparently.

Don't know any details.

Must the old "Alabamee Whamee"

Alabama is a beautiful state with a population that is largely rooted in common sense and patriotism, “clinging bitterly” to their traditional American values. That might be seen as a negative in some areas of the country, particularly in the Northeast, DC, or West Coast liberal cesspools, but in Alabama, it’s a source of pride. They still understand what it means to be an American, what representative government is and they reject the socialism, the political correctness and nanny state that many of the “enlightened” among us have chosen to embrace.

In the elections of Tuesday, in which the Republican victories issued a cease and desist order to the socialist fundamental transformation, the people of Alabama also stood up for the sanctity of America’s judicial system and against the trend to internationalize or subdivide our laws based upon the views of those subject to them.

The citizens of Alabama spoke by passing a constitutional amendment which prohibits the use of any foreign laws in state courts. The amendment was sponsored by Republican state Sen. Gerald Allen, a Baptist deacon.

Alabama Passes “No Sharia” Amendment To State Constitution

It Must Be the RED Wave !!

Will this be the start of the

Christian Theocracy Movement?

I live in Alabama and actually read the amendment. I suggest you read the original legislation before you quote a biased source on it's meaning.

In a dumbed down version: Forbids state's recognition of laws violating its policies, including all foreign law

Shariah law is NEVER mentioned in the amendment.

In the full version:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to prohibit the State of Alabama from giving full faith and credit to public acts, records, or judicial proceedings of another state that violate the public policy of the State of Alabama and to prohibit the application of foreign law in violation of rights guaranteed natural citizens by the United States and Alabama Constitutions, and the statutes, laws, and public policy thereof, but without application to business entities. (Proposed by Act 2013-269)

It was written to prohibit Judges from using laws in foreign countries being cited as presidence and as a guide for judicial action.

Yes, it forbids Judges from taking Shariah law and using it as a guide for judicial action.

It also stops the practice we have seen in the past few years of judges citing laws from other countries as their reason for a judicial action.

The Supreme Court can not shoot this down, it is a state law and does not affect other states, and it is not illegal to say that judges must either use US law or Alabama law as their basis for judicial decisions and not any laws found anywhere else in the world or any "cultural practices" from another country as a basis for judicial decision.

a reply to: MrSpad

You have never been to or lived in Alabama.

Did you know that in the Madison/Huntsville area of Alabama 34% of the residents hold a master's degree or PhD?
Also, more than 50% of the residents have a bachelor's degree or higher?
That there are 20,000 engineers in the Madison/Huntsville area?
And in case you think that they are small towns, there are 683,871 residents in the metro area of Huntsville, AL.

Just to inform you that Alabama is not as backward as you are trying to make it out to be.

What you were spouting is a myth about the state of Alabama, one that will be shot to h--- if you'd visit for yourself.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Utilizing judicial precedent from another country is not what is done in obtaining stare decisis in the US. Being a state law, however, does not mean that the Supreme Court, either federal or state, cannot strike down a law as being unconstitutional. Each state, as per the US Constitution, also has subjugated itself to the law of the land--those federal amendments. However, the odds of that happening would be really unlikely because the law passed by Alabama is effectively pointless.

The protections under the First Amendment are not limitless. Based on stare decisis and, frequently, need, the various protections under the First Amendment have had limits placed on them in order to assure other protections under other amendments or of basic human rights. In that light, not all speech is free (you can't shout fire in a theater), not all the press is free (you can't publish a report on upcoming troop movements during wartime), and not all religion is free (you can't deprive another or violate the amendments under the blanket of religion). Sharia law, because of its tendency of being a violation of the 8th amendment, could never be used as a judicial precedent (even if such a thing were done) and would not be protected under the blanket of the First Amendment because it grossly infringes upon the Eighth Amendment.

Pointless law.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

Yes, judges are using Shariah in the US.
www.tampabay.com...
Judge orders use of Islamic law in Tampa lawsuit over mosque leadership

www.cbn.com...
Pa. Judge's Ruling Proof of Sharia Law in US Courts

creepingsharia.wordpress.com...
New Jersey Judge Rules Islamic Sharia Law Trumps U.S. Law

shariafreeusa.com...
Pennsylvania Judge Mark Martin ruled that it was ok for a Muslim immigrant to physically attack and choke an American citizen because the Muslim was unaware that Sharia law did not apply in Pennsylvania.


I have to run, grandchildren coming.
Or I'd also source the laws of foreign countries being used in the US that is contrary to US law.

Maybe they were smart enough to look overseas and see Sharia Laws inroads. The lefties are always citing Europe as some grand eutopia(purposely spelled this) just look at their arguments for health care where they say we should be more like them.

a reply to: grandmakdw

hmm... but that(first one) makes sense.

You'd want to use islamic law, when presiding over a civil case concerning Mosque Leadership... since Islamic law can have a bearing over how mosques are supposed to be run, and therefore have relevance to the dispute in question.

most of the other stories seem like typical judicial stupidity... no different than the "lets try a 14 year old as an adult for smoking weed while driving his parent's car without a license "-and give a sentence of 10-15 years in prison.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Did you know that in the Madison/Huntsville area of Alabama 34% of the residents hold a master's degree or PhD?

You want to know why it is like that? It's because it is home to NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. If it wasn't like that then it would be just ignorant as the rest of the state.

Just to inform you that Alabama is not as backward as you are trying to make it out to be.
What you were spouting is a myth about the state of Alabama, one that will be shot to h--- if you'd visit for yourself.

I lived in Alabama for a couple of years and it is no myth.

I'd have to look in to this a bit more, but this does seem like a common sense piece...although it has nothing to do, per se, with Sharia law.

Foreign laws should not be used as precedence when our own laws should address any issue at hand. If not, pass a law that fits.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Maybe they were smart enough to look overseas and see Sharia Laws inroads. The lefties are always citing Europe as some grand eutopia(purposely spelled this) just look at their arguments for health care where they say we should be more like them.

Seeing how many of the healthcare systems in Europe are better than ours it would be nice if ours were like them.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: MrSpad

You have never been to or lived in Alabama.

Did you know that in the Madison/Huntsville area of Alabama 34% of the residents hold a master's degree or PhD?
Also, more than 50% of the residents have a bachelor's degree or higher?
That there are 20,000 engineers in the Madison/Huntsville area?
And in case you think that they are small towns, there are 683,871 residents in the metro area of Huntsville, AL.

Just to inform you that Alabama is not as backward as you are trying to make it out to be.

What you were spouting is a myth about the state of Alabama, one that will be shot to h--- if you'd visit for yourself.

I have been. And of course small parts of the population are highly educated. Small parts of every population even in places like Somalia have pockets of highly educated people. However compared to the total population of the state that is a very small minority. On top of that it's public education systems ranks at 49th. With all that poverty, poor education and tons of other problems the fanatsy of Sharia Law as a problem in Alabama is beyond silly.

a reply to: grandmakdw

I lived in Alabama for several years, and yes, yes it is that bad. I sat at the job I was working at, going through applications one day. There were sixty or so applications, and I saw less than ten of them that had graduated high school, with another 11 or 12 that had GEDs. The rest hadn't gotten past 8th or 9th grade.

a reply to: grandmakdw

The usage of foreign laws as law in the US is actually very limited. The only instance that I'm aware of it potentially being used is in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which has a prohibition against bribing foreign officials.

The several links that you presented are all coming from biased sources except for the Tampa Bay Times link and as that article correctly points out, the usage of foreign laws within the states as a source is issue ridden. However, that case is a really very interesting one because of its nature.

In that particular case, however, it was in the 2nd District Court of Appeals. The only way that a case makes it to a district court of appeals is if one of the parties are displeased with the prior judge's ruling. Since the case was involving the potential improper ousting of two board members of a mosque, does it surprise me that a judge presiding over a court of appeals turned to a specialist in Islamic law for an arbitration on the case? Not in this case.

In the case of Mansour and Faraji v. Islamic Education Center of Tampa, the governance of the aforementioned corporation was, in fact, drafted by an Islamic A'lim. Furthermore, the A'lim in residence has veto power over the board of trustees and the usage of the A'lim in guidance to "insure adherence to Islamic law" . Furthermore, deference towards that A'lim "on matters of conflict referred to him by the board" are also laid out in that internal church governance. All these statements in regards to the governance of the mosque are pertinent facts to the particular case. Many established religions do have an established internal church rules for its arbitration and decision making on that particular church's functions and governance. The only difference is that this governance just happens to be one that is guided by an A'lim--a specialist in Islamic law.

One of the cases cited by the judge is Franzen v. Poulos. In Franzen v. Poulos, the case was, like the IEC case, a dispute regarding internal church governance of a Lutheran church. The argument to default to the internal resolutions and hierarchy within the Lutheran church was this:

In short, the First and Fourteenth Amendments permit hierarchical religious organizations to establish their own rules and regulations for internal discipline and government, and to create tribunals for adjudicating disputes over these matters. When this choice is exercised and ecclesiastical tribunals are created to decide disputes over the government and direction of subordinate bodies, the Constitution requires that civil courts accept their decisions as binding upon them.Franzen v. Poulos

The First Amendment basically places prohibitions on governmental interactions in a church's affairs. Only when the church is engaging in acts that go directly against the law of the land (ie murder) is when the state interferes. If a church has already established and deferred itself to the use of an internal tribunal, then a court is not to inject itself into church governance. In this case, instead of it involving a Lutheran church, it was a mosque and the governance of that mosque had already been established in its own governance rules ("constitution") as being subject to an A'lim.

If you would like courts to rule on the internal affairs of churches when they have an established order of doing things, then well, you're going to have to get that First Amendment repealed. Over my dead body.

a reply to: xuenchen

Most people aren't aware how unique the Alabama constitution is.

"At 340,136 words, the document is 12 times longer than the average state constitution, 40 times longer than the U.S. Constitution, and is the longest still-operative constitution anywhere in the world"

An amendment doesn't quite mean the same as in other states.

A lot of people passed their IQ test simply by moving out of Alabama