'Anti-Sharia' law is back

[bigzgvr4]

AMERICA already have a Sharia Type Law for the JEws its Called HALAKA Look it up YOu will know wht iam talking about

 

[Developereo]

British-Muslims ... Pakistan...

Your whole dance around the world to deflect from the actual topic of US laws and delving into ridiculous hypotheticals that directly contradict US Constitutional restrictions proves that you have nothing.

Not worth responding.

 

[gambit]

Your whole dance around the world to deflect from the actual topic of US laws and delving into ridiculous hypotheticals that directly contradict US Constitutional restrictions proves that you have nothing.

Not worth responding.

More like too chickensh1t to respond. There is nothing hypothetical about a dual legal systems where the government is burden to enforce unequal laws and therefore punishments. It is going on in Pakistan and you cannot reconcile your claim of believing in one set of laws BECAUSE YOU ACTUALLY SUPPORT SUCH A SYSTEM.

 

[Developereo]

More like too chickensh1t to respond. There is nothing hypothetical about a dual legal systems where the government is burden to enforce unequal laws and therefore punishments. It is going on in Pakistan and you cannot reconcile your claim of believing in one set of laws BECAUSE YOU ACTUALLY SUPPORT SUCH A SYSTEM.

There is no way a US governmental entity can be induced to enforce religious laws on US soil. It doesn't matter what happens anywhere else on the planet. There is no loophole of dual, triple or any kind of legal system.

You seem unable to differentiate between voluntary codes of conduct, which some communities chose to abide by, and legally enforceable laws whose compliance is mandatory. Since you are incapable of understanding this simple distinction, I won't waste my time.

 

[gambit]

There is no way a US governmental entity can be induced to enforce religious laws on US soil. It doesn't matter what happens anywhere else on the planet. There is no loophole of dual, triple or any kind of legal system.

Yes, there is. It is called the US Congress.

You seem unable to differentiate between voluntary codes of conduct, which some communities chose to abide by, and legally enforceable laws whose compliance is mandatory. Since you are incapable of understanding this simple distinction, I won't waste my time.

This has nothing to do with whatever people chose to voluntarily submit. This has to do with elevating a code of conduct to that of legal enforcement. It looks like it is YOU who seems to have difficulty grasping this. In a dual legal system, the state is legally obligated to administer two different codes of conducts in equal measures.

Federal Shariat Court - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Federal Shariat Court (FSC) of Pakistan is a court which has the power to examine and determine whether the laws of the country comply with Shari'a law. It consists of 8 Muslim judges appointed by the President of Pakistan after consulting the Chief Justice of this Court, from amongst the serving or retired judges of the Supreme Court or a High Court or from amongst persons possessing the qualifications of judges of a High Court. Justice Agha Rafiq Ahmed Khan is the current Chief Justice of the court. Of the 8 judges, 3 are required to be Ulema who are well versed in Islamic law. The judges hold office for a period of 3 years, which may eventually be extended by the President.

See that part that involves the President? It ain't the President of the United States, pal.

The court also exercises revisional jurisdiction over the criminal courts, deciding Hudood cases. The decisions of the court are binding on the High Courts as well as subordinate judiciary. The court appoints its own staff and frames its own rules of procedure.

Welllll...Looky here...

A set of religious laws backed by religiously trained judges appointed by the Head Of State, make a decision that is LEGALLY binding, not just on the lower courts, but also on the fellow High Courts. That is like saying the US have two Supreme Courts, one for the Christians and one for the non-Christians.

[Chapter 3a: Federal Shariat Court] of [Part VII: The Judicature]

203D Powers, Jurisdiction and Functions of the Court.
(1) The Court may, [210] [either of its own motion or] on the petition of a citizen of Pakistan or the Federal Government or a Provincial Government, examine and decide the question whether or not any law or provision of law is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam, as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet, hereinafter referred to as the Injunctions of Islam.

And who say a religious court cannot impose its will on non-believers?

(3) If any law or provision of law is held by the Court to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam,

(a) the President in the case of a law with respect to a matter in the Federal Legislative List [212A]or the Concurrent Legislative List, or the Governor in the case of a law with respect to a matter not enumerated [212A]in either of those Lists, shall take steps to amend the law so as to bring such law or provision into conformity with the Injunctions of Islam; and

(b) such law or provision shall, to the extent to which it is held to be so repugnant, cease to have effect on the day on which the decision of the Court takes effect.

So if this religious court deems a particular law to be offensive to Islam, the President of Pakistan is LEGALLY obligated to amend said offensive law. It does not say the President of Pakistan can voluntarily amend the offensive law. It simply say to the President of Pakistan -- DO.

To put it plainly, the religious law is supreme. Do not tell the readers that under such a system, non-believers are going to get a fair deal. If any non-believer does get such a fair deal, it will be because the religious judge got laid the night before and he got up in a good mood.

This is not about US. Despite the discussion's topic have its origin in the US, it has never been about US but about the dangers of having religious intrusions into government and some American lawmakers are working to ensure that Pakistan's legal minefields cannot be in the US.

Your self righteousness has been shot all to hell.

 

[Developereo]

Yes, there is. It is called the US Congress.

The US Congress can't go against the Constitution unless an amendment is ratified by the requisite number of States. The clauses against laws favoring/against religion are amongst the most central and vigorously enforced clauses.

Good luck (for anyone) trying to ratify a Constitutional amendment negating those clauses. The fact that you (and the Senators) keep blabbering about this Muslim threat shows your pitiful understanding of the US legal system and the Constitutional safeguards.

Pakistan

Ah yes, the desperate dance around the world again...

This is not about US.

This is entirely about the US and the claim that US Muslims will enforce Sharia law on US soil. The fact that you can't substantiate the claim in the topic leads you to run around the world blabbering about hypotheticals.

Christians have been trying for decades to pass religion-based laws (about abortion, etc.) but have failed repeatedly because of safeguards in the US legal system. To now imply that the Muslim supermen will succeed where decades of Christian lawyers and lobbyists have failed is humorous, to put it mildly.

 

[gambit]

The US Congress can't go against the Constitution unless an amendment is ratified by the requisite number of States. The clauses against laws favoring/against religion are amongst the most central and vigorously enforced clauses.

Good luck (for anyone) trying to ratify a Constitutional amendment negating those clauses. The fact that you (and the Senators) keep blabbering about this Muslim threat shows your pitiful understanding of the US legal system and the Constitutional safeguards.

Hah...I understand the US Constitution better than you do. What I said was in general terms, but of course if enough states caved under political correctness willing to amend the Constitution, then the US Congress will be free to enact religious laws.

But before we get to that level...

Muslim Gangs Enforce Sharia Law in London :: Gatestone Institute

Muslim gangs have been filmed loitering on streets in London and demanding that passersby conform to Islamic Sharia law.

The self-proclaimed vigilantes, who call themselves Muslim London Patrol, are seen in several videos abusing people for drinking alcohol, for showing too much flesh and for being homosexual.

In one three-and-a-half minute video posted on YouTube on January 17, a number of hooded men are seen repeatedly shouting "this is a Muslim area" towards non-Muslim passers-by.

In the footage, which was shot at night on the weekend of January 12/13 on a mobile phone, in what is believed to be Whitechapel in east London, one gang member is seen telling a young woman who is wearing a short skirt, "you cannot dress like that in a Muslim area, this is a Muslim area."

A few moments later, the vigilantes confront a man carrying a can of beer, telling him "no alcohol is allowed." They then force him to empty out the contents of the can on the sidewalk. One gang member shouts: "Get him to pour it out, pour it out, Muslim area. Alcohol bad. This is a Muslim area. This area is a Muslim area. No drink in this area." He continues: "What this is, is a Muslim Patrol. We are Muslims and we patrol the area. Forbidden … evil. Alcohol is evil. No alcohol. Yes? Have a good day."

A few moments later, the vigilantes accost a woman who, referring to the imposition of Sharia law in the neighborhood exclaims, "I cannot believe it!" The Muslims respond: "We do not care if you believe it or not."

We can have Shariah laws enforcement at the whims of local Muslims -- extralegally.

Ah yes, the desperate dance around the world again...

From the man who said this...

P.S. Just to be clear, I am not defending religious laws. I believe there should be one set of laws of the land for everybody, no exceptions. However, the demagoguery at play is the issue here.

And yet sees no wrong with Pakistan's Federal Shariat Court.

How about the US enact laws that says no mosque shall be built within line of sight of any Christian church and Jewish synagogue, and that zoning for Islamic mosques are to be set at the local authority level? That would be perfectly in line with what Pakistan's Federal Shariat Court system is all about.

This is entirely about the US and the claim that US Muslims will enforce Sharia law on US soil. The fact that you can't substantiate the claim in the topic leads you to run around the world blabbering about hypotheticals.

This is a prophylactic law. Not necessarily to prove anything. And what is so hypothetical about a dual legal/justice system? Pakistan have it.

Christians have been trying for decades to pass religion-based laws (about abortion, etc.) but have failed repeatedly because of safeguards in the US legal system. To now imply that the Muslim supermen will succeed where decades of Christian lawyers and lobbyists have failed is humorous, to put it mildly.

Christians failed because of foresighted people. Just like the ones who are looking at Islam and Muslims today.

 

[Developereo]

Hah...I understand the US Constitution better than you do. What I said was in general terms, but of course if enough states caved under political correctness willing to amend the Constitution, then the US Congress will be free to enact religious laws.

You don't know JACK other than cutting and pasting radar specs.

Your laughably pathetic response of 'US Congress' showed your utter ignorance of US legal matters, and this back-peddling only makes it worse.

According to you, "political correctness" will push through full-fledged amendments to the US Constitution setting aside separation of Church and State, but this little Florida law will provide the bulwark. Good Lord!

Christians failed because of foresighted people.

No, Christians failed because of precisely the Constitutional safeguards which I mentioned and which will thwart any attempts at Sharia law. No additional laws are needed.

Your utterly abject grasp of the subject -- US legal system -- has provided enough entertainment, but do feel free to continue.

I have served my objective, which was to expose your pathological obsession with Muslims over a non-issue and utter ignorance of the US legal system.

This conversation is terminated.

 

[gambit]

You don't know JACK other than cutting and pasting radar specs.

Your laughably pathetic response of 'US Congress' showed your utter ignorance of US legal matters, and this back-peddling only makes it worse.



No, Christians failed because of precisely the Constitutional safeguards which I mentioned and which will thwart any attempts at Sharia law. No additional laws are needed.

Your utterly abject grasp of the subject -- US legal system -- has provided enough entertainment, but do feel free to continue.

I have served my objective, which was to expose your pathological obsession with Muslims over a non-issue and utter ignorance of the US legal system.

This conversation is terminated from my side.

It ended a long time ago -- Pakistan's Federal Shariat Court.

 

[gambit]

This conversation is terminated.

Looks like not, buddy...

Whoever said it did? The fact that you are again imagining things and responding to your own imaginary questions shows your intellectual dishonesty.

Never said YOU did, if that is what you are afraid of. I said that to set the proper understanding for my next statement, which was about property rights arguments.

Just being a 'person' did not guarantee freedom. The Constitution specifically instructed all States to return such fugitive 'persons' from whence they escaped.

Freedom is a different issue. But you are avoiding the fact that the word 'slavery' did not exist prior to the 13th Amendment. The point was that the Framers, including those from the slave holding states, did recognized slaves as persons.

Nothing to explain for people who can actually read English. The Constitution had two main requirements:

-- slave-owner States could continue practicing slavery.
-- slaves who escaped into any (slave-owner or other) State had to be returned to their owners.

There was nothing that said that non-slavery States had to adopt slavery themselves. And, in compliance with the Constitution, any slaves which ran off into the Territory had to be returned to their owners.

Absolutely nothing changed and nothing was un-Constitutional.

The highlighted is where you are wrong...Seriously wrong...

A constitution (lower case) can have amendments (lower case) for these main reasons:

- Proscription
- Clarification
- Declaration
- Enumeration

Most amendments usually contains two or more elements. A wise constitution would have a reasonable balance between structural rigidity and flexibility to allow amendments to compensate for societal changes, which would inevitably produce political evolution.

For the US Constitution, Amendment 18th was declarative -- no alcolhol. Amendment 21st was also declarative -- repeal of the 18th.

Regarding slavery, Article 1 Section 9 was to declared that the slave states can remain that way until the year 1808 and during that time, the US Congress is prohibited (proscribed) from acting on slavery except to tax the 'Importation of Such Persons', or the import of slaves. Keep in mind that the Constitutional Convention was in May 1787. Within that 20 yrs, Congress cannot ban it or regulate it.

What you failed to undestand is that this provision does not equate to endorsement of slavery and even the Southern delegates knew that slavery was in contradiction to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, in other words, slavery and all of its laws that existed prior to the Convention, will be deemed to be un-Constitutional upon ratification. The Southern delegates objected, not on humane ground, but on property rights and commerce grounds. They threatened to withdraw their support for the new country unless some provisions were installed into the Constitution that will guarantee their freedom to exercise the slave trade. Northern delegates wanted to abolish slavery immediately at the moment of ratification. Negotiations by the Committee of Eleven initially proposed a 12 yr limit on Congressional authority on slavery and eventually produced that 20 yrs limit.

In other words, Article 1 Section 9 was a political expediency that was clearly un-Constitutional in principles but because a constitution is also a legal framework on governmental authority, Article 1 Section 9 with its temporal limit was conditionally Constitutional.

There are plenty of examples of how slavery related laws were deemed un-Constitutional, meaning in contradiction with the Constitution AFTER the bill became law.

For example...In July 1823, the sheriff of Charleston jailed a free black sailor named Henry Elkison from Jamaica and who was a British subject. The arrest was under South Carolinna's 'Negro Seamen Act' of 1822 which stated that all black foreign sailors be imprisoned until their ships were ready to sail. Elkison petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus and was brought to Justice William Johnson who declared the South Carolina law to be un-Constitutional.

You do not have the facts on your side about this issue. The Supreme Court have ruled over 1500 laws (not bills), from federal to state to local, to be either un-Constitutional or preempted by federal laws and here is the database for those rulings...

The Supreme Court Database

You can childishly nitpick on the difference between 'enforcement' or 'enforceable' all you want but that is nothing but a feeble attempt at distraction. Of course a law that is ruled to be un-Constitutional is not enforceable and any current enforcement must cease.

Fifteen hundred facts that backed me up when I said that a legislature can make a law that violate the Constitution, willingly or unwittingly, and that the only way for that law to be declared un-Constitutional is to have that law challenged by a citizen, a process that you mocked.

Only in your delusions. The right to vote was denied to non-whites and women for the longest time.

Read the SCOTUS ruling that African-Americans were not citizens under the Constitution and could not bring suit in a federal court.

Let us take women for starter...

The Constitution was gender neutral and never forbade women from voting. Am willing to bet that you did not know this, just like how you did not know that the word 'slavery' was not in the Constitution prior to the 13th Amendment.

In other words, despite the lack of clarity in language, the Constitution was implicit that women were allowed to vote. The word 'male' never showed up until the 14th Amendment. Not every state and territory was equally discriminatory against women. The Territory of Wyoming explicitly stated:

Sec. 1. That every woman of the age of twenty-one years, residing in this territory, may, at every election to be holden under the laws thereof, cast her vote. And her rights to the elective franchise and to hold office shall be the same under the election laws of the territory, as those of electors.

New Jersey in 1776 was equally implicit like the Constitution:

All inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote for Representatives in Council and Assembly; and also for all other public officers, that shall be elected by the people of the county at large.

All 'inhabitants' in the New Jersey Constitution is no different than 'persons' in the US Constitution -- gender neutral.

That mean there never were any justifications for discrimination on the basis of sex regarding citizenship's duties, responsibilities, and rights by any State. Any law from the attitude of misogyny was therefore un-Constitutional.

In theory, the 19th Amendment (1920) was unnecessary because all the federal government had to do was to clarify to the States that the US Constitution was sufficiently gender neutral and that any discriminatory law by from any State would be un-Constitutional. But the reason the 19th had to exist was not merely to clarify but assure at the Constitutional level that women could not be discriminated, then and in the future, especially when the words 'male inhabitants' were in the older 14th and the fear was that those words in the 14th would emboldened men in State governments to explicitly exclude women from their legal rights. That fear was realized when New Jersey in 1807 rescinded that right based upon the interpretation of male oriented language in the US Constitution.

So what I said...

A Constitutional right must be applicable to all, not partial.

...Is essentially correct. Any deviation from the spirit of the Constitution usually come from the vagaries of the States and the Framers recognized that back in 1787. It was because they decided to place the burden of governance of daily human affairs upon the States that they also enabled individual States to misuse and even abuse the Constitution to fit human caprices, including slavery and the notion that free blacks are not citizens.

Now...Regarding blacks and citizenship...You said: '...African-Americans were not citizens under the Constitution and could not bring suit in a federal court.'

Does 'under the Constitution' mean the Constitution was EXPRESSIVE in saying that blacks could not be citizens? Be careful, you were wrong about women.

Except that the NorthWest Ordnance did not violate the existing Constitution other than in your pidgin-English world of make-believe.

Never said it was. I brought it up to show how limited you are in your pretense of knowledge about the US Constitution. After all, you did not know that Pakistan have a dual legal system and that religious laws reigns supreme, so what make you think that you are any sort of 'expert' about the US Constitution when it was I who schooled you about Pakistan's religious laws? Arrogance.

Your knowledge about the US Constitution is at best flawed from your own guesses and Internet searches with sources often shallow in exposition of the US Constitution. My arguments in schooling you came from these two books...

Arguing about Slavery: John Quincy Adams and the Great Battle in the United States Congress: William Lee Miller: 9780679768449: Amazon.com: Books

Court and the Constitution: Archibald Cox: 9780395480717: Amazon.com: Books

Arguing About Slavery is a critical classic on the subject of slavery in America outside of the scholarly circle. In Arguing About Slavery, it is clear from the debates that slavery was in complete contradiction with the Constitution. Think twice before you accuse me of lying about those two books. I can cite any paragraph in any page from any chapter. You will end up even the greater fool than you already are. I have a shelf full of books on the US Constitution.

So getting back to Florida SB 58...

Would it be un-Constitutional for government officials -- not private citizens -- to apply foreign laws, including religious laws, in their decisions? Yes, it would be un-Constitutional.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and as such, its spirit and letters must be of supreme and only consideration in all deliberations and judgments.

Is SB 58 un-Constitutional? No, SB 58 is not un-Constitutional precisely because it applies only to government officials in their capacity and duties under the banner of law. Private citizens can enter into any relationship that involves religious principles if they want. But if they dispute each other in that relationship and petitions the government, State or US, for judgment, it is only right and reasonable that they should expect only US laws to be the standards upon which that judgment should stand.

Again...Your outrage at SB 58 is a sham. If you condemn this law, then you must condemn your Pakistan's religious court system but because you are a Muslim, you are forbidden to believe in the separation of mosque and state.

 

[airmarshal]

Simply put - Shariah rage boys can stay in their native shitholes and only those who are willing to live by the US constitution is welcome here..

You must stay in your $hithole called India and dont interfere in matters that relate to religion. Your religion is female infanticide and rape. Your post is offensive.

 

[Developereo]

Never said YOU did,

Exactly!

Your pathetic plea for revisionism does not merit any attention.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...it-debris-chinese-anti-satellite-test-10.html

Senor gambit don Quixote -- inventing imaginary dragons and slaying them.

This conversation remains terminated.

 

[gambit]

Exactly!

Your pathetic plea for revisionism does not merit any attention.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...it-debris-chinese-anti-satellite-test-10.html

Senor gambit don Quixote -- inventing imaginary dragons and slaying them.

This conversation remains terminated.

Terminated again...??? Hopefully for good this time because you certainly will not want this discussion dredged up after I showed the readers what a fraud you are.