Your take on Sharia law in America

[Confederate]

A juror can also be wrong. Our system allows a 'not guilty' verdict even for the obviously guilty, so he would indeed be set free, doesn't make that juror any less an idiot for dismissing the kinds of cases we are describing here.

So are we supposed to tell jurors how they must vote?

 

[idiom]

Socrates Voluntarily drank hemlock even though he had the chance to escape.

You can voluntarily agree to be stoned or to have your hands cut off if you are devout. You sign up to the system and then you are voluntarily bound by the system later.

If you are seriously libertarian then you are happy to voluntarily sit in a jail for a length of time deemed by a private court that you voluntarily got tried and sentenced at.

If that private court hands down a harsher punishment then you should be willing to accept that as well.

If they ask you to blow your head off, then Socrates says you should.

You can be sentenced to death and have to blow your own head off with no force being applied at any point.

 

[Confederate]

Correct. Which is currently in violation by judges who use Sharia to mitigate mens rea for those who commit what would otherwise be crimes in our Constitutional Republic.

And I agree that that should never be permitted.

 

[Confederate]

You can voluntarily agree to be stoned or to have your hands cut off if you are devout. You sign up to the system and then you are voluntarily bound by the system later.

You cannot voluntarily agree to be killed, because you have no right to take life, even your own.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

"Not Guilty" would be a verdict delivered by a jury of his peers.

Nearly all of the cases (if not absolutely all) involving this have waived their right to a jury trial, because the technical mens rea argument only moves trained lawyers like judges. So shop around until you get the right judge, waive the jury, and argue a lack of mens rea. BAM -- no understanding of guilt, therefore no crime. Murdered girl should have kept her legs closed.

 

[idiom]

"Yes, I raped and brutally murdered her, but in my law that is not a crime, it is a requirement of God"

"Not Guilty"

Sorry, I can't abide such horror.

A voluntary court would exist below the government court. If there is no government prosecution then there is no government case. If there are no rape charges brought to the higher court by a D.A. or anyone else then the lower courts ruling would stand.

On the other hand, the voluntary court might be able to bring justice where the government court cannot. Should the government court force the guilty person to leave the voluntary jail?

 

[Danke]

Socrates Voluntarily drank hemlock even though he had the chance to escape.

You can voluntarily agree to be stoned or to have your hands cut off if you are devout. You sign up to the system and then you are voluntarily bound by the system later.

If you are seriously libertarian then you are happy to voluntarily sit in a jail for a length of time deemed by a private court that you voluntarily got tried and sentenced at.

If that private court hands down a harsher punishment then you should be willing to accept that as well.

If they ask you to blow your head off, then Socrates says you should.

You can be sentenced to death and have to blow your own head off with no force being applied at any point.

I would have to believe if you volunteer under said contract, the benefits of following it must be great.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

So are we supposed to tell jurors how they must vote?

No, but if there was an actual jury at these cases they probably would not vote to acquit.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

And I agree that that should never be permitted.

Correct. Therefore HB640 is a FAR better approach to take vs "Sharia Law" than any other approach I have ever seen.

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H640

 

[idiom]

You cannot voluntarily agree to be killed, because you have no right to take life, even your own.

You going to bury me upside down at the cross roads out side of town?!?

 

[idiom]

I would have to believe if you volunteer under said contract, the benefits of following it must be great.

The benefits are civilisation.

 

[Confederate]

No, but if there was an actual jury at these cases they probably would not vote to acquit.

Probably not. But a person should be able to present any defense they want, even if it is based on Sharia law, and the jury should determine whether the person is guilty or not.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

A voluntary court would exist below the government court. If there is no government prosecution then there is no government case. If there are no rape charges brought to the higher court by a D.A. or anyone else then the lower courts ruling would stand.

On the other hand, the voluntary court might be able to bring justice where the government court cannot. Should the government court force the guilty person to leave the voluntary jail?

I've never once mentioned 'voluntary courts.' That's a red herring. I'm talking about people indicted for rape and murder standing before a State or Federal judge in the United States being acquitted for a lack of mens rea due to the applicability of Sharia law.

 

[Confederate]

Correct. Therefore HB640 is a FAR better approach to take vs "Sharia Law" than any other approach I have ever seen.

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H640

I agree. My initial post was a reaction to the neocon types who spread the "Muslims are taking over our courts and are going to force all Americans to live under Sharia law" BS.

I've never once mentioned 'voluntary courts.' That's a red herring. I'm talking about people indicted for rape and murder standing before a State or Federal judge in the United States being acquitted for a lack of mens rea due to the applicability of Sharia law.

I know you weren't but the article by FrankRep was about banning voluntary religious courts in the UK.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Probably not. But a person should be able to present any defense they want, even if it is based on Sharia law, and the jury should determine whether the person is guilty or not.

A defendant can cite mickey mouse if they want. It doesn't affect the victim's right to life or their right to not be raped or beaten into submission.

 

[Danke]

The benefits are civilisation.

A particular version of it, yes.

 

[1836]

Pro and anti Islamic sentiments aside, I want to get to the meat of the issue.

Do you believe Muslims should be able to enforce Sharia laws in their own communities as opposed to Constitutional law?

This goes on in other parts of the world, including Europe.

I am against that. I think the government should protect individual rights even if their collective neighbors disagree.

Rising star and Ron Paul supporter, MO Rep. Paul Curtman, who introduced the Missouri Sound Money Act also introduced the anti-Sharia Civil Liberties Defense Act .

This is actually a much more difficult issue than it seems on the surface, and much of it has to do with the context that you're using.

There are two contexts for constitutional law: the one that is in use right now, created by years of due process incorporation of the Bill of Rights, and the one that the founders intended, you might say the "originalist" position.

Under the present interpretation of the Constitution that prevails, then of course sharia law which contradicts the Bill of Rights at the state or the local level would likely run afoul of certain Constitutional provisions and protections, and thus would be unconstitutional and impermissible.

But food for thought....

Under the originalist interpretation of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government and thus the Bill of Rights only fully applies within federal non-state lands (such as territories and the District of Columbia).

As a result, a community could, under the original Constitutional interpretation, enact sharia law if it so chose, if the state in which it resided allowed it to do so by its laws.


I'm not saying we should allow sharia law in the present context, but it's always worth remembering when we start talking about "is x or y constitutionally permissible" that the original interpretation of our Constitution was that it applied only to the federal government.

Here is a fantastic law review article by one of the greatest living federal judges, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, which talks about the substantive due process overreach present in both Roe v. Wade and DC v. Heller.

Good reading if you're interested in your Constitution...

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I agree. My initial post was a reaction to the neocon types who spread the "Muslims are taking over our courts and are going to force all Americans to live under Sharia law" BS.



I know you weren't but the article by FrankRep was about banning voluntary religious courts in the UK.

I was just replying to the idea that Sharia Law is not an issue in America. It is. It's already being used to mitigate mens rea in non-jury trials in the US and to therefore acquit obvious criminals.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

This is actually a much more difficult issue than it seems on the surface, and much of it has to do with the context that you're using.

There are two contexts for constitutional law: the one that is in use right now, created by years of due process incorporation of the Bill of Rights, and the one that the founders intended, you might say the "originalist" position.

Under the present interpretation of the Constitution that prevails, then of course sharia law which contradicts the Constitution at the state or the local level would likely run afoul of certain Constitutional provisions and protections, and thus would be unconstitutional and impermissible.

But food for thought....

Under the originalist interpretation of the Constitution, the Constitution only applies to the federal government and thus the Bill of Rights only fully applies within federal non-state lands (such as territories and the District of Columbia).

As a result, a community could, under the original Constitutional interpretation, enact sharia law if it so chose, if the state in which it resided allowed it to do so by its laws.


I'm not saying we should allow sharia law in the present context, but it's always worth remembering when we start talking about "is x or y constitutionally permissible" that the original interpretation of our Constitution was that it applied only to the federal government.

Here is a fantastic law review article by one of the greatest living federal judges, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, which talks about the substantive due process overreach present in both Roe v. Wade and DC v. Heller.

Good reading if you're interested in your Constitution...

Even under strict construction original intent, the several States cannot violate the enumerated rights of the citizens. The only part of the bill of rights restricted to the Federal Government is Article 1 "Congress shall make no law..." You don't need a 14th Amendment to apply the rest of the BoR to the States. Between Article 4 Section 4, and Article 6 of the Constitution, there is plenty of logic to attach the right to bear arms to all citizens, quite regardless of what their States think about it. The 14th Amendment (which I hate) makes that existing condition even more blatant.

 

[presence]

Trial by boiling oil.
http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/places/countries-places/togo/togo_trialbyoil/



So where are we if three men engage in a trial by boiling oil? One accused, one accuser, and one witness. All voluntary based on religious beliefs.