Sometimes voters get behind an idea, and we think to ourselves, why? Why are they even bothering when that idea, were it to become law, would be struck down as unconstitutional faster than we can utter “temporary restraining order?”
We smugly revisited that thought on Tuesday upon hearing that the Denver-based 10th Circuit had upheld a lower-court ruling keeping an amendment to the Oklahoma constitution from becoming law.
The amendment, overwhelmingly approved by Oklahoma voters last year, prevents judges from basing rulings on international law — and specifically mentions Islamic law, often known as Shariah law.
Specifically, the 10th Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision to preliminarily enjoin the amendment from going into effect. It ruled that there is a legitimate issue as to whether the initiative violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Click here for the ruling, penned by Judge Scott Matheson; here for the Denver Post story. Click here, here and here for earlier LB posts on the challenge.
The court ruled that, for starters, the law discriminated on the basis of religion. Furthermore, the state failed to articulate any sort of plausible justification for the law. Wrote Matheson:
Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/01/10/10th-circuit-amendment-banning-sharia-law-is-not-ok/
| 
