But a valid and sovereign legal system must of necessity reject the supremacy of claim of all other legal systems or it subjugates itself! That's the problem with accepting it in the first place: you are subordinating your own sovereignty! And YES, that includes contractual provisions as well as criminal.

In contract law, why do the parties go to court? For enforcement - strict performance or monetary satisfaction. But that assumes that the contract itself is enforceable AND that the legal body so petitioned maintains PRIMACY of jurisdiction. If you void either of these two conditions, the court's opinions similarly fail. What this bill establishes is supremacy and primacy of US and State Constitutions, holding ALL others as inferior.

In criminal law, the parties are inherently agreeing that the "law of the land" is precisely that: the law as established by the governing body of those citizens (in this case citizens of the United States residing in Montana) and NOT some foreign entity like the UN or any religious body. It's the reason why Iran ignores UN resolutions mandating it not pursue a nuclear weapons program. Iran views those "laws" or mandates as being inferior to its sovereign laws!

I agree that they are the ones choosing the war, but having read the Qu'ran, I'm not so sure I can agree with the first part at all. Islam is an all-encompassing doctrinal base very similar to the original Law of Moses. The difference is that the Law of Moses explicitly applied only to followers - ie Israelites and those who converted. Islam makes the very specific claim that ALL other law is subjugated by the Qu'ran - that it's very existence invokes a primacy of jurisdiction. And when those jurisdictional claims are then mortally imposed...

While I wish that some "Abdul" will come along and "reform" Islam, I'm not holding my breath. I think it will require something spectacularly convincing or outright obliteration to turn them from their ideological course.

The statute in question does not carve out contract or tort law at all. Under the statute, all court orders are "void" if premised on "foreign" law. That is the problem I'm trying to point out and which is being resisted so mightily in this forum.

One small difference here: Arizona isn't claiming to be able to stone someone to death because the part is faulty.

Contract law and criminal law are completely different matters. Contracts are between two independent parties and the legal system is only being used to arbitrate a dispute wherein "satisfaction" is the outcome. And as you pointed out in the example, both parties are explicitly agreeing on which set of law has jurisdiction in the matter.

Penal law deals with crimes - disputes between the public at large and the acts of individuals who contravene social norms established as law. The key to understand, however, is that the "public" - the "plaintiff" in a criminal case - has already agreed on which legal system holds jurisdiction in criminal matters: that of the US Constitution and where that is expressly barred, the individual State Constitutions. Sharia has no jurisdiction and this law is simply clarifying that.

Why is it overly broad by including foreign laws? The whole concept of sovereignty is the concept of self-rule. If that nation chooses to adopt laws already adopted by other nation-states into their own code, that's one thing, but having a judicial arm which looks outside that nation to another for legal precedent undermines sovereignty itself! That's the main point of laws like this: to preserve sovereignty and jurisdiction.

Islam is both a religious AND secular code at the same time. It can't exist simultaneously with the Constitution while maintaining equal validity, because BOTH systems claim the right to jurisdiction in a variety of cases. For order to be maintained, all parties within a nation must be beholden to one and only one system of legal governance. I really don't see this being that difficult of an issue to understand.

Of course the fact the product did fail is not important is it?
You appeal the case anyway.

Confusion in the law set sail a long time ago, aided and abetted by lawyers at every turn.

Similar laws are already in place in Louissianna, Kansas and Tennesee. If there are unintended consequences then it Montana can craft their law accordingly. The article stated that there have been about 100 cases decided using Sharia law, all of which were overturned on appeal. What were the lower court judges thinking? Why did they rule the way they did? This is our system working the way it was designed. The people disagree with those judges and the legislature makes it clear how they want them to proceed in future cases.

would have been a good spot for a dollar sign. -- j

I knew it!!!

we were in Butte, not long ago, and there was this
statue on a hill on the east side of the city -- maybe
that's where it was written? -- j

p.s. photo::: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of...

It must have been written in the USA. If not, then this new law in Montana would ban any law stated in the Bible, since the Bible would have laws from a foreign country. They could not keep having anti-gay laws in Montana since these laws stem from a religious book written in a foreign land. But of course, Montana knows this since the Bible was obviously written in the good ol' US of A, not some weird foreign country.

ja, we are scared by the social crap which we hear
about sharia law. . . and, also, things like the ends
justifying the means -- not contracts, unless my
adversary would like to cut off my thumb because
I grabbed his daughter from the path of a truck,
saving her life. . . and the artificial graciousness
currently being given to Islam gives rise to that fear. -- j

p.s. it seems difficult to tell whether BHO is Shiite
or Christian, most days.......

one of the most interesting provisions came out
in the news last week -- the fact that the "Qur’ān"
requires that honesty be modulated in order to
achieve the required results. . . the ends justify the
means, in other words. . . that is pure Democrat
ethics, from my experience. -- j

I was very young, then;;; do you remember where
it was written? -- j

avoiding the intrusion of sharia's forced subjugation
of women, and the severing of limbs or digits for
certain crimes, appear to be the drivers, it would
seem -- so all we need to do is make an exception
of the contract law provisions needed, right? -- j

this contract law thing which Ranter mentions
makes this trickier than I ever thought. . Argh. -- j

that's like those sections of france where the cops
don't go -- scary that we're going that way. -- j

how about Ranter's mention of a group in texas? -- j

the aspects of sharia which are prompting this
attempt to ban it ... appear to be the interpersonal
things like subjugation of women ... contract law
within sharia has not been publicized, has it? -- j

I will welcome you.

At some point in the future, I may move to the next great country to be known as Montana. =)

Where in the great Republic of Texas?
He needed killin' is still a legal defense.

Good thing the BIble was written in the USA. If it wasn't, no biblical laws would be permitted in Montana.