America's creeping crisis

Activist judge tells citizens what to put in their state's constitution

  • Follow Editorials

Not all crises are sudden and unexpected. Some crises, like floods, can happen gradually and deliberately, and right in front of your eyes.

Such is the case with the slowly-developing constitutional crisis in which judges, not the people, decide what is put in our state constitutions.

That's not the republic you grew up in.

It's happened in places such as California, where voters in 2008 approved an amendment to their constitution, Proposition 8, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. A judge there singlehandedly overturned it, thwarting the votes of millions.

Now, in Oklahoma, voters Nov. 2 overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment prohibiting that state's courts from relying on Islamic Sharia law in any of their rulings. Some 70 percent of Oklahomans voted for it. But there, too, a judge -- U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange -- has blunted the amendment, entering a temporary restraining order against it.

The ruling is only temporary, certainly, pending a Nov. 22 hearing. But the fact that a sitting U.S. district judge would even issue a temporary restraining order against the people of Oklahoma is frightening and outrageous.

Constitutions are contracts among people. If they are not free to write those compacts, how can they truly be free?

In the Oklahoma case, a Muslim is arguing that the amendment violates his family's ability to carry out his will.

Wow.

So, American jurisprudence must cater to the whims of an individual -- and the law must bend to individual cases, rather than cases being judged according to the law.

Moreover, what this man seeks is for religious law to be acceded to by the state. Pardon us for wondering, but doesn't that establish a state religion just a hair more than, say, having a Christmas display?

And what if it were a Christian who was demanding that state law conform to Christian dogma? How long do you suppose Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange would entertain that proposal?

"Sharia law allows for stoning and spousal abuse," reminds commentator Dana Perino.

It's amazing that an American judge with an ounce of brains would seriously consider the brazen proposition that our laws should ever yield to baldly religious doctrines. It's blatantly unconstitutional.

And for a judge to usurp the will of the people in writing their own constitutions is flagrantly arrogant and alarming.

This gullible judge is just one more cloudburst feeding a gathering flood of tyranny.

Comments (101) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
soldout
1280
Points
soldout 11/11/10 - 12:21 am
0
0
Amen; good comments. If

Amen; good comments. If people can't rule with the vote they will find another way. Seems there was a country named England that thought the same way as this judge and it took a war to fix that.

GGpap
491
Points
GGpap 11/11/10 - 01:15 am
0
0
lol! Looks like another

lol! Looks like another citizen that advocates solving perceived problems by exercising those good ole 2nd Amendment rights.

GGpap

blamin
0
Points
blamin 11/11/10 - 01:21 am
0
0
GGpap - Perceived problems?!

GGpap - Perceived problems?!

Concerned in GA
0
Points
Concerned in GA 11/11/10 - 01:35 am
0
0
Have you read the amendment

Have you read the amendment and the court pleading? The law is in direct violation of the first amendment, and has no secular basis. If a man's Will follows his religious tenets but is contrary to state civil law, should a court take into account the man's wished, or ignore it completely. I believe the court should have the leeway to examine all aspects of the case before ruling. This law specifically denies the court that right if the person is of a particular branch of Muslim, or if the appeal ask for review based on International Law. The troubling part is where it bars based on a particular faith -- this is where it departs from being solely secular and ventures into 1st amendment territory.

By the way, the author of the bill rejected a gift of the Qur'an (Koran). So what does he really know? But the action certainly exposed his prejudice againat Islam.

blamin
0
Points
blamin 11/11/10 - 02:51 am
0
0
Concerned Ga If a will is

Concerned Ga

If a will is contrary to state civil law, then state law trumps. I just so happen to be in the middle of a case where what you've described is taking place (without the religious element). We have the intent of the deceased and testimony from the attorney who drafted the will, and still the courts are going to rule against intent, simply because the letter of the law was not followed.

Concerned Ga said: "By the way, the author of the bill rejected a gift of the Qur'an (Koran). So what does he really know? But the action certainly exposed his prejudice againat Islam."

You're making the assumption that the author never read the Qur'an simply because He didn't accept a particular gift. Quite a jump if you ask me.

sjgraci
2
Points
sjgraci 11/11/10 - 02:56 am
0
0
A state amendment prohibiting

A state amendment prohibiting Sharia Law in the United States of America, how stupid, xenophobic, and unnecessary is that? Oh wait, it was in Oklahoma.

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 11/11/10 - 03:30 am
0
0
Duncan also ran a push poll

Duncan also ran a push poll against his Native American opponent asking voters if they'd be less likely to vote for him because of his "native ancestry". In other words, just letting you know he's not white. As to the amendment, poorly written and unconstitutional. The judge has good legal precedent to grant the Order. In Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, the court essentially ruled 9-0 that laws singling out a specific religion are unconstitutional. When you had Thomas, Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Scalia voting this way, this Amendment doesn't stand a chance.

wizzardx1
0
Points
wizzardx1 11/11/10 - 03:33 am
0
0
Men should be allowed to kill

Men should be allowed to kill their wives and daughters.So,shut up and convert to islam before it's too late.The judges are going to force you to convert any way.

TalkingStick
0
Points
TalkingStick 11/11/10 - 03:36 am
0
0
"Such is the case with the

"Such is the case with the slowly-developing constitutional crisis in which judges, not the people, decide what is put in our state constitutions."

TalkingStick
0
Points
TalkingStick 11/11/10 - 03:38 am
0
0
Sorry not all my post printed

Sorry not all my post printed above.

"Such is the case with the slowly-developing constitutional crisis in which judges, not the people, decide what is put in our state constitutions." That is the constitutional duty of judges. Only simpletons would not know that.

Fundamental_Arminian
1849
Points
Fundamental_Arminian 11/11/10 - 03:39 am
0
0
Here's a good analysis of the

Here's a good analysis of the Oklahoma law and of the lawsuit opposing it.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20101111.html

Apparently the law is vague.

Jon Lester
2301
Points
Jon Lester 11/11/10 - 05:30 am
0
0
OK, so this is what you have

OK, so this is what you have to say about Sharia law. Would it follow that you think the Old Testament is also not above reproach?

Mad Hatter
0
Points
Mad Hatter 11/11/10 - 05:34 am
0
0
This is simply amazing. The

This is simply amazing. The same liberals on here that are defending this are the ones who scream if you want to DISPLAY the Ten Commandments. These people are trying to keep judges from USING Sharia law, not simply displaying it. Lester, you shouldn't be referencing ANY religious document or foreign laws when handing down legal decisions. Would you liberals oppose a law that forbids judges from referencing what the Bible says to do before handing down judgments? I dare say yes, but since Sharia law is mentioned, you take the liberal, political correct stand and defend the muslims at all cost. sheesh.

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 11/11/10 - 06:17 am
0
0
No, we just defend the

No, we just defend the Constitution Something those on the right only give lip service to.

overburdened_taxpayer
117
Points
overburdened_taxpayer 11/11/10 - 06:55 am
0
0
The 14th Amendment guarantees

The 14th Amendment guarantees "equal protection of the laws". How is this accomplished if we have one set of laws for this group and another for another group? How long will it be before sharia, international or other group's laws will have to apply to EVERYONE because they are allowed in?

overburdened_taxpayer
117
Points
overburdened_taxpayer 11/11/10 - 06:59 am
0
0
"That is the constitutional

"That is the constitutional duty of judges. Only simpletons would not know that." (typical liberal statement)

Judges are there to interpret, not legislate from the Bench.

blamin
0
Points
blamin 11/11/10 - 07:41 am
0
0
Techfan says - "No, we just

Techfan says - "No, we just defend the Constitution Something those on the right only give lip service to."

And at least 6 of the 10 Bill of Rights - correct?

Rhetor
1007
Points
Rhetor 11/11/10 - 07:46 am
0
0
As usual, the conservatives,

As usual, the conservatives, uninformed to the end, have their facts wrong, wringing themselves up in fear over something that isn't actually happening. 1. The 1st Amendment already prohibits the use of Sharia in the U.S. 2. The OK law singled out Sharia, which also violates the 1st Amendment. A law that prohibits the use of any religious law in a U.S. court would easily pass constitutional muster. 3. The OK law also prohibited the use of international law in OK courts. Since Article VI of the U.S. Constitution (have any of you actually read our Constitution? Apparently not.) clearly says that international treaties signed by the president and ratified by the Senate are part of the "supreme law of the land," that aspect of the OK law was obviously unconstitutional. The underlying problem here is that conservatives say they want to preserve our constitution, which is good, but don't know what our constitution says, which is bad. This is quite a switch from the old days, when we had real conservatives who held the constitution close to their hearts.

cubbie
0
Points
cubbie 11/11/10 - 08:02 am
0
0
Wonder how many $s she was

Wonder how many $s she was paid for that one.

sgachief
0
Points
sgachief 11/11/10 - 08:04 am
0
0
the greatest threat to our

the greatest threat to our society does not reside in the white house or congress, it resides in the judiciary!!!

ReformedRepub
0
Points
ReformedRepub 11/11/10 - 08:07 am
0
0
A state constitution cannot

A state constitution cannot violate the US Constitution. Period.

ReformedRepub
0
Points
ReformedRepub 11/11/10 - 08:24 am
0
0
No, sgachief, it resides in

No, sgachief, it resides in the Republican Party.

johnston.cliff
2
Points
johnston.cliff 11/11/10 - 08:33 am
0
0
Every state has at least one

Every state has at least one anti-constitution, anti-social freak as a federally appointed judge (always appointed by the left) who is under the complete control of the socialist left movement.
State law be damned, federal law be damned, voters be damned, it's the freak agenda all the way.
It's the same establishment of law by judicial fiat that gave us the income tax, legalization and promotion of abortion on demand, and the current subsidy system that has created such a fine subculture.
This is not the first effort to subvert American law with international law.
Saving our country is a daily fight from enemies without and within.

Inquiring Lynn
0
Points
Inquiring Lynn 11/11/10 - 08:36 am
0
0
Rhetor, the reactionaries use

Rhetor, the reactionaries use straw men when posting and - when reading what we maintain!Please comment on my letter to the editor!

Mr.L.A.Kegbrat
0
Points
Mr.L.A.Kegbrat 11/11/10 - 09:41 am
0
0
This editorial is one example

This editorial is one example of why I will no longer suscribe to the Augusta Chronicle.

Why does the Augusta Chronicle editorial writer always support bigotry?

Wyoming, a lilywhite state of fascists, was in no danger of having to abide by Sharia Law. This new state law was completely unnecessary because the first amendment already guarantees separation of church and state.

The Wyoming law was specifically written to insult muslims. How would Christians like it, if Wyoming passed a law that specifically said that Christian law couldn't be considered when making a ruling?

Ugh! The stupidity, bigotry, and irrationality of the editorial department of this newspaper.

effete elitist liberal
3112
Points
effete elitist liberal 11/11/10 - 11:10 am
0
0
Mike ("WOW!") Ryan strikes

Mike ("WOW!") Ryan strikes again. The U.S. Constitution was designed specifically to prevent what happened on Election Day in Oklahoma.
A bunch of right-wing Fox zombies stoked up by Limbaugh, Beck, Palin,
and the rest of the fire-breathers, went to the polls and voted for amendments banning any use of Muslim law, establishing English as the official state language, and having Oklahoma opt out of the health-care bill. All three amendments had been vigorously promoted by the usual campaigns of half-truths, distortions, and out-right lies on which the Right now depends to rally their base. The wisdom of our Founding Fathers envisioned just such times as this, when the masses are roused by the passions of the moment to express "the will of the people." Our Founding Fathers ensured that federal Constitutional law ALWAYS trumped state and local law. The federal judge in Oklahoma did what the U.S. Constitution commands her to do, and good for her! Hey Mike, those old white guys got it just right, and all you yahoo conservatives out there who claim constantly you want the Constitution followed should be proud of Judge Miles-LaGrange.

MajorPaul
0
Points
MajorPaul 11/11/10 - 10:33 am
0
0
Old Abe ended the time when

Old Abe ended the time when America was governed by consent of the people. He issued in a time where the citizens must accept what the government says, or they will send soldiers against you and kill you!
We can not expect it to have gotten any better since then. Once you give people power, they always expand it, never give it back.

justthefacts
21803
Points
justthefacts 11/11/10 - 10:45 am
0
0
If you eliminate the name

If you eliminate the name calling that Liberals just can't post without, EEL, in my opinion, is pretty right on.

Rhetor
1007
Points
Rhetor 11/11/10 - 11:13 am
0
0
Well, MajorPaul, so sorry

Well, MajorPaul, so sorry that Old Abe decided that consent of the people included people of color. Or did he do something else that upset you? And, good heavens, no one is sending soldiers to kill the people who think that Sharia law is taking over our country.

Rhetor
1007
Points
Rhetor 11/11/10 - 11:12 am
0
0
Are all of you really missing

Are all of you really missing the point that badly??!!? The US Constitution clearly and explicitly requires our courts to enforce international treaties. That's what it means for treaties to be part of the supreme law of the land (Article VI). You cannot support our constitution and ignore international law, because our constitution requires us to follow international law, and it always has, ever since the day it was ratified.

Back to Top

Top headlines

2.1% inflation expected

ATLANTA -- Business executives in the Southeast see inflation a little higher than the Federal Reserve does, according to a survey released Friday.
Search Augusta jobs