Oklahoma’s ban on sharia law shouldn’t be necessary.
But neither should it be blocked by judges.
Some 70 percent of voters in Oklahoma last year adopted an amendment to their state constitution barring courts from using foreign laws in their rulings.
“Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or sharia law,” the amendment says.
A judge blocked the law last year, and this week the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judge’s order blocking the amendment from taking effect. The full challenge to it will now play out in court.
You have to wonder why the amendment is even necessary. Aren’t judges already bound by state and federal laws? Aren’t they obligated to work within the framework of existing law? Wouldn’t many of the tenets of sharia law be illegal anyway?
Well, yes – but you know how that goes. Many judges make it all up as they go along these days.
Ironically, that’s been proven in this very case.
Consider the situation: Voters in Oklahoma have decided, in overwhelming numbers – though that shouldn’t matter – to change their constitution, which is their agreed-upon social contract and the highest law in the state. Yet, judges are saying that they – not the voters, the people of Oklahoma – can decide what’s in the state’s constitution.
Isn’t that just a little disconcerting? That we have to go on bended knee to ask judges permission to amend our constitutions?
That being the situation, what ultimately happens in this case will say a lot about whether we remain a free people.