Well at least I'm no longer accused of "an agenda counter to what this nation is founded on." Don't you find that characterization a bit off putting? Anyway, the widget hypothetical was requested by someone who could not envision what I meant by unintended consequences. Why do you think it "ridiculous"? In fact hundreds of thousands of contracts with choice of law provisions are entered into on a daily basis in this country and thousands of lawsuits result. Check out you credit card agreement. It may well have a choice of law provision. Choice of law disputes are much much more frequent than weird zombie costume assault cases, for instance. As to the rape case you refer to, the salient point is that it was decided against the guy asserting the religious defense. No anti-foreign law statute was or is needed to decide it. I'm not familiar with the law in that state, but since you ask I would decide the case the same way. Wouldn't you? Your last statement simply restates what is already the law as to everyone, not just Muslims, with very limited exceptions (diplomatic personnel). So tell me again why we need a new law.

I don't know what your agenda is but I have been reading thru this thread and find your arguements to be nonsense. You appear to be a lawyer arguing just for arguements sake. Your example of widgets is ridiculous. What about the case involving the woman who was raped by her husband. He argued that as a Muslim she could not deny him sex when he demanded it. How would you determine that case? As I see it laws like this are simply telling Muslims and others if they live in the US they must abide by US law. I reject any arguement to the contrary.

You live in Montana. I live in Arizona (or France or on Mars). We contract for me to sell you a widget. In our written contract we agree that the law of Arizona (or France or Mars) applies. You pay me. I send you the widget. The widget fails in use immediately because of a design or manufacturing defect. You sue me for breach in Montana. Arizona (or french or martian) law provides for a 30 day warranty. You win in Court. The judge expressly relies on the 30 day provision of "foreign law." On appeal I argue that the goofy statute in question makes the trial court ruling "void" regardless of what we actually agreed to. I win on appeal. That's what I call an unintended consequence.

You didn't say it, Blarman did in this very thread. As to the second case, not being "a proper application of" the state's law is a ground for appeal, not a reason to enact a half baked statute.

Let's back up for a second. It was asserted that the justification for this proposed law was that "some courts are citing Sharia in preference over established State or Federal law." I doubted that was the case and asked for specific examples. In response you have given me purported examples where a trial judge did so. In neither case was that true. When I highlight that by referring to the actual facts of the case you have shifted to the position that "in both cases the judge gave prejudice to the defendant's for their actions on the basis of their religion." In the first case that is straight out false. In the second case (the zombie costume assault matter) you say the judge gave "deference" to Sharia law. That's a stretch. He merely cited to the existence of Muslim culture in asserting that the assailant was supposedly offended. You also say that "someone wearing a Jesus zombie costume" would not likely be attacked even if it was offensive. I plead ignorance on that score. I just don't know what religious zealots are likely to do when offended. As to wanting to argue, well this is a topic worth examining and, heavens, even worth arguing about. Crazy statutes like this, although unlikely ever to become law, sow confusion in the law and bring about adverse unexpected negative consequences.

"nullify any “court, arbitration or administrative agency ruling” that relies on any foreign law contrary to rights guaranteed to Montanans by the state or U.S. constitutions."
Teh US Constitution is completely consistent with Common law. All state laws must be consistent with US Constitution. I will not discuss what actually happens, just what the law says. There is nothing inconsistent in this bill with the US Constitution. The point of the law is to push back against activist judges who are blatantly ignoring the Constitution. Give an example of an unintended consequence when the law is clear the US Constitution will trump?

I never suggested any state had. where did I say that?
In the second case I cited, the judge dismissed the case based on the victim's behavior. that is not a proper application of US law

in both cases the judge gave prejudice to the defendant's for their actions on the basis of their religion. my examples were not ruling using sharia law but giving deference to it. It would be highly unusual for a Christian to attack someone wearing a Jesus zombie costume, even if they found it incredibly offensive. that the judge would admonish the *victim* for putting himself at risk by wearing this costume is giving support to the defense of the defendant. you seem to just want to argue

"if they wish Martian law"
Martian law is influenced by Areophany.

Huh? It is an argument that legislatures should not pass laws that are over broad and bring about adverse unintended consequences. In this case, specifically, it is about a proposed Montana law which would void choice of law provisions which are commonly used, violate nobody's rights and express the intent of the parties to the contract. It is not in conflict with contract law, it is standard contract law to allow the parties to choose what substantive law to apply.

The first case (involving the same guy who was a defendant in the protective order matter) concerns whether there was error in empaneling a jury around the time of the 9/11 attacks where the defendant was a Muslim. The defendant on appeal alleged it was improper to do so and the judge should have ferreted out potential bias against him with more voir dire. The appellate court rejected the appeal. The second case concerns remarks made by a trial judge to a plaintiff or victim in a trial concerning an alleged assault by a Muslim man who was offended by the Muslim zombie costume worn by the victim. The judge accused the victim of acting like a "doofus" in donning the costume. He did not apply Sharia law. In fact, the judge noted that under that law the victim would be prosecuted with potential severe punishment meted out. Nothing like that happened here.

In the first case arising from Family Court, the judge was reversed. The court of record prohibited the lower court from considering the religious beliefs of the person subject to a protective order. This decision was correct and it didn't need a statute to reach its conclusion. The second case holds that a statute may not single out a particular religious law, Sharia. That's no doubt why the Montana statute is written so broadly to encompass any foreign law. Its overbreadth will be its undoing.

this seems to be an argument in favor of moral relativism, which is in conflict with Contract Law

No state, county or city in the United States has ever adopted Sharia law. And no court of competent jurisdiction has ever rested a decision upon it. Moreover, this proposed statute does not even mention Sharia law. It bans enforcement of any "foreign" law regardless of the parties' desires as expressed by contract. If the contract seeks to enforce a contract for a mob hit it will not be honored (and never has been). But why should it not enforce the parties' expressed wish for Delaware or French law to apply to interpretation of the terms of their contract?

Regardless of intent, it foils all foreign choice of law agreements.

you can't contract to kill someone. You cannot contract to stone someone for breach. You cannot contract to steal. You cannot contract to sell a person into slavery. Sharia Law is fundamentally in conflict with Common Law and Contract Law which applies broadly beyond the US. Common law is based on reason, logic and evidence. Irrational revealed laws are in conflict with Common Law. That's why you should care.

https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/201...

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/32...

If the ninth and tenth amendments were given as much credence as your other references perhaps none of this would be of import.

I saw this inquiry and it piqued my interest...
I do not know if this fits your bill, but... how far this has actually gone I do not know. It looks like when sharia has been cited for the most part it has been overturned... so far.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/adv...
And...
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/01/...
A google search using the keywords "american court cites sharia" turns out 58,500 results with many similar stories...

Prob in my lifetime I wont see that unless there is a situation like in the TV series "Jericho"

if they wish Martian law,, they should live on Mars.
they can be my guest.... is this not designed to
preclude the use of Sharia law in Montana? -- j

Then amend the Constitution to do away with the Supremacy clause, eliminate the preemption doctrine and abrogate Marbury v. Madison. Or start another civil war. Or move to a country more to your liking. Or start your own country (or gulch!).

My advice to those who don't like Sharia law is to avoid living in a state that has adopted that law. Oh, that's right, there are no such states. And there is absolutely no movement that I know of in any state to amend the state constitution to adopt Sharia law. And nobody on this site has been able to cite to a single court decision in any jurisdiction applying sharia law in any way that supplants state or federal law. This is the biggest non-issue I've seen in a long time.

What court of record in the entire US has ever "cit[ed] Sharia in preference over established State or Federal law"? Be specific in your citation, please.