Precisely because some courts are citing Sharia in preference over established State or Federal law. What this law clarifies is that judges are specifically prohibited from considering non-Montana or non-US statute. That would include UN resolutions not ratified as Treaties through the Senate - such as the recent Arms Trade laws that went into effect in Europe just before Christmas.

They will pass this... (inshallah <<giggles>> )... Montana is becoming a shining example that I wish the rest of the states (esp. mine, tho that is probably pretty unlikely) will follow

There is a huge difference between expulsion and beheading, flogging, stoning, etc., which is what I'm getting after. Islam places all of those as religious as well as secular punishments and goes so far as to justify those actions upon those who no longer want to be affiliated with them or who have no affiliation whatsoever! Conquering Muslims similarly impose them on those who are conquered, forcing them to "convert" to Islam or die. That kind of mixed enforcement is prohibited by the Freedom of Association clause in the First Amendment, which is why I concluded that it can not coexist with the Constitution.

The would be Montana law is not limited to criminal matters so the reference to the chaos this would bring to contract law is apt. Moreover, the issue of what substantive law to apply is frequently raised in contract and tort law and almost never in a criminal context. If your wife shows an ankle in Montana it is the Montana criminal statutes that apply, not sharia law. Do you disagree? Does any Montana court disagree? Has any Montana court ever disagreed? Again, why in the world is this law needed?

The article asks the rhetorical question, "How could anyone object to ..." My observation is a progressive on a mission can rationalize anything.

Point of fact: Has anyone else noticed the term "Progressive" is a misnomer? The politics of envy have not change, even a little bit, since William Jennings Bryant first championed the idea of how unfair it is for the rich and middle class to leave the rest behind.

AWK! You are so right. I have deleted my comment. I will look more closely next time. Really.

Jan

You want to know how similar. Read this. From the Muslims themselves.
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/und...
Here are the fundamental tenets of Sharia:

he Shariah protects these necessities in two ways: firstly by ensuring their establishment and then by preserving them.

Religion: To ensure the establishment of religion, Allah Most High has made belief and worship obligatory. To ensure its preservation, the rulings relating to the obligation of learning and conveying the religion were legislated.

Life: To ensure the preservation of human life, Allah Most high legislated for marriage, healthy eating and living, and forbid the taking of life and laid down punishments for doing so.

Intellect: Allah has permitted that sound intellect and knowledge be promoted, and forbidden that which corrupts or weakens it, such as alcohol and drugs. He has also imposed preventative punishments in order that people stay away from them, because a sound intellect is the basis of the moral responsibility that humans were given.

Lineage: marriage was legislated for the preservation of lineage, and sex outside marriage was forbidden. Punitive laws were put in placed in order to ensure the preservation of lineage and the continuation of human life.

Wealth: Allah has made it obligatory to support oneself and those one is responsible for, and placed laws to regulate the commerce and transactions between people, in order to ensure fair dealing, economic justice, and to prevent oppression and dispute.

Needs and Comforts: Needs and comforts are things people seek in order to ensure a good life, and avoid hardship, even though they are not essential. The spirit of the Shariah with regards to needs and comforts is summed up in the Qur’ān,

People should red and study Sun Tsu and the Art of War.
"Know your enemy and know yourself and you will always be victorious."

Unless you read and understand from their perspective you cannot even begin to fathom the pure EVIL of the basic fundamental COMMANDS within Islam.

People in this country are in for a VERY rude awakening if we fail to protect OUR constitution and OUR laws.

That was satire:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/sh...

It is very sad that this kind of legislation even needs suggested.

Disclosure: I am not a lawyer, but I am an architect/construction manager with an expertise in construction contracts, their interpretation and meaning. As I understand it, only American law applies in the United States. That having been said, contracting parties may select the law they wish applied to the contract, and disputes under that contract that are heard in US courts would be judged under the law chosen in the contract. Judges may consider any body of law they with in explaining their decisions, but must apply US law and/or the law selected in the contract. What this law seeks to do is to ban judges from applying principles of non-US law in forming their decisions. That throws a monkey wrench into all international contracting.

In the United States, the Catholic Church maintains courts of Roman Catholic Canon Law to hear matters under Canon Law - like Catholic annulment of marriage, disputes between a priest and his bishop, etc. Jews have similar bodies that consider matters in the Jewish faith that are subject to Jewish law -- marriage, divorce, conversion, etc. These courts do not interfere with US law or with the application of US law. They affect only those who agree to be bound by them. Why should Muslims not be afforded the same privilege? A Muslim group in Texas has instituted the first Shariah court in the US, designed to hear matters that, for those who accept the jurisdiction of Shariah law, are subject to Shariah law. I see nothing wrong with that, provided that it be understood that the findings of the court are not enforceable under the law of the place.

You keep talking about contract law. Sharia deals with a lot more than contracts. Do you agree that your wife should be stoned to death because she showed an ankle or wasn't covered head to toe? That is sharia.

ah, got it.

There's all sorts of unintended consequences with these laws.

What Courts in those states? In what factual situations was Sharia law applied? Do the cops not go into the neighborhood because a court has held that Michigan law does not apply there?

Where? How? What Courts? Be specific.

I oppose it as ridiculous, unneeded and fraught with unintended consequences. What is my agenda?

Why is this needed?? If people wish to have their contracts decided under Martian law and they sue in Montana why shouldn't the Montana Courts apply Martian law?? And precisely what evil is this law intended to prevent? And when has it happened.

The difference Ranter is pointing out is that if the parties choose to have the foreign law apply to the interpretation of the contract it will be applied as desired in a US Court. However, under this crazy law being vetted in Montana, no Montana citizen would be able to bring suit in Montana citing the choice of law provision agreed upon by the parties. This would put Montanans at a great disadvantage. A significant unintended consequence.

How is this different from doing business with any foreign country?

this is so ridiculous. no state is at risk of imposing Sharia law.

"no brainer" if that were the case how would she have known that she wanted to write a new law to prohibit laws from another world to be used in the USA. so she must have used her brain to think of this law.
that said if mohamed kills his daughter for doing something that is against the law from where he came (muslim ville) but he did it on USA soil he must be tried under the existing laws of the USA just like charlie brown would be.

Good for her. But, isn't it shameful that such a law even needs to be passed? Could never have been needed just a few years ago.

Personally I would like all states to be able to set their own laws, and pretty much get rid of the control of the federal government. That way the states could compete with each other for residents and opportunities, which is the only way we get decent government. Federal government here under Obama has become arrogant and petulant and just does what it wants, regardless of the constitution

Alabama done beat Montana fer thet thar historic screw ther Sharia, y'all.
Some state done beat Bama first? Ah dunno.
Please scuz while ah goes ter cling to muh Bible n' muh guns.