[BeaverFever]

What does any of that have to do with Sharia or other foreign law, Bart?

[llama66]

While I am all for diversity and multiculturism,

There needs to be only one legal system, and all MUST be equal before it. There was a reason for the seperation of church and state.

No more multiple legal system proposals. The law must be imparial and free from religion.

I find myself think that Kansas is right too.

[andyt]

This law may be useless, but it's also harmless, as it's just stating the obvious.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

This law may be useless, but it's also harmless, as it's just stating the obvious.

It prevents foreign legal codes from being implemented in the USA. Currently we have a couple Supreme Court Justices (Bader-Ginsburg and Sotomayor) who have expressed their opinions that foreign court rulings could be acceptable as precedent in the USA even if they conflict with the Constitution.

I like the wording of the Kansas law because it merely states that only those systems that give the same guarantee of rights as ours would be valid for such opinions. It makes no mention of any specific system but, clearly, it shuts out any and all forms of Shariah and that is a very, very good thing.

[andyt]

I have no problem with that law. We should have a similar one in Canada. Just to make things clear.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

Currently we have a couple Supreme Court Justices (Bader-Ginsburg and Sotomayor) who have expressed their opinions that foreign court rulings could be acceptable as precedent in the USA even if they conflict with the Constitution.

Got a non-right-wing drivel link for that?

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

Currently we have a couple Supreme Court Justices (Bader-Ginsburg and Sotomayor) who have expressed their opinions that foreign court rulings could be acceptable as precedent in the USA even if they conflict with the Constitution.

Got a non-right-wing drivel link for that?

Sure, www.fuckyou.com

[Unsound]

Shouldn't the constitution be enough?

Do you really need a special law against stoning people to death for blasphemy, for example, when the constitution already covers that with freedom of religion and a ban on cruel and unusual punishment?

And what about foreign rulings that don't conflict with the constitution? Are they acceptable to you?