-
UPDATED July 7, 2011 for further clarity:
All of these (63) Republicans (list from GovTrack) are affirming that they are against Gay Rights and Children’s Rights by supporting this bill.
Do not support them if you like your right to privacy or your children’s right to be heard on issues concerning their welfare… HOWEVER, if you prefer a religious police state… sure then, these are your girls/guys:
Spencer Bachus [R-AL6]
Lou Barletta [R-PA11]
Diane Black [R-TN6]
Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7]
Mo Brooks [R-AL5]
Ann Marie Buerkle [R-NY25]
Dan Burton [R-IN5]
Ken Calvert [R-CA44]
John Carter [R-TX31]
Jason Chaffetz [R-UT3]
Howard Coble [R-NC6]
Mike Coffman [R-CO6]
Tom Cole [R-OK4]
Jeff Duncan [R-SC3]
John Duncan [R-TN2]
Renee Ellmers [R-NC2]
Chuck Fleischmann [R-TN3]
Bill Flores [R-TX17]
Randy Forbes [R-VA4]
Jeffrey Fortenberry [R-NE1]
Elton Gallegly [R-CA24]
Scott Garrett [R-NJ5]
John Gingrey [R-GA11]
Louis Gohmert [R-TX1]
Robert Goodlatte [R-VA6]
Walter Herger [R-CA2]
Tim Huelskamp [R-KS1]
Darrell Issa [R-CA49]
Walter Jones [R-NC3]
Steve King [R-IA5]
Jack Kingston [R-GA1]
Doug Lamborn [R-CO5]
Robert Latta [R-OH5]
Daniel Lungren [R-CA3]
Donald Manzullo [R-IL16]
Thomas Marino [R-PA10]
Tom McClintock [R-CA4]
Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI11]
Howard McKeon [R-CA25]
David McKinley [R-WV1]
Cathy McMorris Rodgers [R-WA5]
Candice Miller [R-MI10]
Jeff Miller [R-FL1]
Randy Neugebauer [R-TX19]
Richard Nugent [R-FL5]
Ronald Paul [R-TX14]
Mike Pence [R-IN6]
Joseph Pitts [R-PA16]
Bill Posey [R-FL15]
Tom Reed [R-NY29]
Scott Rigell [R-VA2]
Phil Roe [R-TN1]
Thomas Rooney [R-FL16]
Dennis Ross [R-FL12]
Jean Schmidt [R-OH2]
James Sensenbrenner [R-WI5]
Marlin Stutzman [R-IN3]
Timothy Walberg [R-MI7]
Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA3]
Addison Wilson [R-SC2]
Frank Wolf [R-VA10]
Bill Young [R-FL10]
Please see the post HR 973: An Attack on Childrens Rights from the Far Right for more information on how this bill could potentially effect children’s rights.
UPDATED April 17th FOR CLARITY**********************
Have people been warning you about Sharia Law and its implication on the the US Justice system. Don’t worry, that’s not how it works. The amendment they want you to get behind has nothing to do with it, since there is and never will be a constitution that reads: “If a person is Muslim, they can throw rocks at you / others, because its Sharia Law.”
Here’s what you really need to know:
HR 973 is a bill being pushed through Congress by Representative Sandy Adams to change the wording in Title 28 of the US Constitution adding:
Chapter 183 – Use of Foreign Law In Federal Courts
Sec. 4201. Limitation on use of foreign law in Federal courts
`In any court created by or under article III of the Constitution of the United States, no justice, judge, or other judicial official shall decide any issue in a case before that court in whole or in part on the authority of foreign law, except to the extent the Constitution or an Act of Congress requires the consideration of that foreign law.’
What does this have to do with gay rights?
That wording could have a retroactive effect on 3 federal court rulings including:
…a landmark decision in Lawrence v. Texas, holding that states cannot criminalize the consensual homosexual relations of adults in the privacy of the home… and Roper v. Simmons when the Court abolished the juvenile death penalty in the United States.
These two recent Supreme Court decisions fuel a long-waged battle over the status of foreign and international law in interpreting the Constitution. Lawrence and Roper may usher in a mode of constitutional jurisprudence more cognizant of a “world increasingly united by globalization, democratization and the spread of universal human rights.”
Ms. Adams herself notes the Lawrence case in her appeal to have this bill passed… referring to it as if it were an abomination of the Constitution to allow citizens privacy. Here is her appeal:
Imagine waking up one Sunday morning and reading the headline in your local newspaper: “Supreme Court rules that the press can’t question the president,” and imagine that their ruling cited international case law from nations like China or Cuba, where it is illegal to question the word of the executive branch. While this idea may seem far-fetched, it is a daunting possibility.
Foreign law poses a very real threat to the American judicial system. In recent years, Supreme Court justices have allowed foreign and international law to permeate our court systems, interjecting it into their rulings and creating an environment of disregard for national sovereignty. Our Constitution laid the foundation for our nation’s judicial system, and referencing or using foreign law in American courts will lead to its erosion. Each case that sites foreign law is another opportunity to set precedent and for the Constitution to be challenged or overrun.
That is why I have introduced legislation to protect our Constitution and federal court systems from this type of practice. My two-page bill, H.R. 973, simply states that “in any court created by or under Article III of the Constitution of the United States, no justice, judge, or other judicial official shall decide any issue in a case before that court in whole or in part on the authority of foreign law, except to the extent the Constitution or an Act of Congress requires the consideration of that foreign law.”
Not only is using international precedent a transparent disregard for the Constitution, but it could be used to advance a judge’s personal political agenda over the best interests of the nation. Judges have a responsibility to interpret the laws of the land, not legislate from the bench, and the practice of referring to foreign law puts their underlying motives into question. There are three particular Supreme Court cases where judges have cited foreign and international precedent: Lawrence v. Texas, where the court overturned state anti-sodomy statutes; Atkins v. Virginia, where the court held against the execution of mentally retarded capital defendants; and Roper v. Simmons, where the court outlawed application of the death penalty to offenders who were under 18 when their crimes were committed. International and foreign laws were cited in all three cases by our Supreme Court justices in reaching their decisions, setting precedent for future rulings.
This disconcerting trend has gained traction across the country, sparking national concern. Currently there are over a dozen states that have introduced legislation banning foreign law on the state level — including the state I represent, Florida. Furthermore, the issue is of such concern that questions about it have become a fixture of the confirmation process for Supreme Court justices. In her 2010 confirmation hearing, Elena Kagan was questioned by Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican, who asked if she thought international law should factor into a federal court’s decision-making process. She confirmed that she did, stating: “I think it depends. There are some cases in which the citation of foreign law, or international law, might be appropriate.”
This kind of practice begs the question: Are we going to allow our court systems to dictate our policymaking process based off of foreign sources or are we going to go through the proper channels prescribed by our Constitution? We must remember that we have an American judicial system in place for a reason; it is based off of our country’s rich history and it is intentionally unique to our great nation. As we move forward as a country, we must work to protect it.
Rep. Sandy Adams represents Florida’s 24th Congressional District.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/30/we-need-to-keep-foreign-law-out-of-u-s-courts/#ixzz1IlcUlM2h
Apparently this bill is being pushed by super-conservative Deiner Consultants through the Conservative Action Alerts newsletters and blogs that go out to right leaning constituents to get support for conservative causes. Now, if this were being pushed to constituents as a bill to abolish gay rights or reinstate the juvenile death penalty, I would not be quite as concerned since such appeals would be difficult to find support for. Unfortunately, it is being posed to constituents as:
Defense against Muslims consideration of Sharia law in the United States Judicial System:
“We must get behind this bill with every effort we can muster up. Our entire judicial system is at stake here. Shortly, Sharia Law may be accepted in YOUR courtroom. Already, several U.S. towns have accepted the use of Sharia Law in their courts! This is outrageous. “
The most concise answer I’ve found on the effect of Sharia Law on the US Constitution:
The truth? Sharia is religious law, and no religious law can be imposed on the US without amending the Constitution — twice — to repeal both the opening clause of the First Amendment, and the Supremacy Clause in Article 6.
One interesting part of the wording of the amendment that sort of clues you in immediately to the fact that this is mostly a game:
except to the extent the Constitution or an Act of Congress requires the consideration of that foreign law.
Meaning, that though Judges will not be able to cite it, and past occurrences of such would be reevaluated, if the Constitution (which was basically a brand new document completely inspired by various foreign laws and precedents) warrants use of foreign law, or if Congress cites it, then it would be just fine. It’s basically only targeting the Judicial Branch. Or shifting powers.
A Look at Sandy Adams
Recent news about Rep. Adams:
Rep. Sandy Adams still takes public health care while pushing for repeal of health reform
It would be easy to assume that Rep. Adams is being indirectly financially supported by the same people supporting this bill:
Conservative Action Alerts (run by Diener Consultants, ie. Phillip Sheldon – guy who sold names of folks who donated to Terri Schiavo’s cause). This guy is also affiliated with Alan Keyes and William Greene (The Declaration Alliance) i.e. spreaders of misinformation.
And just an FYI on these guys, apparently, they have been lining their pockets with this stuff for years.
I’d encourage the reading of this post from April 16th by Reinbach’s Observer that states it pretty clearly but also goes into more particulars of the legal system than mine does:
Sharia Law: Right-Wing Boogyman
Casey B in La
April 24, 2011
i don’t understand what i just read. i never heard your point… well, i read about until the list of Democrats.
i mean… i’ve read both sides and neither makes sense to me. i don’t get what you’re saying above.
i keep up on this stuff but this one has me stumped. i sort of assume the bill is up to no good, but i don’t really get any of it this time around.
unfinishedscript
April 25, 2011
ok, I knew I needed to rewrite this one, thanks for commenting.
I’ll update it.
unfinishedscript
April 25, 2011
updated! does that help?
John
June 29, 2011
Judges can do an end run around the Constitution (and have in Florida) with regard to sharia law.
unfinishedscript
June 29, 2011
so you agree the amendment is unnecessary
James
July 8, 2011
John, can you cite a specific example of such an “end run” that occurred in Florida so that i amy research it?
Dale
July 9, 2011
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/23/florida-judge-defends-decision-apply-islamic-law-tampa-case/
unfinishedscript
July 9, 2011
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/may/04/adam-hasner/adam-hasner-says-florida-judge-using-islamic-law-c/
“Wagner said that in deciding what laws to base his decisions on, a judge will look at the provisions agreed to between the two parties when they entered their contract.
“If we both sign a contract agreeing to be governed by German law, then Florida courts will interpret German law,” Wagner said.
Wagner said the only time a judge will not consider upholding a decision based on foreign law is if it “contravenes public policy.”
“There are certain fundamental principles that every country holds dear,” Wagner said. For example, “If the punishment included bodily injury, that’s not our public policy. If certain rules say you may no longer speak your mind, that would go against the First Amendment rights … Those penalties would not be enforced.”
While the use of Sharia laws in the courtroom seems to have captured the most interest from the media and bloggers, Wagner said judges can make rulings based on religious laws. But again, only if the parties involved entered into an agreement under those religious laws from the beginning.”
Dale
July 9, 2011
the U.S. is governed by the people NOT international laws!!! you want Muslim Laws got to IRAN they are setting a record pace this year on hangings including Juveniles!!! not in my country not not not ever!!!
unfinishedscript
July 9, 2011
yes it is governed by the people… but islamic law is not international law… international laws are not created by Iranian Muslims…
“International law is the term commonly used for referring to laws that govern the conduct of independent nations in their relationships with one another. ” – Wikipedia, International Law
Dale
July 9, 2011
oh and our country was founded by Christians not Muslims! i repeat my previous statement about Sharia laws. if you want it in the states you best move some where else. plus i read the bill there is NOTHING in there about “gay rights” so quit being all sensitive to your made up plight! its about other nations injecting their laws into our sovereign nation!!!
unfinishedscript
July 18, 2011
this country was founded by aethist and humanists as well….
unfinishedscript
July 18, 2011
tell me this: If you understand it so well, then how exactly would some other ‘lone’ nation ‘inject’ their laws into our ‘sovereign nation’?
We have the right to accept or reject any UN treaties that come up, and that’s the only other outside entity that could do that directly… with our agreement.
Also, when the United States holds debt outside of our nation, we are then obligated to the ‘other parties’ – nations- that are involved to fullfill our part of that contract. Because it is a contract when you borrow money and tell someone that you will pay them back. So, in incurring that debt, we have thus made ourselves much less ‘sovereign’ and if the Tea Partiers have their way here… by blocking a vote to raise the debt limit…. we will be even more so at the mercy of other nations… including China (our largest debt holder, the biggest – by population and grievances – human rights violator in the world, and a Communist country. Your blessedly ignorant Tea Partiers (like Ms. Adams) are about to hand over the keys to the kingdom.
God bless.
Dale
July 9, 2011
H.R.973 — To amend title 28, United States Code, to prevent the misuse of foreign law in Federal courts, and for other purposes. (Introduced in House – IH)
HR 973 IH
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 973
To amend title 28, United States Code, to prevent the misuse of foreign law in Federal courts, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 9, 2011
Mrs. ADAMS (for herself, Mr. POSEY, Mr. AKIN, Mr. COBLE, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. CARTER, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. PITTS, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. NUGENT, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. BROOKS, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. STUTZMAN, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. FLORES, Mr. ISSA, Mr. PENCE, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. FORBES, Mr. MARINO, Mr. ROSS of Florida, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mrs. BLACK, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. COLE, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. PAUL, Mr. REED, Mrs. ELLMERS, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. BARLETTA, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee, Mr. ROONEY, and Mr. JONES) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To amend title 28, United States Code, to prevent the misuse of foreign law in Federal courts, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. USE OF FOREIGN LAW IN FEDERAL COURTS.
Part VI of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`CHAPTER 183–USE OF FOREIGN LAW IN FEDERAL COURTS
`Sec. 4201. Limitation on use of foreign law in Federal courts
`In any court created by or under article III of the Constitution of the United States, no justice, judge, or other judicial official shall decide any issue in a case before that court in whole or in part on the authority of foreign law, except to the extent the Constitution or an Act of Congress requires the consideration of that foreign law.’.
SEC. 2. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.
The table of chapters for part VI of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
4201′.
unfinishedscript
July 9, 2011
I read the bill… I wrote a whole article about how that amendment could affect gay rights… this one, if you read it, explains a landmark case that involves a persons right to do what they wanted in the privacy of their own home where the judge cited foreign case law… the case was about sodomy… kinda gay. With many states still having anti-sodomy laws, the federal protection provided by that case could be challenged. Rep. Sandy Adams cites it as a reason the amendment should go through, she just doesn’t go into detail… if you read it, which is in this post.
Rosalie Johnson
July 13, 2011
Gay rights and Shariah law? Hmmmmm. Is that like having a sardine sandwich with whipped cream?
unfinishedscript
July 13, 2011
So you would prefer Sharia Law? over Gay Rights? (as the popular opinions of sardines and whip cream would denote.)
LH
July 18, 2011
You are worried about gay rights? Read “While Europe Slept” by Bruce Bawer. He is a gay American living and writing in Europe and writing about the Islamist movement in Europe. I think it may give you the perspective to support the bill in question. The bill isn’t about persecuting gays… at the end of day, it protects gay rights, women’s rights, children’s rights…. there have been mercy killings documented in the USA. These actions are horrifying and should alarm anyone.
TRy another Book “The Islamist” by Ed Husssein. There is more afoot in the world than gay rights and the religious right.
unfinishedscript
July 18, 2011
Than wouldn’t it be best to leave the basis for the foundation of the Constitution, that protects our right to seperation between church and state, alone? Why are Christians rallying to stampede upon everyone’s rights if they are so afraid of this happening to them?
Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Right?
Protecting that separation protects us from religious zealouts – of whatever religion (Muslim or Christian). Trying to change it to enforce Christian idolatry is like ripping open the seems of this protection…. One day our children are praying in public schools, the next day the Muslim children are doing the same. It’s a give and take system and once one opportunity is opened, the rest follow.
If you are worried about Muslims, then you shoudl be worried about maintaining and protecting seperation between church and state in all the ways it manifests. They are the world’s largest religious population, and it can’t be avoided that they will become a part of our lives. Arab political parties are becoming more moderate as the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia settle down into the reality of the Democratic country the people there asked for. This is a good sign for peace. We should embrace it and keep the line drawn that no religion, irrespective of it’s origin, should be allowed to impose its unique tennants on the Constitution of the United States of America. This is the land of the free… not the land of “Go to church on Sunday and don’t let women drive… kneel down five times before supper, and thou shalt not be gay.”
The Constitution was one of the most amazing revelations of the Great Enlightment. The foundation of it’s values were drawn from texts and debate from around the world. Why would we not want to protect our ability to continue to evolve this basic foundation of our liberties?
Vonnise
August 22, 2011
Kudos to all the Congress people who have co-signed this bill.
CAN
August 24, 2011
That is a lie! because if HR973 is passed it WILL affect ALL!
CAN
August 24, 2011
Think on this. Do you believe there should be two laws in this country regarding killing and getting away with it?
Sharia is REAL!
unfinishedscript
August 29, 2011
There already are, if you are an American public servant and you are killing at the direction of the commander and chief and our congresional bodies to protect our citizenry… then its ok. If you have any other alignment or intention, then its not. That will always overide any religious idealogolical agreements… as long as we keep religion out of government, that is. It won’t be beneficial to take sides, unless of course, we would prefer to live under a theocracy (which usually implies civil war: war = death = bad).
That’s why I’m for seperation between church and state, I think we should avoid a theological civil war. Our families and loved ones and way of life would be threatened. Do you want that?
cd
August 29, 2011
ok, so you obviously do not like Christians because you think they hate gays. Christians believe that sex outside the marriage is a sin. Christians do not hate sinners, everybody is a sinner. How does the Shariah Religious Law respond to gay infidels?
unfinishedscript
August 29, 2011
I have nothing against Christians or Muslims, I have a lot against radical fundamentalist that seek to degrade people and to take away their rights, especially the rights of people with wholesome and good intentions… wholesome and biblical are not equivalent to me. Values are deeper than that. That’s all. I think there are better solutions to protecting our sovereignty.
Aaron
December 18, 2011
Thank you for writing this.
First of all, anyone worried about Sharia law entering the courts should know that we already have a law on record that prevents this – it’s called the First Amendment.
I’m happy that someone has exposed the true intention behind this bill. If you have any doubts, read Sandy Adams’ opinion piece in full here:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/30/we-need-to-keep-foreign-law-out-of-u-s-courts/
No mention of Sharia law and the ONLY three court cases where international law is cited are related to human rights issues – overturning anti-sodomy laws and preventing the killing of mentally retarded and underage criminals.
Truly, the only reason you should support this bill is if you are worried about the US being held accountable to international standards for human rights.