Above The Law And Into Culture [Reader Post]

@suek, so we are in agreement on the religious courts. None of them should be allowed to usurp our laws. And any local attempts at Shariah in areas needs to have that measuring stick applied. Obviously if they are seeking any power to override our laws, their efforts would be quashed by existing laws.

And no, I don’t think it would be “too late” to be opposing any attempt as it rises. Rather difficult to be preemptive on religious courts that exist without seeing exactly what they have in mind. It’s also somewhat disingenuous to assume, as @Smorgasbord suggests, that if Muslims set up something akin to the local rabbinic courts, all American women would be required to wear head covering. Unless, of course, Smorgasbord is running around in a yamika because of rabbinic court demands, and not telling us ….

We also agree on SCOTUS appointments… so far, we’re doing pretty good, eh? 😆

American citizens were _not_ accepting of slavery and oppression based on race 60 years ago. Prejudice? yes – it existed. Oppression? on an individual locale, yes. But it was _not_ accepted nation wide. To make that statement makes me think you’ve accepted a lot of the victim history that is taught today.

Note I said slavery *and* oppression. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1965, and that is what I used as my benchmark. Remember it well since I was no toddler back then. The attitudes of oppression were quite prevalent.. and still, in some circles, today. The attitudes towards slavery had not yet been completely banished from generations of Americans that still harbored that. Was it as common as Civil War era? Of course not.

Now if you prefer, we’ll do the oppression back 60 years, and we’ll do the slavery separate at 145 years ago in American history. But just so you don’t lose the point in these analogies, both still illustrate my point that we are not the same society we were 60 or 145 years ago. Nor are modern Muslims the same Muslims as 1400 years ago.

INRE Kelo:

At least theoretically – and this gets a bit tricky, I think – the Kelo decision is now “Constitutional”. The decision changed the rules. Until the rules get changed back, it appears that private property ownership no longer rules supreme. “Society” now has a voice in property decisions.

Not quite correct analogy, suek. SCOTUS opinions do not “change” the rules… they clarify the law in a particular situation, based on the very specific arguments presented by the attorneys. Thus they are not a blank template that fits every situation.

In Kelo, SCOTUS ruled that New London’s eminent domain seizure of private property, to make way for a development plan that increased tax revenue, created jobs, and improved the local economy, was in no way unConstitutional. New London – a place I spent some time as a Navy wife about 4 decades ago – was really financially in the toilet then. Today’s events have a certain irony when you consider the city officials aggressive economic plans of that time. But that’s another story…. the event, whether it turned out well or not, defined the economic basis for a government authority to condemn land (eminent domain), sell it to corporate interests for the local economic benefit.

However Kelo as a precedent is completely unrelated to Cordoba House, suek. In fact, if you do attempt to apply it, it is a strong case *against* making it either a landmark, or a memorial… since neither would be as fiscally beneficial for that area of NYC with swimming pool, auditorium/theater, gym, restaurants, etc. The latter will be providing a lot of jobs where the former not nearly as much.

I’d like to convince Aye and Mata and Word of the potential danger, but maybe it’s better that I don’t. They are the bellwethers of the problems we face in the future – a population that refuses to see the wolves. Assuming I’m correct. By the time they realize the danger, it may be too late.

suek… such a cheap and disingenuous posturing after we were doing so well, girl…. 😯 That my offense at restructuring rule of law in order to accommodate for discrimination outweighs my genuine offense at the Cordoba House location hardly makes me (or Word, Aye, Patvann, Curt, Old Trooper, johngalt and sundry others) of the Pollyanna mentality. This is akin to the lies that we have labeled *all* opposition ‘phobes, when that is confined pretty much to those that simply want to ostracize Muslims from US society.

Nor am I unsympathetic to concerns of Shariah as government, as you can tell by my post at my old blog, Sea2Sea, prior to FA about Shariah and Islam as ruling government power.

But Islam/Shariah rule government in Muslims nations is not the United States of America, nor is it going to be. Neither American Muslims nor Americans have any desire to emulate Afghanistan or Iran. Nor will our laws permit such from being implemented. Any attempt to set up a parallel court system that infringes on our rule of law and Constitutional rights would be rapidly hitting the courts, and struck down by our High Courts. Even lib/progs aren’t up for becoming Iran.

Or another from circa 2007 where US national security is closely tied with the types of ruling governments in Muslim countries. If I think a Muslim Shariah govt is a risk to our national security, you think I believe it’s okay for the US to adopt such?? Even back in 2004, I was railing against coddling jihad as a war strategy.

My point is that I share your same concerns about keeping a wary eye, and I’ve been historically on record, indicating I am more than aware of the horrendous economic and social conditions in nations governed by Shariah. You’re preaching to the choir, and to suggest I’m a gullible innocent is truly an attempt at a low blow. I know you don’t appreciate those kind of comments from others here, and have said so. I am saying the same to you. I don’t appreciate them either.

The difference is you see the building of Cordoba House as some major step to the US Constitution being overthrown, the courts remaining silent, and we all quietly don Muslim gear. And your distrust of Muslims in general extends to the point of guilty until innocent, and not the other way around. This stuff is simply not helpful rhetoric – most especially in this important midterm for fiscal issues – and decries reality.

Unfortunately this vision of political armaggedon is also feeding the increased fury and activity of others, who oppose mosques built anywhere, or think they have “enough” mosques. And that mentality is being picked up by GOP candidates across the country.

When anyone opposes Cordoba House because of it’s proximity to ground zero – yet still opposes all mosques – they at least have moral cover of the sacred ground of attacks to mask their hate of all Islam. But when the same anti-mosque building is going on, no where near ground zero, the discriminatory attitude is hanging out there, naked, for the lib/progs to see and use as negative attack material this campaign.

I forgot to address a segment of this comment, suek:

So…as long as we remained ignorant of islam’s warrior history and their declared intent to impose islam on the entire world, we would have been blissfully compliant with the mosque?

This “intent to impose Islam on the entire world”, with the added caveat of using jihad, is primarily confined to the global Islamic jihad movement that declared war on the western world via the 1998 World Islamic Front Statement.

As far as the self-educated infidel’s take on the Qur’an, I’d also like to point out that Christianity has their desire to “save” the world’s population with the same goal. Not to mention the most active solicitor of souls, Jehovah’s Witness.

As I said, I’ve met and worked with many a Muslim. None of ever made the slightest attempt to convert me to Islam. Also Muslims have been present in this nation for quite some time. I’ve yet to see news reports of infidels killed because they refused to convert in this country. I have seen the news reports of the crazies who perform their honor killings in this country (and in the UK). In both countries, this will not stand, and they are hunted down to be prosecuted by our courts, like any criminal – religious or not. But I don’t see it to be a huge trend amongst those millions of Muslims in this country.

It always come down to the same. The actions of a small percentage of Muslims manages to override the historic behavior of American Muslims. At some point you need to triage your threats. And as far as I’m concerned, the largest threat is the immediate one in the WH, and his progressive Euro-socialists holding seats in our Congress.

@Donald Bly: Mata… There was no attempt at gotcha “idiocy”… my point is that war doesn’t need an official declaration, 1400 years of history proves my point.

Oh yes.. because Christianity, and society has morphed and evolved over those years in attitudes and practice, but Islam remains the same… in your view.

okay… let’s not tread on the logical. There are few constants thru that span of time, and Islam and Muslims are not one of them.

The only part of Islam that has “declared war” on advanced western civilization is the global Islamic jihad movements. The rest, you fill in the blanks, based on your “infidel expertise”. Sorry if I don’t give you that authority and respect of cleric knowledge.

In regards to this topic and the ability of the people to change the constitution through amendment… I think you are grasping at straws.

The “straws” I grasp at are solid in their Constitutional foundations. The “straws” to which you cling are all emotional. When you rewrote the bill of rights, you lost what credible foundations you stand upon in this argument, Donald. Sorry, guy. Nothing personal here, but you could not be farther from the principles that I believe in. You still think you can write in one-size-fits-all parameters, without damaging the intent.

Weird thing that you still can’t grasp is that both of us still oppose Cordoba House in concept, but we differ on exactly what we’d do about it.

An amendment to the constitution cannot be struck down as being unconstitutional because once it is ratified by the people via the states… it is the constitution.

Ahhh….. some “mind candy” to play with. 😆

Lofty ideals, Donald, but lets get serious. Constitutional amendments do not originate or reach “the people”. It still comes down to elected officials doing the deed.

Tho I have to say, it’s an interesting concept you propose. But hardly as cut a dried as you prefer to present it. So let’s get dirty with details, shall we?

First, if you managed to get thru the 2/3 of Congress required proposal for amendment (right…. get even 61 of ’em to agree in the Senate….. LOL), or the alternative that has never been used being 3/4s of the states requesting a convention, the judicial system would still come into play with any post enactment challenges. Afterall, the “amendment” did not nullify the judicial branch or the separation of powers, right? Therefore, it did not nullify their powers to declare Congressional actions – of which this began – as unconstitutional actions.

So, can SCOTUS alter any such event after the fact? Therein lies the “mind candy”. Never been done, or even close, so how can you demonstrate such proffered certainty on the outcome?

But what we can do is reference past SCOTUS behavior when faced with no precedents and unique situations. And, in fact, the High Court would have no choice but to delve into both colonial and international law, as they have done in the past.

The first place they’d run into was India, where they most certainly have gone thru this same type of argument. Lower Indian supreme court districts have held that “Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution does not extend to amendments designed to change (damage, destroy) “its basic and essential structure.” . And, in fact, this linked article states (being a liberal legal point of view) that there are no guarantees, in a post Bush/Gore election era, that SCOTUS would just back down and slink quietly away.

Considering this would be unchartered territory in our Constitution and judicial history, the court’s opinions would turn to many sources. And depending on the makeup of the court, who knows what the opinion would be? I don’t. And if you suggest you would, you need to get that tarot card neon in your house window fired up. We’ll all be lining up, assuming you aren’t using those new found powers at the felt covered tables.

Now, in the interest of comparing your perceived “harmless” amendment idea to another extreme. Imagine this… an amendment that bans the presence of Muslims in the nation (as you expressed you’d like to have)… that is a constitutional amendment legal procedure, but is struck down by SCOTUS as unconstitional.

Did the amendment banning Muslims render the SCOTUS power of interpreting the law useless simultaneously? Absolutely not. Since the SCOTUS is the last word on legal interpretation, does Congress now have the power to simply negate that SCOTUS decisions? Not with that amendment.

Interesting conflict, don’t you think?

Now, imagine, a Congress, similar to this, that passed a Constitutional amendment granting Obama lifetime Presidency, plus abolishing the Republic… Still think the judicial branch of power to curtail Congressional powers would, or should, be impotent?

Like I said.. mind candy. But mind candy, laced with fatal amounts of arsenic. What you suggest.. even with it’s procedural difficulty… suggests that even the Constitutional judicial system – and it’s checks and balances power – is impotent to stop both a WH and Congress that would seek to turn the US into a full fledged dictatorship with the stroke of a pen.

That’s the day I definitely find anywhere else to live than here…. or simply exit the planet, remembering America in it’s heyday.