2 Replies to “Kansas makes sure sharia law cannot supersede the US constitution”
The way the Constitution is written and the subsequent case decisions means writing an anti-sharia law is unnecessary. What is necessary is for the people to be willing to enforce what has all ready been done.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ”
Together with the Free Exercise Clause (“… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”), these two clauses make up what are called the “religion clauses” of the First Amendment.
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey statute funding student transportation to schools, whether parochial or not. Justice Hugo Black held,
The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.”
Lemon v Kurtzman (403 US 602 [1971]), established what is known today as “The Lemon Test.” The Lemon Test is used to examine a law to see if it has the effect of establishing a religion. The Court wrote:
In the absence of precisely stated constitutional prohibitions, we must draw lines with reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection: “sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.”
Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.”
For a more in depth reading please see the following:
Additionally no Treaties can supersede the U.S. Constitution as some have tried to claim:
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)
Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;… .”
There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in “pursuance” of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [354 U.S. 1, 17] War, would remain in effect. 31 It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. 32 In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.
Just noticed this story on creeping sharia. If governor does not sign bill will this be the kindle that ignites this fire?
———————————————
Muslim group CAIR urges Kansas governor to allow sharia law
Posted on May 16, 2012 by creeping
It passed the House 120-0 and now the Senate 33-3. Terror-linked CAIR is pressing Kansas’ governor to permit sharia law in Kansas. via CAIR: Kansas Governor Asked Not to Sign Anti-Sharia Bill
WASHINGTON, May 15, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today called on Muslims and all other Americans who value civil liberties to contact Kansas Governor Sam Brownback to ask that he not sign a bill (House Substitute for Senate Bill 79)
Discover more from Vlad Tepes
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
The way the Constitution is written and the subsequent case decisions means writing an anti-sharia law is unnecessary. What is necessary is for the people to be willing to enforce what has all ready been done.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ”
Together with the Free Exercise Clause (“… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”), these two clauses make up what are called the “religion clauses” of the First Amendment.
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey statute funding student transportation to schools, whether parochial or not. Justice Hugo Black held,
The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.”
Lemon v Kurtzman (403 US 602 [1971]), established what is known today as “The Lemon Test.” The Lemon Test is used to examine a law to see if it has the effect of establishing a religion. The Court wrote:
In the absence of precisely stated constitutional prohibitions, we must draw lines with reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection: “sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.”
Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.”
For a more in depth reading please see the following:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Establishment+Clause
Additionally no Treaties can supersede the U.S. Constitution as some have tried to claim:
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)
Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;… .”
There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in “pursuance” of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [354 U.S. 1, 17] War, would remain in effect. 31 It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. 32 In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.
For further in depth reading see:
http://constitution.org/ussc/354-001a.htm
Just noticed this story on creeping sharia. If governor does not sign bill will this be the kindle that ignites this fire?
———————————————
Muslim group CAIR urges Kansas governor to allow sharia law
Posted on May 16, 2012 by creeping
It passed the House 120-0 and now the Senate 33-3. Terror-linked CAIR is pressing Kansas’ governor to permit sharia law in Kansas. via CAIR: Kansas Governor Asked Not to Sign Anti-Sharia Bill
WASHINGTON, May 15, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today called on Muslims and all other Americans who value civil liberties to contact Kansas Governor Sam Brownback to ask that he not sign a bill (House Substitute for Senate Bill 79)