BluEyes wrote: 

 triskele wrote: 


I cannot access those from the phone. We are stuck in a huge traffic snarl as the graduates are returning to Fort Sill.

We will try to get on the computer in the motel lobby but that will be an hour or so.

 kurtster wrote: 

Where's the list that you are referring to please. I'd like to see it..

From Steven Colbert: "Better watch the cows, they may be secret mooooooooooo-slims!"

 BluEyes wrote: 
he sent you a pm!

 kurtster wrote: 
ayup

 triskele wrote: 
I think that either South Carolina or Mississippi comes in last, not sure.  Its all crazy.

Priorities are messed up for sure.

 kurtster wrote: 
Popularity does not equal necessity!

 triskele wrote: 


Looking for Schlabby!

Limited navigation online with my cell phone ;(

we are in Lawton now and will be in OKC on Saturday.

 kurtster wrote: 
but state question 744 (i think that was the number), to designate more of the state's budget money for schools and teachers' salaries, in order to bring OK up to the standards of neighboring states, was overwhelmingly voted DOWN.  80% of ballots cast were NO.  OK is ranked 49th in the country, not sure who is 50th, as far as the education system.

Oklahoma Question 755 passed overwhelmingly.  Is it an unnecessary law ?  Evidently not as its margin of victory is very revealing.

Question 755 (International Law)
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		695,568	70.08%
No		296,903	29.92%
Total votes		992,471	100.00%
Voter turnout		%

• In a poll conducted by SoonerPoll.com, 49 percent of voters polled stated that they were for the measure. The poll surveyed likely registered voters in the state, which included 385 Democrats, 340 Republicans and 31 independents. The margin of error was reported to be 3.57 percentage points and was commissioned by the Tulsa World.^<9>

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided	Number polled
July 16-21, 2010	SoonerPoll.com	49%	24%	27%	755

Two measures aimed at illegal immigration received even greater approval. State Question 751, which would make English the state's official language, was favored by 85 percent; SQ 746, to require photo identification to vote, was favored by 83 percent.

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=19&articleid=20100805_16_A9_Amswhr19725

---

And

---

State Question 755 has received national attention, and Duncan has been interviewed about the proposal by several national news outlets.

However, the proposal appeared less controversial among Oklahoma legislators. House Joint Resolution 1056 passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives on an overwhelmingly bipartisan 82-10 vote and cleared the Senate on a bipartisan 41-2 vote.

Duncan has predicted the measure will receive similar overwhelming support from voters. Recent polling indicates the measure will pass, although many citizens remain uncertain. A poll conducted July 16 to 21 for The Tulsa World found that 49 percent of likely voters supported State Question 755, while 24 percent opposed it and 27 percent were undecided.

 kurtster wrote: 
Great.  Just great.

 cc_rider wrote: 
Ayup.  'Zactly what George was talking about.

 kurtster wrote: 
I'm not quite sure which components you are referring to, but the first amendment says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.".

It rightly says that Congress (the State in this case) doesn't support or interfere with any religion directly. People can gather up under any peaceful cause they want and complain to their representatives without interference.  Seems pretty reasonable to me. Sharia, like many other sets of "God's laws" has many different interpretations depending on if the followers are modernist, fundamentalist, evangelical...

 oldslabsides wrote:
 
Isn't that one of the reasons WW I got so out of hand?

Perhaps this is an intent that Oklahoma Question 755 is well suited for:

Just heard on the radio, no not Rush, that the US State Department has submitted Arizona's 1070 to the United Nations for review for possible Human Rights violations.  WTF ?

This is an internal affair undergoing an internal Constitutional review. 

 kurtster wrote:

For the most part that's true—international treaties have only indirect effects on people's behavior within a state*. Which makes the OK proposition both pointless and in violation of Article 6 of the US Constitution.

*One of the few areas where state law gets involved with treaties is in regard to extradition, tho usually the impact is the other way around—the state law can interfere with exercising a treaty.

 kurtster wrote: 
I don't know of any specific examples, but I'm confident that there are any number of commerce treaties that have significant impact on businesses and individuals here in the US. If we sign a treaty that says we won't impose the death penalty, that would preclude any state from imposing the death penalty. If we sign a treaty that says we will no longer manufacture lead-based paint, then none of the states get to give any of their pet manufacturers a pass on the Pb. A treaty specifying we will sell stealth technology only to our NATO allies means companies that manufacture stealth components have some pretty significant restrictions on their sales and marketing.

Again, I'm not in favor of Sharia law or any kind of "separate but equal" justice system in the US. We all need to be held to the same standards. I'm saying that the existing separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution already covers that. I'm saying that we don't need to keep proliferating laws to cover situations already covered under existing law. And I'm saying that logically if you're going to pass a law excluding one specific set of religious traditions from our judicial system, you need to exclude them all or it's discriminatory. You can't say "your religious traditions are unacceptable for our system of justice, but mine are okay".

So instead of saying "Sharia law is not to be used for judicial decisions" and "Buddhist law is not to be used for judicial decisions" and "Jedi law is not to be used for judicial decisions", it's easier and fairer to stick with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

I don't see how adding redundancy to the already burdensome body of law in this country is going to maximize my rights.

 winter wrote: 
We don't live within the country with laws based on international treaties.  I know of no example.  Treaties only affect interaction when dealing with another country.  The example that we choose to live with less nukes does not affect our day to day life.  All of our laws governing domestic activity have so far been based on the US Constitution.

The purpose of our Constitution as I see it is to maximize the rights of the people or individual and minimize the role of the government in interfering with those rights.  Introducing anything new from foreign and religious sources to our legal system will only dilute the rights of the individual and strengthen the State. 

I'm happy that 80% of Sharia Law is in harmony with our Constitution.  To allow the other 20% to take hold for the convenience of a particular religion is not acceptable.  If it is allowed, then it applies to all of us, not just the believers.  There is no (longer a) place for seperate but equal in this country, especially justice systems.  Sharia Law within the United States can adapt to our legal precendents, it cannot be the other way.  A Constitutional Amendment of this kind, strengthens the original intent of our Constitution, it does not minimize individual rights, it strengthens them.  To argue against this is similar to the argument used to argue against the proposed ERA Amendment.