Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
British-Muslims ... Pakistan...
More like too chickensh1t to respond. There is nothing hypothetical about a dual legal systems where the government is burden to enforce unequal laws and therefore punishments. It is going on in Pakistan and you cannot reconcile your claim of believing in one set of laws BECAUSE YOU ACTUALLY SUPPORT SUCH A SYSTEM.Your whole dance around the world to deflect from the actual topic of US laws and delving into ridiculous hypotheticals that directly contradict US Constitutional restrictions proves that you have nothing.
Not worth responding.
More like too chickensh1t to respond. There is nothing hypothetical about a dual legal systems where the government is burden to enforce unequal laws and therefore punishments. It is going on in Pakistan and you cannot reconcile your claim of believing in one set of laws BECAUSE YOU ACTUALLY SUPPORT SUCH A SYSTEM.
Yes, there is. It is called the US Congress.There is no way a US governmental entity can be induced to enforce religious laws on US soil. It doesn't matter what happens anywhere else on the planet. There is no loophole of dual, triple or any kind of legal system.
This has nothing to do with whatever people chose to voluntarily submit. This has to do with elevating a code of conduct to that of legal enforcement. It looks like it is YOU who seems to have difficulty grasping this. In a dual legal system, the state is legally obligated to administer two different codes of conducts in equal measures.You seem unable to differentiate between voluntary codes of conduct, which some communities chose to abide by, and legally enforceable laws whose compliance is mandatory. Since you are incapable of understanding this simple distinction, I won't waste my time.
See that part that involves the President? It ain't the President of the United States, pal.The Federal Shariat Court (FSC) of Pakistan is a court which has the power to examine and determine whether the laws of the country comply with Shari'a law. It consists of 8 Muslim judges appointed by the President of Pakistan after consulting the Chief Justice of this Court, from amongst the serving or retired judges of the Supreme Court or a High Court or from amongst persons possessing the qualifications of judges of a High Court. Justice Agha Rafiq Ahmed Khan is the current Chief Justice of the court. Of the 8 judges, 3 are required to be Ulema who are well versed in Islamic law. The judges hold office for a period of 3 years, which may eventually be extended by the President.
Welllll...Looky here...The court also exercises revisional jurisdiction over the criminal courts, deciding Hudood cases. The decisions of the court are binding on the High Courts as well as subordinate judiciary. The court appoints its own staff and frames its own rules of procedure.
And who say a religious court cannot impose its will on non-believers?203D Powers, Jurisdiction and Functions of the Court.
(1) The Court may, [210] [either of its own motion or] on the petition of a citizen of Pakistan or the Federal Government or a Provincial Government, examine and decide the question whether or not any law or provision of law is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam, as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet, hereinafter referred to as the Injunctions of Islam.
So if this religious court deems a particular law to be offensive to Islam, the President of Pakistan is LEGALLY obligated to amend said offensive law. It does not say the President of Pakistan can voluntarily amend the offensive law. It simply say to the President of Pakistan -- DO.(3) If any law or provision of law is held by the Court to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam,
(a) the President in the case of a law with respect to a matter in the Federal Legislative List [212A]or the Concurrent Legislative List, or the Governor in the case of a law with respect to a matter not enumerated [212A]in either of those Lists, shall take steps to amend the law so as to bring such law or provision into conformity with the Injunctions of Islam; and
(b) such law or provision shall, to the extent to which it is held to be so repugnant, cease to have effect on the day on which the decision of the Court takes effect.
Yes, there is. It is called the US Congress.
Pakistan
This is not about US.
Hah...I understand the US Constitution better than you do. What I said was in general terms, but of course if enough states caved under political correctness willing to amend the Constitution, then the US Congress will be free to enact religious laws.The US Congress can't go against the Constitution unless an amendment is ratified by the requisite number of States. The clauses against laws favoring/against religion are amongst the most central and vigorously enforced clauses.
Good luck (for anyone) trying to ratify a Constitutional amendment negating those clauses. The fact that you (and the Senators) keep blabbering about this Muslim threat shows your pitiful understanding of the US legal system and the Constitutional safeguards.
We can have Shariah laws enforcement at the whims of local Muslims -- extralegally.Muslim gangs have been filmed loitering on streets in London and demanding that passersby conform to Islamic Sharia law.
The self-proclaimed vigilantes, who call themselves Muslim London Patrol, are seen in several videos abusing people for drinking alcohol, for showing too much flesh and for being homosexual.
In one three-and-a-half minute video posted on YouTube on January 17, a number of hooded men are seen repeatedly shouting "this is a Muslim area" towards non-Muslim passers-by.
In the footage, which was shot at night on the weekend of January 12/13 on a mobile phone, in what is believed to be Whitechapel in east London, one gang member is seen telling a young woman who is wearing a short skirt, "you cannot dress like that in a Muslim area, this is a Muslim area."
A few moments later, the vigilantes confront a man carrying a can of beer, telling him "no alcohol is allowed." They then force him to empty out the contents of the can on the sidewalk. One gang member shouts: "Get him to pour it out, pour it out, Muslim area. Alcohol bad. This is a Muslim area. This area is a Muslim area. No drink in this area." He continues: "What this is, is a Muslim Patrol. We are Muslims and we patrol the area. Forbidden … evil. Alcohol is evil. No alcohol. Yes? Have a good day."
A few moments later, the vigilantes accost a woman who, referring to the imposition of Sharia law in the neighborhood exclaims, "I cannot believe it!" The Muslims respond: "We do not care if you believe it or not."
From the man who said this...Ah yes, the desperate dance around the world again...
And yet sees no wrong with Pakistan's Federal Shariat Court.P.S. Just to be clear, I am not defending religious laws. I believe there should be one set of laws of the land for everybody, no exceptions. However, the demagoguery at play is the issue here.
This is a prophylactic law. Not necessarily to prove anything. And what is so hypothetical about a dual legal/justice system? Pakistan have it.This is entirely about the US and the claim that US Muslims will enforce Sharia law on US soil. The fact that you can't substantiate the claim in the topic leads you to run around the world blabbering about hypotheticals.
Christians failed because of foresighted people. Just like the ones who are looking at Islam and Muslims today.Christians have been trying for decades to pass religion-based laws (about abortion, etc.) but have failed repeatedly because of safeguards in the US legal system. To now imply that the Muslim supermen will succeed where decades of Christian lawyers and lobbyists have failed is humorous, to put it mildly.
Hah...I understand the US Constitution better than you do. What I said was in general terms, but of course if enough states caved under political correctness willing to amend the Constitution, then the US Congress will be free to enact religious laws.
Christians failed because of foresighted people.
It ended a long time ago -- Pakistan's Federal Shariat Court.You don't know JACK other than cutting and pasting radar specs.
Your laughably pathetic response of 'US Congress' showed your utter ignorance of US legal matters, and this back-peddling only makes it worse.
No, Christians failed because of precisely the Constitutional safeguards which I mentioned and which will thwart any attempts at Sharia law. No additional laws are needed.
Your utterly abject grasp of the subject -- US legal system -- has provided enough entertainment, but do feel free to continue.
I have served my objective, which was to expose your pathological obsession with Muslims over a non-issue and utter ignorance of the US legal system.
This conversation is terminated from my side.
Looks like not, buddy...This conversation is terminated.
Never said YOU did, if that is what you are afraid of. I said that to set the proper understanding for my next statement, which was about property rights arguments.Whoever said it did? The fact that you are again imagining things and responding to your own imaginary questions shows your intellectual dishonesty.
Freedom is a different issue. But you are avoiding the fact that the word 'slavery' did not exist prior to the 13th Amendment. The point was that the Framers, including those from the slave holding states, did recognized slaves as persons.Just being a 'person' did not guarantee freedom. The Constitution specifically instructed all States to return such fugitive 'persons' from whence they escaped.
The highlighted is where you are wrong...Seriously wrong...Nothing to explain for people who can actually read English. The Constitution had two main requirements:
-- slave-owner States could continue practicing slavery.
-- slaves who escaped into any (slave-owner or other) State had to be returned to their owners.
There was nothing that said that non-slavery States had to adopt slavery themselves. And, in compliance with the Constitution, any slaves which ran off into the Territory had to be returned to their owners.
Absolutely nothing changed and nothing was un-Constitutional.
Let us take women for starter...Only in your delusions. The right to vote was denied to non-whites and women for the longest time.
Read the SCOTUS ruling that African-Americans were not citizens under the Constitution and could not bring suit in a federal court.
Sec. 1. That every woman of the age of twenty-one years, residing in this territory, may, at every election to be holden under the laws thereof, cast her vote. And her rights to the elective franchise and to hold office shall be the same under the election laws of the territory, as those of electors.
All 'inhabitants' in the New Jersey Constitution is no different than 'persons' in the US Constitution -- gender neutral.All inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote for Representatives in Council and Assembly; and also for all other public officers, that shall be elected by the people of the county at large.
...Is essentially correct. Any deviation from the spirit of the Constitution usually come from the vagaries of the States and the Framers recognized that back in 1787. It was because they decided to place the burden of governance of daily human affairs upon the States that they also enabled individual States to misuse and even abuse the Constitution to fit human caprices, including slavery and the notion that free blacks are not citizens.A Constitutional right must be applicable to all, not partial.
Never said it was. I brought it up to show how limited you are in your pretense of knowledge about the US Constitution. After all, you did not know that Pakistan have a dual legal system and that religious laws reigns supreme, so what make you think that you are any sort of 'expert' about the US Constitution when it was I who schooled you about Pakistan's religious laws? Arrogance.Except that the NorthWest Ordnance did not violate the existing Constitution other than in your pidgin-English world of make-believe.
Simply put - Shariah rage boys can stay in their native shitholes and only those who are willing to live by the US constitution is welcome here..
Never said YOU did,
Terminated again...??? Hopefully for good this time because you certainly will not want this discussion dredged up after I showed the readers what a fraud you are.Exactly!
Your pathetic plea for revisionism does not merit any attention.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...it-debris-chinese-anti-satellite-test-10.html
Senor gambit don Quixote -- inventing imaginary dragons and slaying them.
This conversation remains terminated.