Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Michigan Legislators Introduce Ban on Sharia

The proposed bill would ban enforcement of any foreign legal code that conflicts with the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, but I think we all know which foreign system Michigan congressmen might be concerned about.

HOUSE BILL No. 4769

June 16, 2011, Introduced by Reps. Agema, Hooker, Tyler, McMillin, Lund, Bumstead, Glardon, Heise, Rogers, MacGregor, Nesbitt, MacMaster, Franz, Moss, Potvin, Genetski, Haveman, Lori, Pettalia, Haines, Shirkey, O'Brien, Knollenberg, Lyons, McBroom, Opsommer, Johnson, Denby, Muxlow, Outman, Damrow, Jacobsen, Rendon, Hughes, Kurtz, Price, Yonker, Daley, Kowall, Huuki, Scott and Cotter and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

A bill to limit the application and enforcement by a court, arbitrator, or administrative body of foreign laws that would impair constitutional rights; to provide for modification or voiding of certain contractual provisions or agreements that would result in a violation of constitutional rights; and to require a court, arbitrator, or administrative body to take certain actions to prevent violation of constitutional rights.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

Sec. 1. (1) This act shall be known and may be cited as the "restriction of application of foreign laws act".

(2) As used in this act "foreign law" means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction's courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.

Sec. 2. A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.

Sec. 3. (1) If any contractual provision or agreement provides for the choice of a foreign law to govern its interpretation or the resolution of any dispute between the parties and if the enforcement or interpretation of the contractual provision or agreement would result in a violation of a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States, the contractual provision or agreement shall be applied as modified or amended to the extent necessary to preserve the constitutional rights of the parties.

(2) If any contractual provision or agreement provides for the choice of venue or forum outside of the states or territories of the United States, and if the enforcement or interpretation of the contractual provision or agreement applying that choice of venue or forum provision would result in a violation of any right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States, that contractual provision or agreement shall be interpreted or construed to preserve the constitutional rights of the person against whom enforcement is sought. Similarly, if a natural person subject to personal jurisdiction in this state seeks to maintain litigation, arbitration, agency, or similarly binding proceedings in this state, and if a court of this state finds that granting a claim of forum non conveniens or a related claim violates or would likely lead to a violation of the constitutional rights of the nonclaimant in the foreign forum with respect to the matter in dispute, the claim shall be denied.

(3) Any contractual provision or agreement incapable of being modified or amended to preserve the constitutional rights of the parties pursuant to the provisions of this section is null and void.

(4) If a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, business association, or other legal entity contracts to subject itself to foreign law in a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, this act does not apply to that contract.

Sec. 4. This act applies only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.

14 comments:

Deleting said...

Amen!!!!!!! Glad to see michigan is waking up.

simple_truth said...

Great idea!

Any American Muslim who objects to this should question his own allegiance to this U.S. of A. Those of us who agree to protecting our sovereignty should also wonder about the disposition of such people.

Stormbringer said...

Greetings from New York. New York City seems to think that it is the only important part of the state, and it is full of leftists.

I lived my first forty years in Michigan, and it seemed like the Detroit area considered itself the most important part of the state, also full of leftists.

Many parts of both states have pockets of Conservative values and people who are not so intent on appeasing groups, or seeing people as members of potential voting groups. I hope that the intelligent members of Michigan get behind this measure, despite Sharia appeasers.

Joe Bradley said...

Muslims are, first and foremost, Muslims. Any allegiance they may have to the United States is secondary to their allegiance to Islam. It is their duty to fashion the world (including the United States) in the image of Islam.

They will accomplish this, in part, by getting into everyone's business. Islam is in, NO WAY, a live-and-let-live religion and much of the Qur'an deals with strategies for the subjugation of non-Muslims. People who do not understand this are merely whistling past the graveyard.

V. Anthony D'anjou said...

I am glad to hear this and I really hope that it pass. I have contacted many different government officials about what happen to David Wood, Nebeel Qureshi and the others in Dearborn, Michigan which is that they got arrested. I will pray that it pass and everybody should pray that is pass in Dearborn, Michigan and in the whole entire United States of America in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Click on my name: V. Anthony D'anjou to see the blogs that I am currently following with more to come.

Centurion said...

Wonder how the people of Dearborn are taking this....

Leah said...

Great news! Finally after all the crazy news Ive heard today such as protestors in Israel coming by plane, Gay cirriculum in California schools and women demanding equality to show their bare chests... I'm serious, this was in today's news.

Traeh said...

David, dude! You and Acts deserve some of the credit for this. Who knows, maybe the lion's share. We love you, man.

I think Michigan might be the 24th state to be considering such laws. Hooray!

Stormbringer said...

"...women demanding equality to show their bare chests..."

Adds a new definition to the term, "Hanging out with the girls".

CristoTeAma said...

I think that they realized that it's nonsense that America's presidents say they are fighting to give those countries a better life,democracy,end terrorism,etc etc, and then America let's the very system which have them living so badly in their countires to be applied in America, i mean that's a big example of inconsistency.

V. Anthony D'anjou said...

Leah that Women showing their Breasts statement I have to say that this is crazy for I am Man but still this is Crazy and Stupid of Women/Girls to want to go topless. Women/Females are the ones who Always say that they are being Sexually Harass by Men and are being Rape by Men now Women/Ladies want their Breasts to hang out so that they can get Rape even more and be Sexually Harass even more.

donna60 said...

Yay Michigan!

Joe Bradley said...

Remember this in 2012,

"Bachmann first presidential candidate to sign anti-Sharia pledge"

http://tinyurl.com/6375b89

Joe Bradley said...

Track this bill's progress here:

http://tinyurl.com/5u7fmce