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.
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.