I realize that this question is not one of the law of government and
religion as such, but it is relevant to the disposition of the Oklahoma
litigation, so I thought I'd ask. The judge's TRO enjoined defendants "from
certifying the election results for State Question 755"; presumably the final
remedy, if plaintiff wins, would be the same. Is that the proper remedy for an
Establishment Clause violation?
I ask because this has a very important effect: The Oklahoma amendment
bars not just consideration of Sharia, but also of international law and of
foreign law. If the judge simply enjoins the operation of the Sharia
provision, or issues a declaratory judgment that the provision is
unconstitutional, then the other parts of the amendment would remain in effect
(assuming the Sharia provision would be treated as severable, which is a
question of the Oklahoma state law of statutory/constitutional construction).
But if the judge permanently enjoins the certification of the election results,
then the entire provision would be set aside, including the parts that don't
deal with Sharia. I'd love to hear what list members might think about this
issue. Thanks,
Eugene
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
