Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 472411050277339146
86 degrees...7:30. a.m.
@Powder ๐ love those cuffs
<:lolol:430293779472318475>
@Powder ๐ yep saw the subject
but seriously... an old friend of mine is the director of development at JibJab in L.A. ... I didn't realize this but they have a new app called GIFgab for mobile devices that make fun animated meme things... like this... if you feel so inclined please download and use-ify to create froggy fun: https://twitter.com/bracco/status/1014955984832217088
Nice color...
@retiredDep alert look ๐
@Powder ๐ I see him
Obama and HRC are going to be dancing today
@Magnify โ Q ๐MAGA-KAG here is another Article this is a good read http://www.wbdaily.com/uncategorized/iran-contras-chickens-coming-home-to-roost/
'look at me' not at the success of Trump
Dear God
Thank you for another day
Please protect our country, and our leadership
Amen
You have gained a rank @eire, you just advanced to 3 . Thanks for all you do Patriot!
Amen @Charlie
@retiredDep @silowetr he is ๐ ing
anyone have the link to the Brill fundraiser still? I'd like to not forget about promoting that on YT
_is baaaaaaaaaaaaaaack_
baby!
hello powder - havent seen u for ages - how do???
Constitutional prohibitions and accommodations Edit
Because of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, no religious tradition can be established as the basis of laws that apply to everyone, including any form of sharia, Christian canon law, Jewish halakha, or rules of dharma from Eastern religions. Laws must be passed in a secular fashion, not by religious authorities. The Free Exercise Clause allows residents to practice any religion or no religion, and there is often controversy about separation of church and state and the balance between these two clauses when the government does or does not accommodate any particular religious practice (for example blue laws that require stores to be closed on Sunday, the Christian holy day).
Direct consultation of any religious law, including any form of sharia, is relatively rare in U.S. jurisprudence, and is generally limited to circumstances where the government is accommodating the religious belief of a specific person. This occurs mainly in matters of arbitration and family law. For example, the law may allow parties to submit a dispute for binding arbitration to a mutually agreed-upon religious authority; mandatory arbitration by a specified or mutually-agreed arbitrator is also a common clause in commercial and labor union contracts. Couples with the same religious beliefs may wish to construct marriage contracts and conduct divorces in concordance with those beliefs, and people may also wish to arrange wills and other financial matters in accordance with their own religious principles. If presented as evidence, devotion to peaceful religious principles, along with many other aspects of personality, is commonly considered when judging the character of a person before the law, for example during sentencing or a parole hearing.
@สษชษดแดสส แดษขแดษดแด๐๐ฆ wb me too!
Despite the Free Exercise Clause, the 1878 Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v. United States (which concerned the conflict of the Mormon practice of polygamy with anti-bigamy laws) affirmed that secular laws still apply when they contradict religious practices, unless a superseding law establishes a right to a religious accommodation. This means that belief in sharia cannot be used by itself as a justification for vigilante stonings or to prevent women from filing for divorce.
***BIG HUGS***
(it burns)
sorry... that's my rope
In June 2009, a family court judge in Hudson County, New Jersey denied a restraining order to a woman who testified that her husband, a Muslim, had forced her to have non-consensual sex. The judge said he did not believe the man "had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" his wife because he was acting in a way that was "consistent with his practices." A state appeals court reversed his decision.[4] Advocates of the ban in the U.S. have cited this case as an example of the need for the ban.[5]
As of 2014 more than two dozen U.S. states have considered measures intended to restrict judges from consulting sharia law. Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama and Texas[6][7] have "banned sharia", i.e., passed foreign law bans.[1] In 2010 and 2011 more than two dozen states "considered measures to restrict judges from consulting Shariah, or foreign and religious laws more generally".[8] As of 2013, all but 16 states have considered such a law.[1]
In November 2010, voters in Oklahoma approved a ballot measure to amend the state constitution to ban sharia from state courts.[9][10] The law was then updated to include all foreign or religious laws.[11] The law was challenged by an official of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. In November 2010 a federal judge ruled the law to be unconstitutional and blocked the state from putting it into effect.[12][not in citation given][13] The court found the ban had the potential to do harm to Muslims. The invalidation of a will and testament using sharia instructions was an example.[14] That ruling and injunction were upheld by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on January 10, 2012.[15]
@Deleted User who are you hugging?
we were just talking about pink handcuffs... great way to wake up!
Missouri also passed a measure banning foreign law in 2013, but Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed the bill "because of its potential impact on international adoptions."[1]
Two other states banning sharia were North Carolina, which prohibited state judges from considering Islamic law in family cases in 2013,[16] and Alabama, where voters passed an Amendment to the State Constitution (72% to 28%) to "ban sharia" in 2014.[17]
http://www.smartmeters.news/
@R_Dubya I don't know if this will do any help on what you were talking about but this Article is a good read http://www.wbdaily.com/democrats/1989-stealth-muslim-brotherhood-war-against-u-s/
@Powder ๐ ๐
And Trump has been around for decades too!
Right under our noses.
@Powder ๐ do you remember "hug em and squeeze em and pet em and love em"?
2013 report by the Brennan Center for Justice warned that the bans may have the unintended effects of invalidating prenuptial agreements and court decisions made in other states where arbitrators may have taken into account Islamic, Jewish or Catholic legal norms. Randy Brinson, the president of the Christian Coalition of Alabama, criticized the ban in Alabama, calling it "redundant and a waste of time".[1]
Historian Justin Tyler Clark argues that the rise of an anti-Sharia movement in the US, more than a decade after the September 11 attacks, is in part a reaction to increasing political correctness in the American society. Clark compares the phenomenon to the 19th century anti-Catholic movement in the US, which, he writes, rose largely in reaction to changes in middle-class American etiquette, interpreted by the nativists as encroachment of an alien ideology on their own social norms.[21]
According to Sadakat Kadri, the ban on sharia laws notwithstanding, "the precepts of Islamic law ... have judicial force in the United States already", among Muslims who have had a dispute settled by Muslim conciliators. The 1925 Federal Arbitration Act allows Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. to use religious tribunals to arbitrate disagreements and "the judgements that result are given force of law by state and federal courts". The statute "preempts inconsistent state legislation", such as laws to ban
