Constitutional craziness...

OK. So, Oklahoma just amended their state Constitution with the following text:

This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.
International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.
The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties.
Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohamed.

Why is this ridiculous? OK, I am not a Constitutional Scholar, but this seems to be obviously Un-Constitutional on its face. How can a state Constitution be amended to directly contradict the US Constitution which reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Also, by singling out ONE religious law as being inapplicable in American courts, doesn't this "establish the free exercise" of religion somehow? Even if not, it seems ironic to me that a state which CONSTANTLY attempts to institute religious laws is now enshrining in its own constitution that "they" (Muslims) cannot enshrine their own religious laws in the state.



What I mean is this--the US Constitution provides for the Separation between Church and State (even if those words aren't directly in the Constitution it is pretty well decided by the Supreme Court). If the residents of Oklahoma who amended the State Constitution understood this, they would see it's redundant to specifically then say "Religion X will not be applicable in this state". Why? Because it's ALREADY ILLEGAL. However, these people are trying to have their cake and eat it too saying that Muslims cannot enact Sharia, but leaving the door open for Christians to impose their religion.

Also, by this definition, what about things that are both Islamic and Judeo-Christian in nature. Can Judges still site those, or does anything that would be covered under the "Koran and the teaching of Mohammad" be outlawed? If so, then the religious right may have just shot themselves in the foot.

It's ridiculous and wrongheaded...and passed with 70% of the vote.