Quietly nestled on Alabama’s ballot on Election Day at the top of a list of proposed amendments was Amendment Number One, a measure that would ban the application of “foreign law” in Alabama when it would violate the rights of the state’s citizens. The measure overwhelmingly passed, and at the surface seems like a legitimate amendment. Voters may have glazed over it because the wording seems benign:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to prohibit the State of Alabama from giving full faith and credit to public acts, records, or judicial proceedings of another state that violate the public policy of the State of Alabama and to prohibit the application of foreign law in violation of rights guaranteed natural citizens by the United States and Alabama Constitutions, and the statutes, laws, and public policy thereof, but without application to business entities. (Proposed by Act No. 2013-269)

No one wants any laws to violate Alabamans’ rights, right? That is all the amendment appears to ensure, but in context, it may have some unintended consequences. Foreign law often does need to be interpreted in U.S. courts. There are private disputes relating to foreign or religious law that often need to be settled in the U.S. and there are cases that are litigated in Alabama but are governed by the law of another jurisdiction, Vox notes. Marriages and adoptions that occurred outside the country but came to Alabama are a good example.

All this falls under “choice of law,” the notion that courts have to reconcile the differences between the relevant laws between two jurisdictions if a case involves them. Since this is so common, Alabama’s Amendment One could be redundant or problematic, depending on how courts interpret it.

So why was this amendment on the ballot in the first place if it’s so questionable? The amendment appears to a revision of one that didn’t make it onto the ballot in 2012. That amendment, introduced by Alabama State Senator Gerald Allen, was known as the Sharia Law Amendment, specifically targeting Islamic law in an effort to prohibit its use in judicial decisions. A similar measure in Oklahoma was struck down by an appeals court on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.

After his first measure failed, Allen reintroduced the measure without any explicit reference to Sharia law, though the media is still talking about it as if it is the Sharia Law amendment. The amendment that Alabama voters actually passed on Tuesday is about all foreign law.

But let’s talk about Sharia law. What is it? Is it foreign? Does it pose a threat to the United States judicial process? Simply put, Sharia law is a set of rules aggregated from the Quran, the Islamic holy book, and the hadith, the teachings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. While it does come from sacred sources, there is no single codification of Sharia law, leaving the interpretation of what is or isn’t Sharia law up in the air, and usually in various courts’ hands. Different Muslim-majority countries apply it in different ways. Generally, it encompasses everything from finance to marriage to prayer. Theoretically, there are instances where Sharia law and U.S. law coincide (for instance, murder is prohibited under both). So you can see why blanket bans on Sharia law are laughable, and why the ACLU denounced the idea that “anything Islamic is un-American.”

In fact, to say that anything Islamic is automatically un-American may be un-American itself. After all, so much of this nation’s history is inextricably linked to religious freedom. You probably didn’t learn this in your eighth grade civics class, but Thomas Jefferson owned a Quran. Yes, Thomas Jefferson, founding father, author of the Declaration of Independence, and third U.S. president. A 2013 book by Denise A. Spellberg details Jefferson’s role as an advocate to allow Muslims and all religious groups the ability to hold citizenship and public office.

Whether or not Amendment One was an attempt to bring back the Sharia Law Amendment, maybe only the Alabama lawmakers who approved it know. But one thing remains clear. The United States is not a legal island. It is influenced by foreign and religious law and it’s often necessary to use those laws for the country to carry on its judicial process.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Alabama’s Amendment One: An Attempt at Banning Sharia Law? appeared first on Law Street.

Everyone in the United States is expected to follow the black and white laws of the land or face the penalties; but how often do we find ourselves in the gray area? Luckily, law schools aross the country offer seminars to clear up confusion surrounding everyday legal issues for the average joe.

The People’s Law School at Baylor is comprised of free, hour-long courses taught by volunteer lawyers and legal experts. Baylor’s curriculum offers participants the chance to learn about a variety of legal issues — from buying and selling real estate to wills and estate planning.  

The “Stand Your Ground, Self-Defense and the Castle Doctrine” course taught at the February 16 session by criminal defense attorney Susan Johnston, brought the ins and outs of the highly controversial law to the average citizen. Johnston attempted to decode the perceptions of self defense and convey its legal implementations.

Self-defense laws vary from state to state. For example, New York law states that self defense, or deadly force, may be used against another person only when is it necessary to defend oneself against what one reasonably believes to be a kidnapping, rape, or robbery; however, if one elects to use violence against another — especially to the point of death — his or her actions will be highly scrutinized and legally analyzed for justification. Similarly, the Castle Doctrine gives individuals the right to forcibly protect themselves or others when in their own homes. In Florida, for example, the Castle Doctrine is very strong and applies not only to one’s home, but to any dwelling, mobile or immobile.

In the course, Johnston used the example of a case that she prosecuted in 1997, in which a man was convicted for second degree manslaughter and sentenced to 20 years for killing a 14-year-old boy during a home invasion. In that case, rather than instantly calling police to report the break in, the man held the young intruder captive for several hours while calling friends to explain his intentions of shooting the teen. Ultimately the man poked the boy with the gun, which went off and killed him. The man claimed that it was an accident, but the jury could not find beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not mean to shoot the child. As exemplified by the law, simply because the child broke into the man’s house did not give the man the right to shoot and kill the young intruder without penalty.  

The Stand Your Ground course is especially relevant now, in light of several high-profile cases in which defendants invoked such self-defense laws, including the George Zimmerman and Dunn Trials. Both of these cases centered on the issue of whether self defense was necessary in order for the accused to prevent his own imminent death or bodily harm. 

The rise of People’s Law courses is an important addition to the justice system, as they contribute to increasing the public’s legal knowledge. The implementation of these courses alleviates some of the confusion that non-lawyers experience when dealing with legal issues both big and small. A population well educated in their legal rights is beneficial for all parties involved — both the individuals as well as the public at large.

[WacoTribe] [The People’s Law School] [Baylor Law School]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013) 

Featured image courtesy of [Xbxg32000 via Wikipedia]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post People’s Law School Teaches Average Joe His Legal Rights appeared first on Law Street.