AFDI/SIOA victory: Kansas Governor signs bill defending freedom from Sharia oppression

It says international-foreign law. If English law is international-foreign... then, yes.

However, it also apparently stipulates only laws "that would not grant rights guaranteed by state and U.S. constitutions." would be outlawed. So if English Common law grants those rights, then it would presumably be allowed.

English Common Law as well as Chancery jurisdiction (the latter arose in medieval England from the office of Lord Chancellor to cover gaps which Common Law was deficient in and is usually called Equity to distinguish it from Common Law) was officially adopted by the new United States of America as the source of everday law. It continues to this day as the basis of much law in America, particularly in stare decisis mode, i.e., rulings from the bench based on judicial tradition and not statutes. In virtually all American jurisdictions, Common Law and Equity have been merged into the same courts, though for many generations distinct courts of Law and Equity were maintained. If I'm not mistaken, Delaware still retains this distinction.

I agree with you, SB. No longer can grassroot Americans count on the federal government for protection against Islamic supremacist designs and so much else which erodes freedom. The federal government has become what the Founding Fathers feared in government---a Hobbesian Leviathan. And so it is the case that the states must rescue America from its own federal government. Damn sad but damn true. So, good for Kansas here.

Historically speaking, respecting the past half century or so, Republicans are guilty regarding the building of the Hobbesian Leviathan and the Democrats are even more guilty. Shame on both of them, though many newly elected Republicans to the House of Representatives realize this. A reason for hope I would argue.

Ronald Reagan realized all this too, but even he could not defeat to any great extent the Leviathan of the all-consuming state. Such began with FDR (arguably the most overrated President of all time) and it continues to this day. This kind of new American polity functions as the antithesis to traditional American rugged individualism. Yes, to this day. And Obama has taken it to new heights, what with his mindless spending, excessive indulgence of Islam of course, and his disgusting attempt to severely limit freedom of religion in this country by way of his stupid contraception requirement on the Catholic Church.

Sadly, so many Americans, virtually all liberals and way too many conservatives, don't realize what's really going on. What's going on is the destruction of that brief shining moment back in the 1770s and 1780s when an extraordinary group of human beings decided that government should be subordinate to the people and not the other way around (to the credit of the English, they too were pioneers of this noble effort as illustrated by the 1689 English Bill of Rights). To the extent that what I have just written is met with cynicism, then precisely to that extent I would contend it furthers the proof of my contention.

Islam is only the latest test of the challenge to liberty. Nazism and Communism were earlier tests to this (never mind "internal tests"). Compounding this particular test, however, is that the Left has finally lost its mind and has made alliance with the very force, Islam, which would eradicate virtually all liberty if only given the chance. In short, the Western Left (minus the Marxist fringe), which well understood the menace of Nazism, but only somewhat understood the menace of Communism, has now lost all sense as evidenced by its mindless defense of Islam, yet another totalitarian ideology that would destroy so much the Left embraces, for instance women's rights and gay rights. Oh yeah, upside/down world in which we live, courtesy of not only the oldest and most long-lived totalitarian ideology, Islam, but courtesy too of that putridity which is the modern Western Left.

What a double whammy to liberty we face in our times---Islam and the Left. I think we'll survive but it's going to be a close call. Hope you and yours are doing well. And again, kudos to Kansas.

Greg, one reason why Common Law had such an impact in American courts over the years is because the USA started out as 13 English colonies, where the Common Law remained the basis of legal thought and practice. Contrary to a lot of the mythology you will hear from radicals, early Americans did not set out to completely erase the heritage their fathers (and they themselves) had brought over from Great Britain. An unsung facet of the call for a Bill of Rights in the America of 1787-89, for instance, is that a Bill of Rights for Britain was signed by William and Mary in 1689, and was regarded by "Englishmen" on both sides of the Atlantic as part and parcel of the English/British Constitution.

Many of our Constitutional rights, espcially rights in a court of law, are taken straight from Magna Carta and other English antecedents.

Further, disabuse yourself of our American notion that our idea of federalism was drawn from the Iroquois People of the Longhouse. It also came over in the baggage of English Puritans and Scots and Northern Irish Presbyterians, who got it from a German named Johannes Althusius (_De Politica_, a work cited much by the Parliament men and Covenanters of the 1630's). Swiss models also came into play in this matter; although, once again, the cultural heritage of 17th century Britons probably goes farthest in explaining the political and legal heritage bequeathed to early America.

Further, in the 19th century, a lot of British capital migrated to the USA (it built our railroads, among other things) because there was a Common Law base to American law, and courts would protect the investor, even if a foreigner.

Hence, English Common Law stands in a rather unique position in the history of American law and jurisprudence. Its frequent citation by American courts is a nod to America's early legal heritage rather than an attempt to become "international".

Thank you for your reply to Softly Bob (and thanaks to SB for posing a worthwhile question).

I'd add that this administration's nods to Islam are part of Obama's Third Worldism, which is probably more a dream from his mother (an all-American 1960's malcontent, from the look of it) rather than from his father, whom he scarcely knew. As such, it is founded on a kind of mixed romanticism and sentimentalism rather than any actual understanding of what the Islamic world is all about.

Your comments about the "Hobbesian Leviathan state" are entirely appropriate. I would add as well that the Marxism that infected too many of us during the Silly 'Sixties and Siller 'Seventies is one more pillar of the growing Leviathan state; while the Third-Worldism of the Obamaniacs admires cultures notorious for an overbearing (while simultaneously ineffectual) state.

As for your comments on Obama's conflict with the RC church over First Amendment rights, this God-bless-King-Billy Presbyterian sees the RC's as carrying the ball for a lot of the rest of us. I'd take it even farther and argue that if an insurance company's execs and major shareholders also have qualms of conscience over certain kinds of "care", these should also be respected by law, courts, and regulators. Further, I see this conflict as the administration's probe into how strong the defense of the First Amendment really is in this country and whether it can be nullified for the sake of political client groups.

Thank you, Abe, but let me remind you that I am a fundaMENTAList Christian myself--a position which led me to serious study of the real roots of the Western political tradition. Let me urge you to read Francois Hotman, Theodore de Beze, John Ponet, Christopher Goodman, Samuel Rutherford, John Knox, Johannes Althusius, Philippus Marnix van Sint Aldegonde, John Cotton, John Witherspoon, and Chere Maitre Jean himself. Throw in Covarruvias, Soto, Mariana, and a few others. Bounce them off of William Barclaius and John Maxwell. Do so, and you will find that the original attack on the idea of royal absolutism and advocacy of the rule of law (carried out mostly in Europe, but part of our American founders' "cultural baggage") was mostly an extended argument over the proper exegesis of Deuteronomy 17 and First Samuel 8.

A lot of the American Civil Code is based on English Common Law. The difference being when judges hand down decisions, they may actually speak of English Common Law and its influence on the American Civil Code, but decisions are not actually based on English Common Law. Decisions are (supposed to be) based on the American Civil Code.

Not quite the same is it?

I'd imagine that many of America's early statutes were based on the colonial model. And that colonial model was in turn moulded by Judeo/Christian precepts which for simplicity's sake boil down to the Ten Commandments.

And the cruncher. Western law evolves and modifies, we don't hang sheep rustlers anymore, whereas as mandated in the Koran, Shariah is fixed.

The Shariah is a set of principles, devised in the Seventh century for desert dwelling illiterate nomads. Every aspect of life from wiping your backside to the level of punishment deemed acceptable when berating wives is covered.

It allows slavery (still). It mandates death for apostasy and blasphemy (still). They hang gays (still). They stone women (still). They amputate limbs (still). And all the rest from that shopping list of barbarism they all seem to know and love.

CAIR is up in arms about this, citing the profiling of Islamic religious freedom.

So from that prancing posture, it's not a huge leap of logic to assume that rather than coming to America and accepting the law of the land as any other immigrant would do they're here for other reasons.

And as if their current wailing is not a huge sign, 'we do not accept American Law', they've put it in writing too.

The MB with all its talk of wrecking western civilisation from within is all over this and this Governor Brownback is to be commended for his non pc position of resistance.

Yes Canada ,Britain & USA use the same common law but that is different than legal code !
We use cases to make determination of cases before a court. As a law student in the UK we studied cases from all 3 countries. They are guides to decisions not legal code !

This is amazing news ! A true American victory of common sense !

Sharia is the most oppressive moral code on the planet !
It is amazing that we should even have to defend against Sharia. It should be illegal to practice it period !

Not a valid comparison. With your surname, you should remember that English Common Law was at one time our law of the land. It was not foreign.

No need to correct you, traeh. You've characterized my thinking quite accurately. Hope you're doing well.

Thanks for your comments, Kepha. They're perceptive and informed as usual.

It's interesting to me how much you and I agree on things even though you are religious and I am not. And I think that part of the reason for this is as follows: It is my conviction, which I believe you will join me in, that when properly trying to figure out why Western Civilization (or most any civilization for that matter) developed the way it did, being non-religious is not an obstacle in coming to correct conclusions about this subject but being anti-religious is.

You understand the theme, Bob. "Securing the country; One 'sovereign' state at a time."
And, those of the rest who are prepping the canape`s for a celebration, remember: While your swigging the grapes, the other side is doing push-ups.
Don't think for a second that Holder,the presidential staffers for 'religious affairs' ('emminence`s Islamique
griese' {sic}), CAIR, ACLU, and all other closet secularists and apologists, are going to take this easily.

Well, Wellington, the roots of most civilizations are pretty clear to anyone who wants to see them. One reason why I like JW is that Robert has clearly done his homework in studying the sources of Islam.

Perhaps where you and I are most alike is that we are both opponents of the cultural revolution of the 1960's and '70's, and aware of its baneful fruit in the mis-education our young people are getting in this day and age?

The 1960s, Kepha, continue to bite us in the ass. It's one of the two most tragic decades in American history, the other being the 1860s. But, of course, for entirely different reasons.

Good posts re English Common Law, Wellington and Kepha.