Recent Posts

Dave Thompson introduces boilerplate Anti-Sharia Law bill

by The Big E on March 3, 2012 · 4 comments

Sen. Dave Thompson (R-Lakeville) will introduce S2881, an Anti-Muslim Sharia Law bill, at the Capitol on Monday. His bill is a boilerplate copy-pasted verbatim from a far right policy group. The bill seeks to protect Minnesota from the ever-encroaching Phantom Menace of Islamic religious law.

Anti-muslim bigots claim fear of Muslims building mosques “all over” and wanting to take over the United States as justification.

Last time I checked, The United States allowed free practice of all religions.

Furthermore, Anti-muslim bigots mainly want to fear-monger that all Muslims are terrorists.

I can’t wait for Sen. Thompson’s speech on how dangerous all Muslims are and how they want to build mosques everywhere and take over. Hopefully, he’ll channel a little Michele Bachmann while he’s at it.

I hope someone questions Thompson about this bill because like most ALEC muppets, he’s likely to be quite ignorant on the subject.

Can Thompson point to a single ruling by MN judges which allowed Sharia Law to overrule a MN law?

Has Thompson considered how his bill might stop Minnesota companies from entering into contracts with foreign corporations or foreign goverments?
Here’s a comparison of the the boiler-plate and Thompson’s bill:

AN ACT to protect rights and privileges granted under the United States or [State] Constitution.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE [GENERAL ASSEMBLY/LEGISLATURE] OF THE STATE OF [_____]:

The [general assembly/legislature] finds that it shall be the public policy of this state to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.

1.1A bill for an act
1.2relating to state government; protecting the citizens of the state from the
1.3application of certain foreign laws;proposing coding for new law in Minnesota
1.4Statutes, chapter 1.
1.5BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

1.6    Section 1. FINDINGS.
1.7The legislature finds that it shall be the public policy of this state to protect its
1.8citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will
1.9result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the Minnesota Constitution or the United
1.10States Constitution, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech,
1.11or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of
1.12this state.

The [general assembly/state legislature] fully recognizes the right to contract freely under the laws of this state, and also recognizes that this right may be reasonably and rationally circumscribed pursuant to the state’s interest to protect and promote rights and privileges granted under the United States or [State] Constitution, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state. 1.13The legislature fully recognizes the right to contract freely under the laws of this
1.14state, and also recognizes that this right may be reasonably and rationally circumscribed
1.15pursuant to the state’s interest to protect and promote rights and privileges granted under
1.16the Minnesota Constitution or the United States Constitution, including but not limited to
1.17due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as
1.18specifically defined by the constitution of this state.
[1] As used in this act, “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. For the purposes of this act, foreign law shall not mean, nor shall it include, any laws of the Native American tribes in this state.

As used in this act, “court” means any court, board, administrative agency, or other adjudicative or enforcement authority of this State.

1.19    Sec. 2. [1.011] DEFINITIONS.
1.20(a) For the purposes of section 1 and sections 1.012 to 1.016, the terms in paragraphs
1.21(b) to (d) have the meanings given.
1.22(b) “Court” means a court, board, administrative agency, or other adjudicative or
1.23enforcement authority of this state.
2.1(c) “Foreign law, legal code, or system” means a law, legal code, or system of a
2.2jurisdiction outside of a state or territory of the United States, including but not limited
2.3to international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts,
2.4administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. The term does not mean, nor
2.5does it include, any laws of the Native American tribes in this state.
As used in this Act, “religious organization” means any church, seminary, synagogue, temple, mosque, religious order, religious corporation, association, or society, whose identity is distinctive in terms of common religious creed, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals, of any faith or denomination, including any organization qualifying as a church or religious organization under section 501(c)(3) or 501(d) of the United States Internal Revenue Code. 2.6(d) “Religious organization” means a church, seminary, synagogue, temple, mosque,
2.7religious order, religious corporation, association, or society whose identity is distinctive
2.8in terms of common religious creed, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals, of a faith or
2.9denomination, including an organization qualifying as a church or religious organization
2.10under section 501(c)(3) or 501(d) of the United States Internal Revenue Code.
[2] Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state. 2.11    Sec. 3. [1.012] VOID RULINGS.
2.12A court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the
2.13public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal,
2.14or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or
2.15in part on a law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the
2.16ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the
2.17Minnesota Constitution and the United States Constitution, including but not limited to
2.18due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as
2.19specifically defined by the Minnesota Constitution.
[3] A contract or contractual provision (if capable of segregation) which provides for the choice of a law, legal code or system to govern some or all of the disputes between the parties adjudicated by a court of law or by an arbitration panel arising from the contract mutually agreed upon shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the law, legal code or system chosen includes or incorporates any substantive or procedural law, as applied to the dispute at issue, that would not grant the parties the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state. 2.20    Sec. 4. [1.013] VOID CONTRACTS.
2.21A contract or contractual provision, if capable of segregation, that provides for the
2.22choice of a law, legal code, or system to govern some or all of the disputes between the
2.23parties adjudicated by a court of law or by an arbitration panel arising from the contract
2.24mutually agreed upon violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable
2.25if the law, legal code, or system chosen includes or incorporates a substantive or
2.26procedural law, as applied to the dispute at issue, that would not grant the parties the same
2.27fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the Minnesota Constitution
2.28and the United States Constitution, including but not limited to due process, freedom of
2.29religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined
2.30by the Minnesota Constitution.
[4]

a. A contract or contractual provision (if capable of segregation) which provides for a jurisdiction for purposes of granting the courts or arbitration panels in personam jurisdiction over the parties to adjudicate any disputes between parties arising from the contract mutually agreed upon shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the jurisdiction chosen includes any law, legal code or system, as applied to the dispute at issue, that would not grant the parties the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.

2.31    Sec. 5. [1.014] VOID JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY AND CLAIMS.
2.32(a) A contract or contractual provision, if capable of segregation, that provides
2.33for a jurisdiction for purposes of granting the courts or arbitration panels in personam
3.1jurisdiction over the parties to adjudicate any disputes between parties arising from the
3.2contract mutually agreed upon violates the public policy of this state and is void and
3.3unenforceable if the jurisdiction chosen includes a law, legal code, or system, as applied
3.4to the dispute at issue, that would not grant the parties the same fundamental liberties,
3.5rights, and privileges granted under the Minnesota Constitution and the United States
3.6Constitution, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or
3.7press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the Minnesota
3.8Constitution.
b. If a resident of this state, subject to personal jurisdiction in this state, seeks to maintain litigation, arbitration, agency or similarly binding proceedings in this state and if the courts of this state find that granting a claim of forum non conveniens or a related claim violates or would likely violate the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions of the non-claimant in the foreign forum with respect to the matter in dispute, then it is the public policy of this state that the claim shall be denied. 3.9(b) If a resident of this state, subject to personal jurisdiction in this state, seeks to
3.10maintain litigation, arbitration, or agency or similarly binding proceedings in this state and
3.11if the courts of this state find that granting a claim of forum non conveniens or a related
3.12claim violates or would likely violate the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges
3.13granted under the Minnesota Constitution and the United States Constitution of the
3.14nonclaimant in the foreign forum with respect to the matter in dispute, then it is the public
3.15policy of this state that the claim must be denied.
[5] Without prejudice to any legal right, this act shall not apply to a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, business association, or other legal entity that contracts to subject itself to foreign law in a jurisdiction other than this state or the United States. 3.16    Sec. 6. [1.015] APPLICATION.
3.17Without prejudice to any legal right, sections 1.011 to 1.016 do not apply to a
3.18corporation, partnership, limited liability company, business association, or other legal
3.19entity that contracts to subject itself to foreign law in a jurisdiction other than this state or
3.20the United States.
[6] No court or arbitrator shall interpret this Act to limit the right of any person to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by the Constitution of this State.  No court shall interpret this Act to require or authorize any court to adjudicate, or prohibit any religious organization from adjudicating, ecclesiastical matters, including, but not limited to, the election, appointment, calling, discipline, dismissal, removal or excommunication of a member, officer, official, priest, nun, monk, pastor, rabbi, imam or member of the clergy, of the religious organization, or determination or interpretation of the doctrine of the religious organization, where adjudication by a court would violate the prohibition of the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the United States, or violate the Constitution of this State. 3.21    Sec. 7. [1.016] INTERPRETATION.
3.22(a) No court or arbitrator shall interpret sections 1.011 to 1.016 to limit the right of
3.23a person to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the
3.24United States Constitution and by the Minnesota Constitution. No court shall interpret
3.25sections 1.011 to 1.016 to require or authorize a court to adjudicate, or prohibit a religious
3.26organization from adjudicating, ecclesiastical matters, including but not limited to the
3.27election, appointment, calling, discipline, dismissal, removal, or excommunication of a
3.28member, officer, official, priest, nun, monk, pastor, rabbi, imam, or member of the clergy,
3.29of the religious organization, or determination or interpretation of the doctrine of the
3.30religious organization, where adjudication by a court would violate the prohibition of the
3.31establishment clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, or violate
3.32the Minnesota Constitution.
[7] This statute shall not be interpreted by any court to conflict with any federal treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is a party to the extent that such treaty or international agreement preempts or is superior to state law on the matter at issue. 3.33(b) Sections 1.011 to 1.016 shall not be interpreted by a court to conflict with a
3.34federal treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is a party to the
4.1extent that the treaty or international agreement preempts or is superior to state law on
4.2the matter at issue.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: