Numerous disputes have arisen in recent years over the application of foreign law in the United States. Some fights are over international treaties and whether they can overturn U.S. law, and many relate to a hot-button issue during the 2016 presidential election, the expansion of the Muslim population in the U.S. and whether its members can call on Shariah, Islam’s religious law, in disputes.
Enough, says one state lawmaker in Kentucky, according to a report in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.
Rep. Kim King, R-Harrodsburg, has prefiled a bill, BR149, for the coming legislative session on the issue.
It would “establish legislative intent that the rights of an individual afforded under the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and the United States take precedence over the application of any foreign law in any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding.”
It also defines terms and prohibits a choice of court venue outside of Kentucky, or the United States, “to preserve the constitutional rights of the person against whom enforcement is sought.”
Cato Institute Senior Fellow Walter Olson believes the threat of the “incorporation of foreign law” inside the United States is real, wrote Gabrielle Cintorino in a Heartland Institute commentary.
“Some judges and law professors have argued that international law, especially so-called ‘human rights standards,’ should influence American courts,” Olson explained.
But Olson expressed confidence that most judges and courts reject the use of foreign laws – at least for now. He told the institute, for example, a foreign demand for 30 lashes for breach of contract would be a nonstarter.
Mike Maharrey of the Tenth Amendment Center noted, “BR149 utilizes James Madison’s strategy to deal with unwarranted acts – a refusal to cooperate, but simply applies it to foreign law as opposed to unconstitutional federal acts.”