We’re in deep trouble, folks, when people with this woman’s mindset have control of our government. She has let us know exactly what she thinks about our Constitution, and she has no problem publicly spitting on it.
Pittsburgh City Council gave its first approval today to legislation requiring that anyone report a lost or stolen firearm report that within 24 hours or potentially face a $500 fine.The 6-1 vote, with two abstentions, sets up a final vote likely next week, which would send the legislation to Mayor Luke Ravenstahl for his signature or veto, and then potentially to the courts, where similar measures have been challenged.
“Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?” said Councilwoman Tonya Payne, a supporter. “This is what’s right to do, and if this means that we have to go out and have a court battle, then that’s fine … We have plenty of dead bodies coming up in our streets every single day, and that is unacceptable.”
The lone no vote was by Councilman Ricky Burgess, who argued that it would be a “false cure” that would be “particularly cruel” to his violence-plagued northeastern Pittsburgh district.
Rather than working within the bounds of the law and their constituents’ civil rights, Ms. Payne thinks she can just ignore them at will. Who cares about this thing called the Constitution of the United States. She thinks she should be able to pass whatever laws she wants whenever she wants. As far as she’s concerned, her good intentions are all that matter, the Constitution be damned.
ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims
I’ve seen lots of people on the right commenting that any kind of stories pointing to Muslim takeover of society in the West and that’s never going to happen here. Well, just who would have believed 20 years ago that these courts would exist in Britain? Or 10 years ago that they would be given authority by the freaking government?
In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.
In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.
It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.
The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK “seems unavoidable”.
Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
He says Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.
But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said “there’s one law for everybody and that’s all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts – I think that’s a bit of a danger”.
“There’s a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law.”