{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}


Ahmed-Awad-v-Ziriax-10-7-11 - Case 5:10-cv-01186-M Document...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA MUNEER AWAD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. CIV-10-1186-M ) PAUL ZIRIAX, Agency Head, Oklahoma ) State Board of Elections; ) THOMAS PRINCE, Chairman of the ) Board, Oklahoma State Board of Elections; ) RAMON WATKINS, Board Member, ) Oklahoma State Board of Elections; ) SUSAN TURPEN, Board Member, ) Oklahoma State Board of Elections, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER This order addresses issues that go to the very foundation of our country, our Constitution, and particularly, the Bill of Rights. Throughout the course of our country’s history, the will of the “majority” has on occasion conflicted with the constitutional rights of individuals, an occurrence which our founders foresaw and provided for through the Bill of Rights. As the United States Supreme Court has stated: The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette , 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943). Case 5:10-cv-01186-M Document 20 Filed 11/29/10 Page 1 of 15
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 At the hearing, the Court reserved its ruling as to whether plaintiff’s exhibit 3 would be admitted. Having heard the argument of counsel and having reviewed the case law, the Court finds that plaintiff’s exhibit 3 should not be admitted. 2 Before the Court is plaintiff’s Complaint Seeking a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, filed November 4, 2010. On November 16, 2010, defendants filed their Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. On that same date, amicus curiae United States Border Control, United States Border Control Foundation, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund filed an Amicus Curiae Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. On November 18, 2010, plaintiff filed his reply. On November 22, 2010, the Court conducted a hearing on plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Based upon the pleadings that have been filed and the evidence submitted at the hearing 1 , the Court makes its determination. I. Introduction State Question 755, which was on Oklahoma’s November 2, 2010 ballot, provides: This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 15

Ahmed-Awad-v-Ziriax-10-7-11 - Case 5:10-cv-01186-M Document...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online