The Oklahoma state constitution was amended by a vote of the people to prohibit judges in the state courts from considering any law other than state or federal law in their cases. The new constitutional amendment read, “Courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the Court shall not consider International law or Sharia law.” A federal judge issued an injunction nullifying the vote because, according to the judge, the amendment is an unconstitutional violation of the Supremacy Clause and of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The main target of the amendment appears to be the Islamic legal tradition of Sharia. The Islamic legal tradition is an interesting one because it requires Islamic judges to use a specific methodology that helps them to examine and interpret religious texts in an attempt to determine the will of God. Which of the three major ethical theories that we have examined in this chapter would support the action of the federal judge? Explain. Which of these ethical theories would support the position of the Oklahoma voters? Explain. (See Abed Awad, “Oklahoma Amendment Is Unconstitutional: Barring Courts form Considering Sharia Law violates the Supremacy Clause and the First Amendment,” The National Law Journal , November 15, 2010, p. 39. )