Sharia Law and the Constitutional Republic: Why America Cannot Lawfully Accommodate a Foreign Legal System
By Ronald P. Bouchard Jr.
Introduction: A Clear and Present Threat
There is an undeniable and growing push to infiltrate America’s legal and political institutions with Sharia law, a foreign, theocratic system that stands in direct opposition to the Constitution.¹ This isn’t about private belief or worship; it’s an effort to supplant the rule of law with a doctrine incompatible with the rights and freedoms secured by our republic.² America was founded on immutable principles rooted in natural law and Christian moral order.³ The Constitution’s sole and only legitimate purpose is to secure the rights of the people under a republican form of government.⁴ Any attempt to impose Sharia law, whether in courts, legislation, or public office, isn’t diversity or tolerance. It’s treason and it must be confronted as such, with clarity, courage, and constitutional fidelity.⁵
Jefferson, the Barbary Pirates, and Islam
Thomas Jefferson had already identified the dangers posed by an uncompromising foreign legal system cloaked in religious authority: Islam under Sharia law.⁶ As America’s envoy to France in the 1780s, Jefferson confronted the Barbary pirates, Muslim states engaged in piracy, slavery, and extortion under Islamic law.⁷ In his correspondence with John Adams in 1786, Jefferson documented that the Barbary ambassador justified these attacks by citing the Quran itself, claiming it was their duty under Islamic law to make war upon non-Muslims.⁸
The Quran states in Surah At-Tawbah 9:29: *”Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day… until they pay the jizyah with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”*⁹ This command formed the legal basis for the Barbary states’ piracy and enslavement of Americans.
Jefferson recognized that Sharia law fused religious command with civil authority, creating a system inherently incompatible with liberty, natural law, and individual rights.¹⁰ His determination to confront the Barbary powers was a defense of a legal order rooted in reason, natural rights, and Christian moral law.¹¹ The Founders embedded these warnings into the Constitution’s guarantee of a republican form of government, ensuring no foreign, theocratic legal system could lawfully take root on American soil.¹²
Article IV Relationships Between the States
Section 4 Republican Form of Government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
The Guarantee of a Republican Form of Government
Jefferson’s warnings were enshrined in Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: *”The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”*¹³ A republican form of government is not merely a structure; it is a guarantee of government rooted in the rule of law, equality before the law, protection of inherent rights, and the absence of arbitrary or theocratic rule.¹⁴
By guaranteeing a republican form of government, the Constitution bars any attempt, whether by legislation, judicial activism, or public officeholders, to impose a system like Sharia law, which substitutes divine command for natural rights, denies equality, and mandates submission.¹⁵ Consider the 2010 case S.D. v. M.J.R. in New Jersey, where a judge initially refused a restraining order against a Muslim husband accused of marital rape, citing his religious beliefs under Sharia.¹⁶ Only an appellate reversal protected the wife’s constitutional rights. This case reveals the danger of allowing Sharia principles to influence American courts.¹⁷
The Founders framed a nation built upon Christian moral order, rooted in divine law and natural law as revealed through Scripture.¹⁸ The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 declared: *”The happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality.”*¹⁹ The Virginia Declaration of Rights asserted: *”It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.”*²⁰ These were not generic references to morality, they were affirmations of Christianity as the moral bedrock of law and governance.²¹
Maxims of law affirm: *”Christianity is parcel of the common law.”*²² The Founders did not intend for competing religious systems to stand equal before the law.²³ Islam, with its fusion of religious and civil law under Sharia, stands in direct contradiction to the Christian moral order at the heart of American law.²⁴
Core Principles of Sharia Law Incompatible with the Constitution
Under Sharia law:
- Freedom of religion is denied. Apostasy from Islam is punishable by death, violating the First Amendment.²⁵
- Freedom of speech is forbidden. Criticism of Islam or Muhammad is blasphemy punishable by imprisonment or death.²⁶
- Equality before the law is rejected. Sharia assigns inferior legal status to non-Muslims and women, violating the Fourteenth Amendment.²⁷
- Supremacy of religious law over civil law is enforced. Sharia holds divine law supersedes human or constitutional law.²⁸
This is not theory. It is codified in Sharia jurisprudence and practiced in Islamic states today. Anyone claiming such a system can coexist with the Constitution is either lying or gravely mistaken.²⁹
For the Intellectually Challenged, Here’s What This Really Means
If you’re a homosexual under Sharia, you could be thrown off a building.³⁰ If you’re a woman, you have no legal standing apart from a male guardian.³¹ If you leave Islam, you can be sentenced to death for apostasy.³² If you criticize Muhammad, you can be punished for blasphemy.³³ And under taqiyya, Islamic doctrine permitting deception toward non-Muslims, a devout Muslim may lie to an infidel if it serves Islam’s interest.³⁴
Look at the United Kingdom today: citizens arrested for social media posts deemed offensive to Islamic sensibilities.³⁵ People jailed for speech. That is not freedom. That is the fruit of tolerating a foreign legal system incompatible with liberty.³⁶
Holding Office and Divided Loyalties
Article VI of the Constitution requires all officers to swear an oath to support the Constitution.³⁷ That oath leaves no room for dual allegiance.³⁸ Yet public officials sit in office while adhering to legal systems fundamentally hostile to the Constitution.³⁹ Whether by advancing Sharia law or enforcing unconstitutional administrative law, these are acts of divided loyalty.⁴⁰ As Scripture reminds: “No man can serve two masters.” (Matthew 6:24).⁴¹
Defining Treason and Maladministration
The Virginia Declaration of Rights, Section 3, declares government is instituted for the benefit and protection of the people, and warns of *”the dangers of maladministration.”*⁴² Maladministration is not mere incompetence; it is betrayal of government’s legitimate end.⁴³ When officials undermine constitutional order, they commit maladministration. When such acts rise to subverting the republic or advancing foreign law, they cross into treason.⁴⁴
Treason exists on multiple levels:
Treason against the state: violating state constitutional guarantees.⁴⁵
Treason against the federal government: undermining constitutional supremacy.⁴⁶
Treason against the sovereignty of the people: betraying the oath to uphold the Constitution.⁴⁷
And the punishment for such, under Article IV, Section 4, and Amendment XIV, Sections 3 and 4, is immediate removal from office.⁴⁸
Conclusion: A Line in the Sand
We do not need to speculate about the consequences. Look at the UK, where citizens are jailed for speech, neighborhoods governed by Sharia, and mobs proclaiming: “Every part of this land will belong to Islam.”⁴⁹
This is Jefferson’s prophecy fulfilled before our eyes.⁵⁰ Those who seek to impose Sharia law here are saying the quiet part out loud. Therefore: there is no middle ground. You stand against the Constitution or with it. Silence is consent. Indifference is complicity.⁵¹
Let it be declared: those advancing this betrayal from within are domestic enemies of the Constitution. Those advancing it from without are **foreign enemies and terrorists.**⁵²
To ignore this threat is treason. To refuse to speak is to aid the enemy. To abdicate the duty to preserve the republic is to forfeit liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Therefore, let every man and woman of conscience rise and reclaim their rightful authority as the sovereign People, under God, to secure the blessings of liberty, the rule of law, and the republican form of government guaranteed by the Constitution.⁵³
Footnotes
- Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1 Comm. 42; see also Charles Weisman, The Authority of Law, p. 12.
- Alabama Constitution, Article I, Section 35; Massachusetts Constitution, Preamble; Virginia Declaration of Rights, Section 1.
- Blackstone, Commentaries, 1 Comm. 42; James Wilson, Lectures on Law.
- Alabama Constitution, Article I, Section 35.
- George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries: With Notes of Reference, 1803 edition, commentary on treason.
- Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, March 28, 1786.
- Ibid
- Ibid
- Quran, Surah At-Tawbah 9:29.
- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Canby, 1813.
- Ibid
- S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4.
- Ibid
- Federalist No. 39; Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws.
- Charles Weisman, The Authority of Law, p. 45.
- D. v. M.J.R., 415 N.J. Super. 417 (2010).
- Ibid
- Massachusetts Constitution, Preamble.
- Ibid
- Virginia Declaration of Rights, Section 16.
- James Wilson, Lectures on Law.
- Blackstone, Commentaries, 1 Comm. 42.
- Charles Weisman, The Authority of Law, p. 22.
- Quran, Surah An-Nisa 4:34; Hadith Sahih Bukhari, Book 52, Hadith 269.
- Quran, Surah An-Nisa 4:89.
- Quran, Surah Al-Ahzab 33:57.
- Quran, Surah An-Nisa 4:11; 4:34.
- Reliance of the Traveller (Sharia manual), o24.9.
- Charles Weisman, The Authority of Law, p. 48; Blackstone, Commentaries, 4 Comm. 60.
- Reliance of the Traveller (Sharia manual), o12.7 (punishment for homosexual acts under Sharia).
- Quran, Surah An-Nisa 4:34 (women’s status and husband authority); Reliance of the Traveller m3.4.
- Hadith Sahih Bukhari 9:84:57 (apostasy punishment); Quran, Surah An-Nisa 4:89.
- Reliance of the Traveller o8.7 (blasphemy punishment guidelines).
- Quran 16:106 (taqiyya doctrine); see also Shia jurisprudence sources.
- BBC News reports on UK arrests for offensive social media posts under Public Order Act.
- Lord Justice Sedley, UK Court of Appeal ruling in Redmond-Bate v. DPP [1999] EWHC Admin 733.
- S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3 (Oath of Office).
- Federalist No. 44; Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution §1838.
- News reports of officials advocating Sharia compliance in courts or local governance (e.g., UK Sharia councils).
- Charles Weisman, The Authority of Law, p. 45; judicial recognition of religious arbitration.
- The Holy Bible, Matthew 6:24.
- Virginia Declaration of Rights, Section 3 (original text).
- James Madison, Federalist Papers, No. 48 (on dangers of maladministration).
- Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, Book XI (on loss of liberty through legal corruption).
- Alabama Constitution Article I, Section 35; similar clauses in early state constitutions.
- S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3 (definition of treason).
- Declaration of Independence (governments derive powers from the consent of the governed).
- S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Sections 3 and 4 (disqualification clauses).
- The Guardian, BBC coverage of UK blasphemy-related prosecutions and Sharia zones.
- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII; letters regarding Barbary conflicts.
- Maxim of law: “He who is silent is seen to consent” (Qui tacet consentire videtur).
- S. Constitution, Article VI; Oath to defend against enemies foreign and domestic.
- Blackstone, Commentaries, 4 Comm. 60; James Wilson, Lectures on Law (duty to preserve the republic).
About the Author:
Ron Bouchard is a Strategic Interventionist, Freedom Strategist, and leading expert in Constitutional and Fundamental Law. He is a dynamic speaker, trainer, and author, and co-founder of WeThePeople2.us, where he advances public education on history, common law, and the restoration of self-governance. Ron is known for his principled advocacy, deep historical insight, and unwavering commitment to natural rights and the sanctity of life. His work equips others with lawful and moral clarity in the face of modern overreach.