• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Iraqi draft constitution released

CapelDodger said:
By including ambiguities which were mostly ironed out in the First American Civil War. [/B]
Click to expand...

[begin mild derail] The FIRST American Civil War? We had another one while I wasn't looking? Or is this a forecast of future events, here? ;) ;) :p [/end mild derail]

FWIW, the wording in the OP sounds like a Arab-translated version to English rather than the Arabic translated by someone whom English is a native language--based on reading many letters from Arabs in the UAE. Get a copy in the original Arabic and give it to Kitten to translate (for practice) and it'll probably read a lot smoother.

Having Islam as the state religion does not necessarily mean an Iran--it could be an Egypt or Jordan (cannot swear to it, but I imagine that Islam is the state religion in those countries), but it does look like a document cobbled together by parties trying to say as little as possbiel to offend few.

That bunch of rich, white, mostly slave-holding characters in Philadelphia did better than even they could have imagined.
 
Darat said:
The UK seems to be managing quite well with both a state religion and the rights of other religions being (shudder) "protected" in legislation.
Click to expand...
No true Catholic would want to marry British Royalty anyway. ;)
 
Hutch said:
[begin mild derail] The FIRST American Civil War? We had another one while I wasn't looking? Or is this a forecast of future events, here? ;) ;) :p [/end mild derail]
Click to expand...
Remember you heard it here first ...

I guess the first proper history books I read was my grandfather's Great War series; that's known as World War One now, due to post-publication events. The Gulf War was once the Iran-Iraq War, then the name got snaffled for what I call the Kuwait War. At least the Balkans War was followed by the Second and Third Balkan Wars. Anyhoo, the American Civil War seems a little presumptious. :)

Having Islam as the state religion does not necessarily mean an Iran--it could be an Egypt or Jordan ...
Click to expand...
Or Pakistan. Perish the thought.
... but it does look like a document cobbled together by parties trying to say as little as possbiel to offend few.

That bunch of rich, white, mostly slave-holding characters in Philadelphia did better than even they could have imagined.
Click to expand...
I refer the honourable member to my previous point about the First American Civil War, which involved two camps both convinced they were acting constitutionally. The US Constitution - a truly remarkable and valuable production - was a diplomatic exercise, and diplomats (a sub-set of lawyers) pride themselves on subtle ambiguity as lubrication. (UN Resolution 1441 was a diplomatic exercise - the French interpretation is just as valid as the US's.)
 
The Fool said:
Can anyone think of a nation that doesn't toady to some supernatural being in its constitution?
Click to expand...
The United States. Everyone else is a theocracy. ;)
 
CapelDodger said:
Anyhoo, the American Civil War seems a little presumptious. :)
Click to expand...
Not nearly as presumptuous as The English Civil War. What, they've only had one?

I refer the honourable member to my previous point about the First American Civil War, which involved two camps both convinced they were acting constitutionally.
Click to expand...
The South believed that they were acting constitutionally when they seceded from the Union. During the Civil War, they considered themselved to be a separate country, and the constitution to be therefore irrelevant to their actions (and hence objected to the term "Civil War"). I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that the US Constitution is flawed because it did not make bad choices impossible?

(UN Resolution 1441 was a diplomatic exercise - the French interpretation is just as valid as the US's.)
Click to expand...
It may be consistent with the letter, but I think that it clearly at odds with the spirit.
 
Art Vandelay said:
Not nearly as presumptuous as The English Civil War. What, they've only had one?
Click to expand...
It's Britain now. The First British Civil War is yet to break out. The '15 and '45 don't count, they were rebellions. As for Ireland, The Troubles never really stopped (until now). :)

The South believed that they were acting constitutionally when they seceded from the Union. During the Civil War, they considered themselved to be a separate country, and the constitution to be therefore irrelevant to their actions (and hence objected to the term "Civil War"). I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that the US Constitution is flawed because it did not make bad choices impossible?
Click to expand...
A fundamental ambiguity of the Constitution papered over the question of secession. That's why both camps were able to argue that they were in the right. The Confederacy acted as a sovereign state once it had seceded, but the Union still called them Rebels. That's my point. The Federalists were intent on forging a nation, with no going back, but many states' representatives were unhappy with that idea. So a form of words was arrived at that could be interpreted by either party as embodying their requirements. The agreed business could then go forward. It's exactly the same process as G8 communiques, or UN Resolution 1441. Diplomacy. Obfuscating the irreconcilable in the hope that the problem will go away. I think Coolidge said something like "Of ten troubles you see coming down the road, nine will fall in a ditch before they reach you". Diplomacy rather depends on that. One time in ten you end up at war with Argentina ...

The Federalists, I think, mostly thought they could make concessions because the benefits of nationhood would be so obvious that the issue would never arise. Sadly, they miscalculated. On the other hand, they might not have got a Constitution at all.
It may be consistent with the letter, but I think that it clearly at odds with the spirit.
Click to expand...
There can only be the letter. How can we decide on the "spirit" understood by people who lived over two centuries ago? How can we project our "spirit" to people living two centuries hence? We can try to empathise, but there's a limit. The Constitution contains the procedure for amending itself, in the hope and expectation that the letter would continue to reflect the spirit of the times. That has made it very robust. The French are on their Fifth Republic, having started after the US, which has got by on one-and-a-half.
 
The Fool said:
Can anyone think of a nation that doesn't toady to some supernatural being in its constitution?
Click to expand...

Yes. The United States of America. You may check our Bill of Rights also.

Also, though lacking a constitution, Israeli Basic Law seems to have avoided it too.

Also, though I haven't looked very carefully, I can't find the mentions of God in the constitutions of Mexico , Canada, or Australia either, though I certainly concede you may be most familiar with the last.
 
Mycroft said:
Yes. The United States of America. You may check our Bill of Rights also.

Also, though lacking a constitution, Israeli Basic Law seems to have avoided it too.

Also, though I haven't looked very carefully, I can't find the mentions of God in the constitutions of Mexico , Canada, or Australia either, though I certainly concede you may be most familiar with the last.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that Mycroft. I notice you no longer toady to a supernatural being in your sig... Do you think this is a worldwide trend?
 
Originally posted by The Fool
Thanks for that Mycroft.
Click to expand...

You're welcome. I noticed that God was not mentioned in the first five constitutions I checked. While I'm sure there are constitutions that do mention God, I think my sample evidence suggests it's far less common than you think.


Originally posted by The Fool
I notice you no longer toady to a supernatural being in your sig... Do you think this is a worldwide trend?
Click to expand...

You will need to explain yourself further if you want a response to this.
 
Thanks again, Mycroft. I was wondering where God came into the US Constitution.


At any rate, it doesn't look half-bad. Better than I expected. The whole part about the equality of women looked a bit fuzzy to me.

Does it ever say that women can vote? Hrm. Just asking.


Oh, and IMHO, Iraq is going to be f***ed for the next hundred years or so, anyway.
 
Mycroft said:
I think my sample evidence suggests it's far less common than you think.

And what am I thinking now??I wish you would stop reading my thoughts, there is only room for one inside my head ok...




You will need to explain yourself further if you want a response to this.
you probably don't remember....other obsessions having taken over.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by The Fool
And what am I thinking now??I wish you would stop reading my thoughts, there is only room for one inside my head ok...


....


you probably don't remember....other obsessions having taken over.
Click to expand...

This is kinda ironic. In one sentence you bash me for "reading your thoughts" then in the next sentence you claim to know my thinking process.

Whatever. Unless you have something substantive, we're done.
 
Kerberos said:
To the best of my knowledge a Basic Law is the excact same thing as a Constitution.
Click to expand...

Not quite. There is disagreement over if Basic Law takes precedent over other law, with one opinion being no because Basic Law is passed with a simple majority vote in the Knesset. To date it hasn't been tested in the courts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom