Iraqi draft constitution released

[chran]

The constitution also is rife with situations in which things are prohibited- unless there is a law saying otherwise. What's the point?

The point is that are a whole number of situations that will arise in the future, that the constitution can not account for. If that wording wasn't there, the constitution would have to be rewritten all the time and that's impractical.

 

[Luke T.]

There aren't too many things I am in agreement upon with those I consider to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum as me, but I absolutely believe in the separation of Church and State. And as many of you know, I am a Deist.

When one country states in its constitution that it has an official religion, that does not equate to a similar statement in another country. It's like the U.S. and U.S.S.R. both claiming to be "Republics."

So Norway has an official state religoin. If I am not mistaken, Denmark has an official state religion as well. You can't tell me that's the same thing as Iran having an official state religion.

I don't believe Iraq having an official state religion will be a parallel to Norway. I believe it will be a parallel to Iran.

Iraq has an opportunity to serve as a roadmap to peace and democracy for the rest of the Islamic Middle East. And they just might blow it.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[Cylinder]

I just noticed that this is probably the first constitution that explicitly protects internet communications - not a bad precedent.

 

[Art Vandelay]

The point is that are a whole number of situations that will arise in the future, that the constitution can not account for. If that wording wasn't there, the constitution would have to be rewritten all the time and that's impractical.

But then why have those clauses to begin with?

 

[Beerina]

That's what concerned me that most. After reading through only to item 4 I got a strong impression that there wasn't a single Jefferson among them. But I suppose if it's just a working document, it'll suffice. Item 3 is going to be really tricky. Jefferson would have just said 'all men are created equal' and had one of his slaves run it over to copymax for mass distribution.

Exactly. Getting bogged down with enumerations is the wrong way to write a constitution. I would pity the crap constituion the US's politicians would produce nowadays.

It only takes 23 words to ensconce a state religion, i.e. to become everything a good constitution should not. How you can have an official religion, with laws that do not contradict it, while recognizing freedom of other religions, I don't know. Reminds me of India or Pakistan or some such, some guy tried to explain it to me, where what laws you had to obey depended on what religion you were. Which of course makes no sense if your religion is voluntary.

 

[Beerina]

No law functions in a retrograde way unless otherwise stated by the law.

So you can pass a retroactive law and throw someone in jail for something that was not illegal when they did it as long as the law explicitely states it may be applied retroactively?

Uhhhhh, yeah.

Crimes and punishments are to be defined only by the law.

Rules out religious-led mobs, a good sign.

The privacy of homes is protected and it's forbidden to search or enter homes unless in accordance with the law.

A number of items are similar to this one. Sounds good, until you realize it doesn't really prohibit search and seizure without some just cause. As long as the law says the government can go in, it can go in. While that is an improvement, it doesn't seem an Iraqi "Patriot Act" would even be a mild bump in the slippery slide.

 

[Beerina]

I just noticed that this is probably the first constitution that explicitly protects internet communications - not a bad precedent.

Part of the argument against enumeration (which goes back to the US constitution's framers) is that enumeration may be interpreted as implying things not listed are fair game for government intrusion.

This is set, of course, against the concept that the government shall have only the powers given it in the constitution, with all other rights reserved to the people (or states.) If it isn't spelled out, the government can't do it. So in theory, you don't need to enumerate protections -- you only enumerate the powers the government has.

This was the argument against having a Bill of Rights -- one side felt it was needed for safety; the other felt enumerating rights would lead future politicians to pass laws against un-enumerated ones. As it turns out, both sides were correct.

Mercifully the US Supreme Court has ruled that "freedom of speech and of the press" applies to all forms of communication, not just talking and printing, which was all that existed back then.

 

[CapelDodger]

True that. It makes me wonder (I've always wondered) how those guys managed to do it some 230 odd years ago.

By including ambiguities which were mostly ironed out in the First American Civil War. Basically.

And they did it without airconditioning...in Phily...in July...with all the windows and doors shut to prevent anyone from overhearing the debate!

Maybe that's the key. Make Iraq do it without AC. Only the coolest heads will prevail.

There was a Conclave (details escape me) which dragged on and on, several candidates offering about the same price. The people of Rome got fractious, so rations were cut, eventually to bread and water. Still no joy. So they took the roof off. Still no joy. So the garrison guarding the conclave were encouraged to ... relieve themselves into the interior from a great height. That did it. A compromise candidate, more dead than alive, was elected and negotiations for the next Conclave were started in more comfortable circumstances.

Or so I've been told. For what it's worth.

 

[CapelDodger]

So based on our money, exactly what is our state religion?

Money.

 

[CapelDodger]

Re: Re: Iraqi draft constitution released

So you can pass a retroactive law and throw someone in jail for something that was not illegal when they did it as long as the law explicitely states it may be applied retroactively?

Uhhhhh, yeah.

I think that's the situation over here. Retroactive laws are very unusual, and very carefully studied by Parliament. There's a natural prejudice against them. What really matters is how seriously representatives view their responsibilities as representatives. That means putting the institution above party or faction. You could have a perfect Constitution but without respect for it you're screwed.

Rules out religious-led mobs, a good sign.

Seconded. Ideolatrous mobs of any sort do not good governance make.

A number of items are similar to this one. Sounds good, until you realize it doesn't really prohibit search and seizure without some just cause. As long as the law says the government can go in, it can go in. While that is an improvement, it doesn't seem an Iraqi "Patriot Act" would even be a mild bump in the slippery slide.

14b-The judiciary is independent and is liable to nothing but the law.

If the law is properly scrutinised before it's passed, and the judiciary decides that a law justifies a search or seizure, you have a situation identical to that of the US as I understand it. (???)

Iraq had a democratic constitution when Saddam Hussein came to power. The constitution is useless if it isn't applied and defended. The UK doesn't even have a written constitution, but it has institutions that can only be screwed with so far (so far). They developed over long and eventful times. The nascent US benefited from their existence, but the US could identify readily with British culture. So could India. Iraq, on the other hand, doesn't have that advantage. I'm not optimistic. But then I never am.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Mercifully the US Supreme Court has ruled that "freedom of speech and of the press" applies to all forms of communication, not just talking and printing, which was all that existed back then.

That's not quite true. Flag burning and writing existed back then, along with many other forms of communication.

CapelDodger

If the law is properly scrutinised before it's passed, and the judiciary decides that a law justifies a search or seizure, you have a situation identical to that of the US as I understand it.

The judiciary doesn't just rule on whether the search is justified by the law, it rules on whether the law is justified. The fourth amendment prohibits "unreasonable search and seizure", and the legislature cannot abridge that through mere legislation.

 

[peptoabysmal]

If that really ends up in their Constitution, the Middle East will continue to be f***ed for the next 200 years.

After 2000 years of being f***ed, what's going to change in the next 200? I can't imagine any of the major Arab nations not wanting an Islam based government.

 

[The Fool]

Can anyone think of a nation that doesn't toady to some supernatural being in its constitution?

 

[Cylinder]

[disregard]

 

[epepke]

I don't believe Iraq having an official state religion will be a parallel to Norway. I believe it will be a parallel to Iran.

So what the hell difference will it make what they have in their Constitution?

Do you think the people in Iraq who want theocracy are going to say to themselves, "Gosh a mickle, we can't do that! Let's have a hot toddy instead. And I'll use the explosives in this belt to blow up stumps, in service to farmers."

 

[Darat]

Exactly. Getting bogged down with enumerations is the wrong way to write a constitution. I would pity the crap constituion the US's politicians would produce nowadays.

It only takes 23 words to ensconce a state religion, i.e. to become everything a good constitution should not. How you can have an official religion, with laws that do not contradict it, while recognizing freedom of other religions, I don't know. Reminds me of India or Pakistan or some such, some guy tried to explain it to me, where what laws you had to obey depended on what religion you were. Which of course makes no sense if your religion is voluntary.

The UK seems to be managing quite well with both a state religion and the rights of other religions being (shudder) "protected" in legislation.

 

[chran]

The constitution also is rife with situations in which things are prohibited- unless there is a law saying otherwise. What's the point?

Originally posted by chran
The point is that are a whole number of situations that will arise in the future, that the constitution can not account for. If that wording wasn't there, the constitution would have to be rewritten all the time and that's impractical.

But then why have those clauses to begin with?

To give the things mentioned "constitutional importance" (or whatever the proper legal term is) - the flag, the capital, equal rights - stuff like that. To underscore the importance of them, and also to make sure they are decided by law, and not just by the whim of the next president.

 

[epepke]

To give the things mentioned "constitutional importance" (or whatever the proper legal term is) - the flag, the capital, equal rights - stuff like that. To underscore the importance of them, and also to make sure they are decided by law, and not just by the whim of the next president.

I'm a big fan of Constitutions. I'm glad of the Constitution of the United States, because without it, we'd be even worse off than we are.

However, a Constitution, like any other piece of government paper, is only as good as the government that backs it up.

 

[Darat]

I'm a big fan of Constitutions. I'm glad of the Constitution of the United States, because without it, we'd be even worse off than we are.

However, a Constitution, like any other piece of government paper, is only as good as the government that backs it up.

But most of all it is only as good as the "People" who back it up.

 

[epepke]

But most of all it is only as good as the "People" who back it up.

Presuming a reasonably democratic government, of course. And if you presume, you make a Pres. out of U and me.

(Sorry about that, but I like destroying bad jokes. I wish someone made a four-cylinder car named the Hammer.)