Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Bad Constitution Ė Wonít Get Ratified, Canít Work
Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 17 September 2005 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

Posted on 09/15/2005 11:19:25 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob

Dateline, 17 September, 2005, National Capitol

It is self-evident that this new constitution is fatally flawed. It is unlikely to be ratified. And even if it is, it will fail in practice.

Begin with ratification. One province is so opposed that it refused to take part in the drafting. The governors of two provinces refused to sign the document and are committed to its defeat. There is a hotbed of opposition in another province. One of the leaders there walked out of the drafting, and returned home to lead the effort to defeat the constitution, taking a majority of his delegation with him.

With one province already committed in opposition, and ratification in serious trouble in several other provinces, it will likely be rejected in at least four provinces. And only a majority is required for defeat. The press may contribute to the defeat, being controlled by regional leaders and political parties.

But this constitution ought to be defeated. It is grossly inadequate in providing for the rights of women and of ethnic minorities. It will override and perhaps destroy the natural rights of the provinces. There is inadequate protection for personal and religious rights of various groups in the nation. This constitution is so defective that the whole process should begin anew.

With all these negatives, what are the chances of ratification? The provinces are unequal in size. The largest is one-fifth of the whole nation; and many of its leaders oppose the document. Defeat there will in effect mean national defeat. But I predict a win here, by a margin of ten votes. Another major province is evenly split. I predict a 3 vote margin there.

The province which refused to take part in drafting the Constitution will also refuse to consider ratification. Eight provinces will demand various amendments in the Constitution that should be enacted immediately. One of those will refuse to accept the Constitution until certain amendments are made.

Despite this shaky beginning, I believe this constitution will succeed. This document has “all its faults.” But contrary to the pessimistic views of most people in the international media, it is both “a blessing to the people if well administered” and that no different group would “be able to make a better constitution.”

* * *

The only errors in the report above, are the date and calling the states “provinces.” All this applied in the US, on 17 September, 1787. Here’s the identification of all the people and states in this report, in order. Rhode Island. Gov. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and Gov. Edmund Randolph of Virginia. Robert Yates of New York. Unlike the Iraqi Constitution, only a simple majority was required to defeat ratification. See the Anti-Federalist newspapers, particularly active in New York and Virginia.

Women had no right to vote. Blacks could be held in slavery, although free blacks who owned property were eligible to vote. Lack of guaranteed rights was the principle objection of the Anti-Federalists. This is why a Bill of Rights with its 11 articles was drafted, and passed in 1789 (11th article passed in 1992). Three states passed resolutions demanding that a new Constitutional Convention should be held to produce a new document.

In the 1790 Census, Virginia was one-fifth of the US population. In addition to Governor Randolph’s opposition, other staunch opponents included the likes of Patrick Henry and George Mason. The contest was hard-fought and close in Virginia. Its ratification convention voted yes by 89-79. In New York, the vote was 30-27. In both, the promise of a Bill of Rights was essential.

Rhode Island refused to hold a ratification convention. Not until 1790, when threatened with taxes on its “imports,” did Rhode Island ratify, 34-32. North Carolina demanded a Bill of Rights and refused to ratify until that was accomplished, in 1789. The 200+ demands from all eight states were distilled into the 12 articles of the Bill of Rights as passed by Congress, eleven ultimately ratified.

This history of the near failure of US Constitution is distilled from the Introduction to the 1987 facsimile reprint of Robert Yates’ Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Convention to Form the US Constitution. As history has demonstrated, despite its shaky beginnings, it has become the longest surviving and most successful constitution in history. The quotes are all from the speech by Benjamin Franklin, urging all delegates to set aside their differences and sign the Constitution. Here’s the source for that: http://www.usconstitution.net/franklin.html

While you’re on this subject, wish our Constitution a Happy Birthday today, and wish the Iraqis success with their constitution, too.

About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Free Republic; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: New York; US: North Carolina; US: Virginia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: antifederalists; benfranklin; billofrights; congressmanbillybob; constitution; convention; drafting; edmundrandolph; elbridgegerry; geogremason; governors; iraq; johnarmor; newyork; northcarolina; patrickhenry; provinces; ratification; rhodeisland; robertyates; virginia; votingrights; womensrights
A timely piece which I believe you will find interesting.

John / Billybob

1 posted on 09/15/2005 11:19:31 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

I figured you were talking about our own Constitution. It reminds me of Rumsfeld's reference to September 11, 1776, in his remarks about another group of Americans that stood up for what was right. He made those remarks at Arlington National Cemetery this past Sunday.

Good job BillyBob. /unintentional rhyme


2 posted on 09/15/2005 11:26:11 AM PDT by Christian4Bush (The modern Democratic Party: Attacking our defenders and defending our attackers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
While you’re on this subject, wish our Constitution a Happy Birthday today, and wish the Iraqis success with their constitution, too.

I wish the Iraqis success in coming up with a good constitution, and not just approving whatever constitution is handed to them just so they can say they adopted a constitution within whatever timetable they were told to have one ready by.

3 posted on 09/15/2005 11:26:32 AM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day
You, especially, should see this. Happy Birthday to you, too.

John / Billybob
4 posted on 09/15/2005 11:27:04 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (This Freeper was linked for the 2nd time by Rush Limbaugh today (9/13/05). Hoohah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Thoroughly enjoyable! Thank You for posting!

I remember a story about Ben Franklin that took place as he was leaving the convention.

A woman approached him and asked;"What kind of government will we have,sir?".Franklin answered;"A constitutional republic,madam,if you can keep it!".

I've always liked that story.Franklin knew how difficult it had been to get to that point,but he was also well aware that the hardest work was yet to come.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY U.S. CONSTITUTION !!!

5 posted on 09/15/2005 11:36:28 AM PDT by smoothsailing (Qui Nhon Turtle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Nice work . . . you had me there for awhile.


6 posted on 09/15/2005 11:46:51 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob; Lando Lincoln; quidnunc; .cnI redruM; Valin; King Prout; SJackson; dennisw; ..

Nailed It!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

7 posted on 09/15/2005 12:13:52 PM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Well done!


8 posted on 09/15/2005 12:16:44 PM PDT by sarasota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolik
Glad you liked the article. It is an honor to earn the famous "Hammer and Nail" Award. LOL.

John / Billybob
9 posted on 09/15/2005 12:19:22 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (This Freeper was linked for the 2nd time by Rush Limbaugh today (9/13/05). Hoohah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

good stuff, as ever.


10 posted on 09/15/2005 12:21:37 PM PDT by King Prout (and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Why isn't this author comparing our constitution to the one MacArthur put together and IMPOSED on the Japanese? Why? Because that was a good constitution, not a piece of crap like the ones the Iraqis have come up with.

MacArthur himself commented early on that meeting this goal would certainly require a "revision of the Meiji Constitution." But even he could not have imagined that a few months later, his young American staff would write an entirely new constitution, one that has governed Japanese affairs ever since without the change of a comma.

The Japanese did go to work,>>>>but MacArthur rejected their efforts<<<<< in early February 1946 as "nothing more than a rewording of the old Meiji constitution." Eager to avoid interference from other allies, MacArthur took matters into his own hands. He ordered his government section to draft a document themselves, and to do it before the first meeting of the Far Eastern Commission, set for February 26. Staff member Beate Sirota Gordon, then in her early twenties, still remembers the day well:

And he said, "You are now a constituent assembly." "And you will write the Japanese constitution. You will write a draft and it will have to be done in a week."

Their work resulted in a thoroughly progressive document.

A bi-cameral legislature with a weak upper chamber was established, and with the exception of the Imperial family, all rights of peerage were abolished. Thirty-nine articles dealt with what MacArthur called "basic human liberties," including not only most of the American bill of rights, but such things as universal adult suffrage, labor's right to organize, and a host of marriage and property rights for women. But the most unique and one of the most important provisions came in Article 9, which outlawed the creation of armed forces and the right to make war. It's not clear whether or not the "No-war clause" originated with MacArthur, but it certainly would not have been included without him, and its presence in the constitution has had an enormous impact on Japan's postwar history.

The new Iraqi constitution
Article (2):
1st - ISLAM is the official religion of the state
AND
is a basic source of legislation:

(a) NO law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of ISLAM

These two clauses act as Koranic Vetoes over the rest of the constitution and thus render it null and void.

Lets remember that the radical Shiites are 60 percent of Iraq, yes Iran is also - in fact Shi'a Muslim 89%, and thus the Shiite are the ones who will interpret what CONTRADICTS Islam. You think women will be able to wear shorts when its 110 degrees outside let alone have equal rights? Do you think Christians will be able to worship? Nope. But you can bet Americans will still be called infidels.
Listen to what the present SHIITE Prime Minister has to say about that:

....Iraq's Prime Minister is Ibrahim al-Jaafari....
Asked if his government would institute Islamic Shari'a law, al-Jaafari replied: "Yes … that is only natural in a country that is populated mainly by Muslims."

"This is a new chapter in relations with Iraq," enthused Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref during al-Jaafari's visit. Agha Panayi, an Iranian intelligence official, has offered a similarly enthusiastic assessment: "Throughout Iraq, the people we supported are in power."

Our troops are giving real sacrifice they should be recieving for that REAL FREEDOM.

No blood for Islam.

We must insist that the Constitution of Iraq is one that is not one that will allow them to become another Iran. Those Iraqi politicians want those Oil pipes guarded and their own security guards then they need to guard against going back to 7th century Islam.
11 posted on 09/15/2005 12:37:36 PM PDT by TomasUSMC (FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

A woman approached him and asked;"What kind of government will we have,sir?".Franklin answered;"A constitutional republic,madam,if you can keep it!".
====
Yea well, in Iraq Franklin might answer "An Islamist Iran Redux, madam, oh and by the way put your berkha on!".


12 posted on 09/15/2005 12:45:55 PM PDT by TomasUSMC (FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TomasUSMC
I agree with you about the Constitution that MacArthur imposed on the Japanese. But there is no entity that can do in Iraq now, what he did then, in Japan. General MacArthur was, in fact, a military dictator, given the powers that he had as a result of the Unconditional Surrender and the fact that MacArthur was in sole charge of the "Allied" occupation of Japan.

When it works well, the "best" form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. It is an extension of Plato's philosophy of government by "philosopher kings." It worked with MacArthur in Japan. It worked with Kemal Ataturk in Turkey. In all other instances in history, such efforts led to bloody dictatorships, did they not?

John / Billybob

13 posted on 09/15/2005 1:03:23 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (This Freeper was linked for the 2nd time by Rush Limbaugh today (9/13/05). Hoohah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
It worked with MacArthur in Japan. It worked with Kemal Ataturk in Turkey. In all other instances in history, such efforts led to bloody dictatorships, did they not?


I think the United States has plenty of men who could accomplish what MacArthur did given the leeway. Political support that is. IMO, its not so much MacArthur as what he was offering the people of Japan - real freedom. If he had allowed the Tojo mindset to stay in power in Japan, there would not have been real freedom there anymore than if Truman had declared Nazism an Ideology of Peace as our own President Bush has declared with Islam.

So I don't see it as the Person in charge as much as what that person offers to the people.

And today we are offering to the Iraqi people a trip back to the 7th century with this new constitution that demands that NO LAW CONTRADICT ISLAM.

Its as if the Germans would have been allowed, after losing WW2,to come up with a constitution that said NO LAW CONTRADICTS NAZISM.

If the Kurds have any sense they will pull out and form their own government with real Freedom of Religion - but that's if they have any sense.
14 posted on 09/15/2005 1:55:07 PM PDT by TomasUSMC (FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

The contest was hard-fought and close in Virginia. Its ratification convention voted yes by 89-79. In New York, the vote was 30-27. In both, the promise of a Bill of Rights was essential



How do you think the Iraqi bill of rights will stand up against "No law shall contradict Islam"?

You know if the Shiites didn't comprise 60 percent of the population, then I'd say the Islamic interpreting would be more liberal and modern. But with Shiites, its 7th century all the way.


15 posted on 09/15/2005 2:00:52 PM PDT by TomasUSMC (FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomasUSMC
There are differeing schools of Shi'ite throught just as there are Sunni schools.
Take a look at the views of the people of Iran and compare these to the Mullahs. Most Iranians want change.
16 posted on 09/15/2005 2:15:41 PM PDT by rmlew (http://nycright.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

LOL

The pleasure is all mine. Thanks for the great article.


17 posted on 09/15/2005 2:41:29 PM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Good thing the UN wasn't there to help out.
18 posted on 09/15/2005 3:49:22 PM PDT by .cnI redruM ( "Go ahead, punk, make my Earl Grey." - Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomasUSMC

There's a big difference between "No law shall contradict Islam" and "The law shall require Islam".


19 posted on 09/15/2005 5:02:04 PM PDT by AZLiberty (Binary: The Power of Two)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Good job.


20 posted on 09/15/2005 5:05:03 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZLiberty

As far as I have seen the new constitutions says, No law shall contradict Islam.

The new Iraqi constitution
Article (2):
1st - ISLAM is the official religion of the state
AND
is a basic source of legislation:

(a) NO law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of ISLAM


21 posted on 09/15/2005 5:41:48 PM PDT by TomasUSMC (FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TomasUSMC
And today we are offering to the Iraqi people a trip back to the 7th century with this new constitution that demands that NO LAW CONTRADICT ISLAM.
Its as if the Germans would have been allowed, after losing WW2,to come up with a constitution that said NO LAW CONTRADICTS NAZISM.


I like your tagline.
22 posted on 09/15/2005 6:48:08 PM PDT by Celtman (It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Well said my friend. I believe the Iraqis are moving steadily forward towards their own soveriegnty and constitutional process...irrespective of the naysaying of our liberal/leftists and MSM, and irrespective of the increasingly desperate attempts by former henchmen and foreign terrorists to derail that process.

Infact, their desperation is clear sign that we are winning and the mission is being more and more successful.

23 posted on 09/15/2005 7:46:33 PM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Celtman

Ok Celtman, you GOT to tellmehow2do THAT

SEMPER FI


24 posted on 09/15/2005 8:11:30 PM PDT by TomasUSMC (FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
Most Iranians want change.



Why don't most Iranians do something about it. How bad do they want change? Bad enough to risk their lives and the lives of their loved ones for it? Well this is the choice they need to make or the U.S. will make it for them.

We are not going to wait till some terrorist gets some nukes or other WMDs from Iran's Mullah Regime and blows up another American city and then do nothing against Iran because "most Iranians want change", but haven't gotten off their butts to fight the mullahs yet. Sorry.

Iranians can die fighting the mullahs or they can die as part of the collateral damage that will ensue when we annihilate the mullahs. In this situation I am Pro-Choice.

Iranian are playing the game of middle of the road with US.
Staying in that position results in getting hit from both directions.
25 posted on 09/15/2005 8:20:48 PM PDT by TomasUSMC (FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TomasUSMC
You say, "* * * *
The new Iraqi constitution
Article (2):
1st - ISLAM is the official religion of the state
AND
is a basic source of legislation:

(a) NO law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of ISLAM

These two clauses act as Koranic Vetoes over the rest of the constitution and thus render it null and void. * * * *"

They have an official State religion. Big deal. And there was, as memory serves, quite a little debate over the article "a" in the part that reads, "is a basic source of legislation". It does not say THE basic source, It says "a" source. Again, big DEAL.

Instead of selectively quoting only a very small portion of the draft document, it might help to include the WHOLE draft Constitution. Because if you take the time to look at the whole thing (including the RIGHTS portion), you will find that there is, under the proposed Constitution, NO discrimination permitted on account of religious belief -- or apostasy even. The document is actually pretty remarkable.

Perfect? Probably not. That's darn subjective, anyway.

But good under all the circumstances? You bet. That's not a guarantee it will work, btw. But it could and it's a darned sight better than what they had.
26 posted on 09/15/2005 8:42:01 PM PDT by FreeLiability (Charge Criminals with crimes; Detain indefinitely enemy combatants until the WAR is over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FreeLiability
As an addendum to that last post of mine, for anybody who hasn't taken a good look at the proposed Iraqi Constitution, here's an Adobe Acrobat (pdf) link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_08_05_constit.pdf I note the FOLLOWING is responsive to the post to which I had been responding (i.e., it includes a slightly longer excerpt of the criticized section): "CHAPTER ONE: BASIC PRINCIPLES Article (1): The Republic of Iraq is an independent, sovereign nation, and the system of rule in it is a democratic, federal, representative (parliamentary) republic. Article (2): 1st - Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation: (a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam. (b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy. (c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution. 2nd - This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and the full religious rights for all individuals and the freedom of creed and religious practices. Article (3): Iraq is a multiethnic, multi-religious and multi-sect country. It is part of the Islamic world and its Arab people are part of the Arab nation."
27 posted on 09/15/2005 9:05:06 PM PDT by FreeLiability (Charge Criminals with crimes; Detain indefinitely enemy combatants until the WAR is over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FreeLiability
Instead of selectively quoting only a very small portion of the draft document, it might help to include the WHOLE draft Constitution. Because if you take the time to look at the whole thing (including the RIGHTS portion), you will find that there is, under the proposed Constitution, NO discrimination permitted on account of religious belief -- or apostasy even.


Your perfectly correct on that. I didn't want to print the whole worthless piece of paper, just article 2, because once you have stated that NO, not some, or a, or a few, but N O law can contradict Islam, then when they come up with women trying to get equal rights or Hindus trying .... to be Hindus without paying a subjugation tax or being treated as semi-citizens or when someone wants to teach that Islam is a false religion or that Americans are NOT infidels or whatever whatever else.... the shiites are going to say " Hey, that contradicts Islam".

Its as if 60 percent of America were card carrying ACLU MEMBERS and the constitution said that no law could contradict THE ACLU. The rest of the constitution would be out the window everytime something came up to the Supreme Court... Prayer in Schools, out....God in the Pledge of Allegiance, out.... protecting unborn babies from being aborted at a rate of thousands a day, out.... Homosexual in schools, raising children, in.... Damn, maybe I need to focus on our constitution needing some work, who knows.
28 posted on 09/15/2005 10:42:18 PM PDT by TomasUSMC (FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

bttt


29 posted on 09/15/2005 11:57:02 PM PDT by SideoutFred (Save us from the Looney Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

PING for later reading... so far, so good.


30 posted on 09/16/2005 11:00:09 AM PDT by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

In Search of Perfection
By Dave Cloud
http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleid.18746/article_detail.asp

The creation of Iraq’s constitution should have been an opportunity to ponder the incredible challenges of crafting such a document. Yet before the ink had even dried, the criticism began. Those who were against the war from its earliest stages were the most vocal and vigorous critics, and by simply pointing out the document’s imperfections and shortcomings, countless commentators joined the chorus.



And one can easily see why. Imagine, for a moment, a constitution that failed to include a sizable percentage of the population for the purpose of determining legislative representation. The same constitution counted others as less than one person. How, the naysayers cried, could this be a just country? Is this document worthy of so many American lives?



Moreover, the new constitution allowed for some members of the legislature to be appointed by other branches of government—not elected by the people. Is this what Americans fought for? The right of politicians to appoint cronies and insiders?



Making matters worse, the document gave the president the ability to suspend an alleged criminal’s right to be brought before a judge, charged with a crime, and given a trial. And under some circumstances, an individual could be arrested and be held indefinitely without charges. Is this freedom?



In case the previous shortcomings weren’t enough, the document was completely chauvinistic. The feminine pronoun was never used, and women weren’t even promised the right to vote. How could anyone support a document that showed so little respect for the rights of women?



What about human rights? Perhaps most glaringly, a mention of slavery found its way into the document—only to imply its continued practice. And even if a slave successfully escaped, he or she would, under the constitution, be treated as property and returned to the slave owner. Hardly enlightened, cried the critics. Brave young men died to perpetuate such a despicable institution?



Those worried about religious plurality also had plenty to worry about. The document mentions only one type of religion. All others aren’t even referred to by name. Though the document purportedly protects religious freedom for all, it only explicitly refers to one. Surely cause for great concern. In an era of religious intolerance, is this the best that could be accomplished after so many months of negotiations?



Would you, as an American, want to live under the constitution described above?



Well, you do. For you see, the constitution described in the preceding paragraphs is not the new Iraqi constitution. It is the U.S. Constitution. The one that the great British Prime Minister William Gladstone once described as “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.”



So can a great document contain flaws? Of course it can. Native Americans were not even counted for apportionment of representatives. Our beloved Constitution was not amended to officially prohibit slavery until 87 years after adoption. U.S. Senators were appointed by legislatures until 1913. The president can still suspend the writ of habeas corpus during times of rebellion, and Lincoln did just that. People of all races were not guaranteed the right to vote until 1870, and until 1968, that right was far from legit. Women did not receive the right to vote until 1920, 133 years after the founding of this nation. The only explicit religious mention is near the very end when the name of the Lord is invoked. What of Jews, atheists and others? Amendments were used to change some, but not all of these examples.



Remember this the next time you hear someone railing about the imperfections in the new Iraqi constitution. It took over 11 years from the time independence was declared from Britain until we arrived at a document agreeable enough for assured passage. And this was during a time of peace. The Iraqis, reconciling decades of hatred, have produced theirs in one-sixth the time and in the middle of daily terrorist carnage. Not perfect, but certainly not bad. Not bad at all.



Dave Cloud is a high school teacher in Pendleton, Indiana. This is his first column with TAE Online.


31 posted on 09/16/2005 9:20:36 PM PDT by Valin (The right to do something does not mean that doing it is right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

this was so smart. just brilliant.


32 posted on 09/17/2005 3:22:29 PM PDT by quesney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
"A woman approached him and asked;"What kind of government will we have,sir?".Franklin answered;"A constitutional republic,madam,if you can keep it!".

- An interesting anecdote, but probably misreported. Women didn't get the vote until the 1900's.
33 posted on 09/19/2005 5:25:45 AM PDT by finnigan2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: finnigan2
You could be right.

The phrase "a republic,if you can keep it";will get you about 12 million hits on a google search.

In some,Franklin is not asked by a "woman",but a "citizen" or "group of citizens".

34 posted on 09/19/2005 7:48:39 AM PDT by smoothsailing (Qui Nhon Turtle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Be realistic. This Iraqi constitution draft is the best and most practical thing that can apply to a Middle Eastern muslim society. It guarantees a lot of freedom and rights especially for women. It is written in this Iraqi constitution draft to have a minimum of 25% of their Parliament made up from women. In regards to it passing in the October 15 referendum, I will say it has over 80% chance of passing, but we shall see.
35 posted on 09/21/2005 8:31:54 PM PDT by jveritas (The Axis of Defeatism: Left wing liberals, Buchananites, and third party voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jveritas
I am realistic. By the comparison I make between the US Constitution's tribulations in 1787-89 and the Iraqi Constitution today, I am making the same point you did. That, in Franklin's words, this is "the best that can be arrived at" under the circumstances.

John / Billybob
36 posted on 09/21/2005 9:55:24 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (This Freeper was linked for the 2nd time by Rush Limbaugh today (9/13/05). Hoohah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

So, in summary: some of us agree that it doesn't HAVE to be "perfect." It is already a darn sight better than what came before it. And, frankly, for us to even judge it by the standards of our society is pretty ethnocentric of us.

It has a huge potential to "do good," and it may yet prove to be the start of something big (and positive) in that region.


37 posted on 09/22/2005 9:40:01 PM PDT by FreeLiability (Charge Criminals with crimes; Detain indefinitely enemy combatants until the WAR is over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

So, in summary: some of us agree that it doesn't HAVE to be "perfect." It is already a darn sight better than what came before it. And, frankly, for us to even judge it by the standards of our society is pretty ethnocentric of us.

It has a huge potential to "do good," and it may yet prove to be the start of something big (and positive) in that region.


38 posted on 09/22/2005 9:40:16 PM PDT by FreeLiability (Charge Criminals with crimes; Detain indefinitely enemy combatants until the WAR is over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

sorry for double post


39 posted on 09/22/2005 9:41:09 PM PDT by FreeLiability (Charge Criminals with crimes; Detain indefinitely enemy combatants until the WAR is over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson