A Bad Constitution – Won’t Get Ratified, Can’t Work

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 17 September 2005 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[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

[TomasUSMC]

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

[Celtman]

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.

[Jeff Head]

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.

[TomasUSMC]

Ok Celtman, you GOT to tellmehow2do THAT

SEMPER FI

[TomasUSMC]

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.

[FreeLiability]

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.

[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."

[TomasUSMC]

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.

[SideoutFred]

bttt

[WOSG]

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

[Valin]

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.

[quesney]

this was so smart. just brilliant.

[finnigan2]

"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.

[smoothsailing]

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".

[jveritas]

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.

[Congressman Billybob]

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

[FreeLiability]

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.

[FreeLiability]

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.

[FreeLiability]

sorry for double post