[Congressman Billybob]

A timely piece which I believe you will find interesting.

John / Billybob

[Christian4Bush]

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

[inquest]

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.

[Congressman Billybob]

You, especially, should see this. Happy Birthday to you, too.

John / Billybob

[smoothsailing]

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 !!!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

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

[Tolik]

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.  

[sarasota]

Well done!

[King Prout]

good stuff, as ever.

[TomasUSMC]

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.

[TomasUSMC]

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.

[.cnI redruM]

Good thing the UN wasn't there to help out.

[Larry Lucido]

Good job.

[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.

[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.

[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.