ARTICLE 2 OF IRAQI CONSTITUTION

[Reuben Gant]

Article 2 of proposed Iraqi constitution:

 

 

Article 2:

 

Para. 1: Islam is the official religion of state, and is a fundamental source for legislation.

a) No law may be legislated that contravenes the essential verities of Islamic law.

[KRC]

Article 2 of proposed Iraqi constitution:

Article 2:

 

Para. 1: Islam is the official religion of state, and is a fundamental source for legislation.

a) No law may be legislated that contravenes the essential verities of Islamic law.

416444[/snapback]

 

It will be interesting to see how that section works with:

 

Chapter 2

Article (14): Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of gender, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief, opinion or social or economic status

 

and

 

Article (16): Equal opportunity is a right guaranteed to all Iraqis, and the state shall take the necessary steps to achieve this.

 

 

 

 

It will also be interesting to see how this plays out:

 

1st -- Entities or trends that advocate, instigate, justify or propagate racism, terrorism, ''takfir'' (declaring someone an infidel), sectarian cleansing, are banned, especially the Saddamist Baath Party in Iraq and its symbols, under any name. It will be not be allowed to be part of the multilateral political system in Iraq, which should be defined according to the law.

[blzrul]

I guess is depends on how one defines an "Iraqi". In America until the last century, giving rights to "Americans" didn't mean women or other minorities were entitled to the same.

[KRC]

I guess is depends on how one defines an "Iraqi".  In America until the last century, giving rights to "Americans" didn't mean women or other minorities were entitled to the same.

416497[/snapback]

 

"Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of gender..."

 

That tells me that women have the same rights as men. The problem is that Islamic Law does not have the same equality. Which section of the proposed Constitution carries more weight?

[Reuben Gant]

"Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of gender..."

 

That tells me that women have the same rights as men. The problem is that Islamic Law does not have the same equality. Which section of the proposed Constitution carries more weight?

416500[/snapback]

Excellent point.

[UConn James]

The fact that they think they can realistically reconcile these things is proof positive that their ancestors had sex with camels.

[VABills]

I guess is depends on how one defines an "Iraqi".  In America until the last century, giving rights to "Americans" didn't mean women or other minorities were entitled to the same.

416497[/snapback]

1861 was two centuries ago. We had a little war over that little declaration. Good thing the Republicans had the balls to do so.

[VABills]

The fact that they think they can realistically reconcile these things is proof positive that their ancestors had sex with camels.   

416509[/snapback]

Don't knock it until you try it. Of course I won't be knocking anytime soon, but you're free to do so.

[IowaBill]

1861 was two centuries ago.  We had a little war over that little declaration.  Good thing the Republicans had the balls to do so.

416511[/snapback]

 

1861 wasn't two centuries ago unless you are using the same sort of math GWB does when calculating the results from his tax cuts. More to the point, to compare the Republican Party of the Civil War era with that of today is pretty much consistent with your math skills.

[VABills]

1861 wasn't two centuries ago unless you are using the same sort of math GWB does when calculating the results from his tax cuts.  More to the point, to compare the Republican Party of the Civil War era with that of today is pretty much consistent with your math skills.

416554[/snapback]

 

 

We are in the 21st century. The last century as debbie eluded to was the 20th century, the century prior to that was the 19th century and includes the year 1861.

 

Unless of course you are John Kerry, Howard Dean, or one of their supporters.

[SilverNRed]

We are in the 21st century.  The last century as debbie eluded to was the 20th century, the century prior to that was the 19th century and includes the year 1861. 

 

Unless of course you are John Kerry, Howard Dean,  or one of their supporters.

416564[/snapback]

Math is hard.

[IowaBill]

We are in the 21st century.  The last century as debbie eluded to was the 20th century, the century prior to that was the 19th century and includes the year 1861. 

 

Unless of course you are John Kerry, Howard Dean,  or one of their supporters.

416564[/snapback]

 

I'll grant you point on "century" and write off our disagreement to semantics. My point regarding your comparing the Republican Party of the 1860's to that of today still stands. The two parties have little in common, and your comparison between the two is ill founded.

[Reuben Gant]

Math is hard.

416579[/snapback]

Constitutions are harder.

[VABills]

I'll grant you point on "century" and write off our disagreement to semantics.  My point regarding your comparing the Republican Party of the 1860's to that of today still stands.  The two parties have little in common, and your comparison between the two is ill founded.

416582[/snapback]

So you're wrong on one, but not the other. Got news for you. You're wrong on both counts.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Constitutions are harder.

416583[/snapback]

 

Especially when you have to throw a bone to every screaming nutcase whose neighbor owns a gun.

 

I am, of course, talking about math, not constitutions.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

So you're wrong on one, but not the other.  Got news for you.  You're wrong on both counts.

416585[/snapback]

 

Why stop there? He also thinks Losman's doing well, and hates Daddy Day Care, I'm sure. That's four counts...

[Ghost of BiB]

Constitutions are harder.

416583[/snapback]

 

I tell myself that every morning.

[Dan Gross]

1861 was two centuries ago.  We had a little war over that little declaration.  Good thing the Republicans had the balls to do so.

416511[/snapback]

 

So minorities and women were given equal rights by the Civil War? The 19th Amendment was not necessary? The "Voting Rights Act of 1965" was not necessary?

....

[John Adams]

"Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of gender..."

 

That tells me that women have the same rights as men. The problem is that Islamic Law does not have the same equality. Which section of the proposed Constitution carries more weight?

416500[/snapback]

 

If you want to make a million bucks, found the Baghdad School of Law. The Constitution writers just setup Iraqi lawyers for the next hundred years.

[VABills]

Why stop there?  He also thinks Losman's doing well, and hates Daddy Day Care, I'm sure.  That's four counts...

416589[/snapback]

Those are subjective, and will grant leeway there.

[BillsWatch]

1861 was two centuries ago.  We had a little war over that little declaration.  Good thing the Republicans had the balls to do so.

416511[/snapback]

 

1946 was last century. That is when many of the anti-Chinese laws were repelled, the ones which declared that no Chinese could become citizens despite the fact that many had been born here and were several generations in the US. Slavery was not the end of discrimination based upon race.

 

Most people have heard of Ellis (Liberty) Island but most have not heard of Angel Island where Asian travellers were interned.

 

I attached one side of my daughter's project on immigration.

[VABills]

I tell myself that every morning.

416590[/snapback]

More fiber usually helps with that issue.

[Ghost of BiB]

More fiber usually helps with that issue.

416598[/snapback]

 

I'll start eating t-shirts and rope again.

[blzrul]

"Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of gender..."

 

That tells me that women have the same rights as men. The problem is that Islamic Law does not have the same equality. Which section of the proposed Constitution carries more weight?

416500[/snapback]

agreed - remember in America, women were "Americans" but had few rights. I do not believe the constitution specifically said "women are chattels and have no rights" but it was understood at the time that only men (white ones) were being addressed by the document.

 

I actually heard someone say over the weekend that, hey! even if Iraqi women are only given the rights that American women had prior to 1920,that would be ok. Lower the bar....

[UConn James]

If you want to make a million bucks, found the Baghdad School of Law. The Constitution writers just setup Iraqi lawyers for the next hundred years.

416593[/snapback]

 

And the Iraqi Supreme Court, or whatever it'll be called.

 

They should bother cantankering about "lifetime appointments" phrases. I don't think those will much matter.....

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

If you want to make a million bucks, found the Baghdad School of Law. The Constitution writers just setup Iraqi lawyers for the next hundred years.

416593[/snapback]

 

It almost makes you understand why so many are pushing for sharia law in Iraq. It may be harsh...but at least it's consistent.

[VABills]

Just because laws and acts were passed to enforce previously designated amendments to the constitution doesn't mean the rights weren't there. Just some folks chose through hatred not to allow them.

 

Article XIV.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

 

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

 

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

Proposal and Ratification

 

The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Thirty-ninth Congress, on the 13th of June, 1866. It was declared, in a certificate of the Secretary of State dated July 28, 1868 to have been ratified by the legislatures of 28 of the 37 States. The dates of ratification were: Connecticut, June 25, 1866; New Hampshire, July 6, 1866; Tennessee, July 19, 1866; New Jersey, September 11, 1866 (subsequently the legislature rescinded its ratification, and on March 24, 1868, readopted its resolution of rescission over the Governor's veto, and on Nov. 12, 1980, expressed support for the amendment); Oregon, September 19, 1866 (and rescinded its ratification on October 15, 1868); Vermont, October 30, 1866; Ohio, January 4, 1867 (and rescinded its ratification on January 15, 1868); New York, January 10, 1867; Kansas, January 11, 1867; Illinois, January 15, 1867; West Virginia, January 16, 1867; Michigan, January 16, 1867; Minnesota, January 16, 1867; Maine, January 19, 1867; Nevada, January 22, 1867; Indiana, January 23, 1867; Missouri, January 25, 1867; Rhode Island, February 7, 1867; Wisconsin, February 7, 1867; Pennsylvania, February 12, 1867; Massachusetts, March 20, 1867; Nebraska, June 15, 1867; Iowa, March 16, 1868; Arkansas, April 6, 1868; Florida, June 9, 1868; North Carolina, July 4, 1868 (after having rejected it on December 14, 1866); Louisiana, July 9, 1868 (after having rejected it on February 6, 1867); South Carolina, July 9, 1868 (after having rejected it on December 20, 1866).

 

Ratification was completed on July 9, 1868.

 

The amendment was subsequently ratified by Alabama, July 13, 1868; Georgia, July 21, 1868 (after having rejected it on November 9, 1866); Virginia, October 8, 1869 (after having rejected it on January 9, 1867); Mississippi, January 17, 1870; Texas, February 18, 1870 (after having rejected it on October 27, 1866); Delaware, February 12, 1901 (after having rejected it on February 8, 1867); Maryland, April 4, 1959 (after having rejected it on March 23, 1867); California, May 6, 1959; Kentucky, March 18, 1976 (after having rejected it on January 8, 1867).

 

Article XV.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

 

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

Proposal and Ratification

 

The fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Fortieth Congress, on the 26th of February, 1869, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated March 30, 1870, to have been ratified by the legislatures of twenty-nine of the thirty-seven States. The dates of ratification were: Nevada, March 1, 1869; West Virginia, March 3, 1869; Illinois, March 5, 1869; Louisiana, March 5, 1869; North Carolina, March 5, 1869; Michigan, March 8, 1869; Wisconsin, March 9, 1869; Maine, March 11, 1869; Massachusetts, March 12, 1869; Arkansas, March 15, 1869; South Carolina, March 15, 1869; Pennsylvania, March 25, 1869; New York, April 14, 1869 (and the legislature of the same State passed a resolution January 5, 1870, to withdraw its consent to it, which action it rescinded on March 30, 1970); Indiana, May 14, 1869; Connecticut, May 19, 1869; Florida, June 14, 1869; New Hampshire, July 1, 1869; Virginia, October 8, 1869; Vermont, October 20, 1869; Missouri, January 7, 1870; Minnesota, January 13, 1870; Mississippi, January 17, 1870; Rhode Island, January 18, 1870; Kansas, January 19, 1870; Ohio, January 27, 1870 (after having rejected it on April 30, 1869); Georgia, February 2, 1870; Iowa, February 3, 1870.

 

Ratification was completed on February 3, 1870, unless the withdrawal of ratification by New York was effective; in which event ratification was completed on February 17, 1870, when Nebraska ratified.

 

The amendment was subsequently ratified by Texas, February 18, 1870; New Jersey, February 15, 1871 (after having rejected it on February 7, 1870); Delaware, February 12, 1901 (after having rejected it on March 18, 1869); Oregon, February 24, 1959; California, April 3, 1962 (after having rejected it on January 28, 1870); Kentucky, March 18, 1976 (after having rejected it on March 12, 1869).

 

The amendment was approved by the Governor of Maryland, May 7, 1973; Maryland having previously rejected it on February 26, 1870.

 

The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Tennessee, November 16, 1869.

[John Adams]

Just because laws and acts were passed to enforce previously designated amendments to the constitution doesn't mean the rights weren't there.  Just some folks chose through hatred not to allow them.

 

416612[/snapback]

 

The equal voting rights weren't there for slaves. The original Constitution acknowledged "other people," i.e. slaves, by not granting them equal voting rights.

 

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

[VABills]

The equal voting rights weren't there for slaves. The original Constitution acknowledged "other people," i.e. slaves, by not granting them equal voting rights.

 

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

416660[/snapback]

Slavery was abolished by the times these amendments where enacted. You are talking the "original". My point was slavery and voted rights were given to everyone in 1860's, 2 centuries ago. Whether some people chose to ignore the laws was the reason for additional acts and enforcements of the laws later on. But the laws/constitutial amendments were there and enforceable.

[John Adams]

Slavery was abolished by the times these amendments where enacted.  You are talking the "original".  My point was slavery and voted rights were given to everyone in 1860's, 2 centuries ago.  Whether some people chose to ignore the laws was the reason for additional acts and enforcements of the laws later on.  But the laws/constitutial amendments were there and enforceable.

416667[/snapback]

 

10-4. Your friggin post was so long I didn't see you quoted the 15th Amendment.

[VABills]

10-4. Your friggin post was so long I didn't see you quoted the 15th Amendment.

416679[/snapback]

Sorry I had a FFS moment.

[Dan Gross]

Just because laws and acts were passed to enforce previously designated amendments to the constitution doesn't mean the rights weren't there.  Just some folks chose through hatred not to allow them.

416612[/snapback]

 

and the Supreme Court found that their means of discrimination were Constitutional. With respect to the 14th amendment the Supreme Court ruled that it "did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as he already had." So, if the states already had laws on the books that defined "citizens" as "white males," then the 14th amendment did not extend that definition to include minorities and women. Further, it hadn't been clear up until that point whether suffrage itself is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. In fact, the Court cited the 15th Amendment as "proof" that extra protection was needed to allow suffrage for all races. ( MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

 

But the 15th Amendment did not cover gender...thus the 19th, which did not happen until the 20th Century...and with respect to other laws, etc, while states were no longer able, per the 15th Amendment, to have election laws that limited voting to "white males," they were still able to limit and effectively prevent black voting by establishing literacy standards, maintaining the Poll Tax, etc.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Sorry I had a FFS moment. 

416686[/snapback]

 

Not often you write a post that, when printed and laid end-to-end, is taller than you are.

[VABills]

and the Supreme Court found that their means of discrimination were Constitutional.  With respect to the 14th amendment the Supreme Court ruled that it "did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as he already had."  So, if the states already had laws on the books that defined "citizens" as "white males," then the 14th amendment did not extend that definition to include minorities and women.  Further, it hadn't been clear up until that point whether suffrage itself is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.  In fact, the Court cited the 15th Amendment as "proof" that extra protection was needed to allow suffrage for all races.  ( MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

 

But the 15th Amendment did not cover gender...thus the 19th, which did not happen until the 20th Century...and with respect to other laws, etc, while states were no longer able, per the 15th Amendment, to have election laws that limited voting to "white males," they were still able to limit and effectively prevent black voting by establishing literacy standards, maintaining the Poll Tax, etc.

416688[/snapback]

 

You're right women where not given rights until last century. I meant to make that distiction and forgot. Sorry.

 

And again the rights were there, and I will say it again, through the general hatred of some people, the laws were not enforced.

[VABills]

Not often you write a post that, when printed and laid end-to-end, is taller than you are. 

416689[/snapback]

At least I know we are in the 21st century.

[KRC]

At least I know we are in the 21st century.

416707[/snapback]

 

It looks like someone earned a gold star today. Now, let's work on counting to 200.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

My, isn't everyone a bit chippy today?

 

Must be Hump Day Syndrome.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

At least I know we are in the 21st century.

416707[/snapback]

 

 

And 100 years ago it was 1999, because that was a century ago...

[Reuben Gant]

And 100 years ago it was 1999, because that was a century ago... 

416720[/snapback]

How long ago was 1799?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

How long ago was 1799? 

416724[/snapback]

 

Let's see...that was three centuries ago, and since we know from VABills that the Civil War was two centuries ago, that would mean 1799 was 216 years ago...