remember, all those laws are trumped by Islamic law, so freedom of the press only exists if the speech doesn't violate Islamic law.

So, if I'm a christian, and live my life according to christian values, yet islamic law usurps my rights as a christian, that's a good thing in your view?

Me? I'm an agnostic - don't know if there's a higher power - can't prove this is, can't prove there isn't, and therefore don't care.

Do I have the same rights as everybody else in the Iraqi constitution? In the american constitution?

Is the islamic law the same law that finds it the right thing to do to hang those convicted of homosexual activity?

No - I don't think declaring in the Iraqi constitution that Islamic law cannot be usurped is a good thing.

Oh, my. I swear, can anyone on the left even read the entire post. You will see, if you read the constitution that Article II, Section 1 is tri-lateral:

Islamic standards, democratic standards, essential rights and freedoms outlined in the constitution.

Moreover, if you read the next section...you have this:

This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the Iraqi people and guarantees all religious rights; all persons are free within their ideology and the practice of their ideological practices.

it either says islamic law cannot be trumped by other law or it does not. You cannot have it both ways - nor will they.

meanwhile -I wonder which of the above will get lost in the next three days?

I'm not saying they will get lost - I just believe a very close watch will be required over this country we've helped create over the next 40 to 50 years or so. This is, after all, to be Bush' legacy...

Paul! Where in our constitution is Privacy, Separation of Church and State, or Abortion mentioned in ours?

And remember, our constiution was ratified then amended. They could amend it to make women less than dogs. That's democratic Republicanism. Remember, our constitution that now (supposedly) supports the termination of unborn humans) still didn't allow women the right to vote until 1919.

PROCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nothing exemplifies the left better than impatience. Bad, bad, bad. No vision of 20 years, 100 years ahead.

It's not about immediate gratification. That is what escapes you. You argue that the root causes were decades (terrorists argue centuries) in the making. What plan after 9/11 would you, as a liberal, offer that would fix it in three to four years.

Uh, Aaron, calm down. All I said was that Islamic law may limit the other provisions in the document.

As it is written, the document is very simple, basic, and open to interpretation. That could be good, it could be bad.

I'm not being impatient, you are. I am taking a wait and see attitude. The point of your post was that you have drawn the conclusion the document is successful.

Pot to kettle!

And, uh, Aaron, your comment about women's right to vote is wrong.

and another thing

While we're at it, where does the constitution give the president the power to invade Iraq without a declartion of war from congress?

OMG, Bush DID get a declaration of WAR! It had some 16 reasons and was approved by a super majority of the senate to use force against Iraq if it didn't comply with UN resolutions.

What WORLD are you living in?

that wasn't a declaration of war. it was an okay to use force.

Paul, no more mincing words. Answer these questions (I am so sick of you just playing tetherball with facts).

1. When did women get the right to vote (sufferage) in the United States?

2. President Bush received a supermajority vote in the senate AUTHROZING WAR with Iraq if it did not comply to UN resolutions. When did Clinton receive such votes for his excursions in Bosnia/Kosovo or his 1998 bombing of Iraq?

3. Did you or did you not say the following about the Iraq constitution: "remember, all those laws are trumped by Islamic law, so freedom of the press only exists if the speech doesn't violate Islamic law."

Further, what is your constitutional law expertise tell you about the following Article: "It also guarantees: freedom of expression by all means, freedom of the press, printing, advertising and publishing," hmm?

What is it? Please answer these questions before you bless our site with your wisdom in other posts.

And, no, I am not "angry" or wound tight. I just want you to answer direct questions.

1. The constitution didn't prevent states from giving women the right to vote, as you stated ("didn't allow women the right to vote until 1919.")

The ... twenty first? amendment simply prohibited states from denying the right to vote based on gender.

Not the same thing, Aaron.

2. Authorizing war and declaring war are not the same thing. Though it is true the constitution does not explicitly prevent the government from interfering with a citizen's right to privacy, neither does the constitution grant the president the power to go to war absent a DECLARATION of war.

If you think it is a small difference, then why didn't congress simply declare war? It seems interesting the so called conservatives only want to follow original intent when it suits their purposes.

3. You're right, I did overstate the point I was trying to make. I didn't mean to say I was convinced that it would happen, simply that AS WRITTEN Islamic law could trump everything else.

I'm well versed in US Con law, but not constitutional theory. Having studied the evolution of our document, it seems to me that the Iraq document, as it stands, could be bent to the will of Islamist extremists.

Now, I believe in flexible constitutions, so I think that's a good thing for democracy. I just am taking a wait and see attitude. Sorry my original post was not clear.

Aaron, now a question for you. True or false:

Both Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education II (the main decision) were poorly reasoned decisions that unnecessarily introduced unnecessary arguments that were not based on the Constitution.

False. The Brown decision that separate but equal was a violation of the fourteenth amendment is not a loose or evolved interpretation of the constitution.

Roe, on the other hand, was decided on some mythical "right to privacy" that is nowhere in the constitution.

Lastly, you are really splitting hairs on the suffrage argument.

It's a very important distinction, not splitting hairs. Many states recognized women's right to vote, which would not have been possible had the COnstitution not allowed it.

True. Brown and Roe both were based on amateur science or socialogical data that most conservatives would say has not place in a judicial decision. If Brown had done what you say it did, it would have been a much better decision. Instead, it danced around with the effects of segregation on children, a wholly unnecessary exercise.

Why does it bother you that, ninth amendment aside, privacy doesn't appear in the constitution, but it doesn't bother you that Bush is fighting a war without the authorization called for in the same document?

ah yes, the old, if i ignore an inconsistency, it'll go away trick.