It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ratification Of Iraqi Constitution Taking Way Too Long

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   
After the Revolutionary War, the newly independent colonies got together and decided they were going to forge a federal government uniting all 13 of the colonies. The first “constitution” went by the name The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, or just the Articles of Confederation as they’re best known today. They were adopted in the second Continental Congress on November 15, 1777 after 16 months of negotiations. For three years they were held, but there were some major flaws that had not been expected in their writing. The people feared a strong central government, equating it with England, and wanted each state to maintain almost total independence. As a result, taxation was not mandatory, but if the states wanted to they could give some cash to the central government. There also was no executive or judiciary branch. On March 1, 1781, they were revamped to try to account for some of this, but it was like shaving a square peg down to fit through a round hole. Still, all decisions made to the Articles had to be ratified by [I]every[/I] state. No federal law could be made without unanimous consent.

Finally, on May 23, 1788, the current Constitution of the United States was ratified when New Hampshire became the 9th state to give the go-ahead. It’s adoption was now a supermajority, not unanimous consent. The actual document was completed on September 17, 1787. Over eleven years after they first had sat down and tried to create a central government.

It took the United States 11 years to adapt a central government that has been solid and effective. We’re giving the Iraqis a few months, and balking when they delay the process. America’s constitution wasn’t a few people who sat down, saying, “Ooo, that’s a great idea!” and writing it down. There was bitter debate, major contention, and a lot of anger. People had come out from oppression, and they wanted to get it right. Many people had their own concerns over behaviors England had exhibited, and wanted to do everything in their power to prevent that kind of abuse from taking place again. That’s also why the Constitution is just the framework for the government, and gives supreme authority not to the Executive, Judicial, or Legislative branches, but to the people. The people have the ability to supersede the government and change the law of the land through the Amendment process. If 2/3rds of Americans choose to, we could abandon the Constitution, even.

The Iraqi people had it far worse than we did. We had a tyrant across the ocean taking our money. They had a tyrant living at home taking their lives. They all have their own concerns, and they do not want to permit the same rule that came over them with Saddam to ever be capable of happening again. Can anyone blame them that they haven’t come to a decision yet, nor can you blame them for not going by unanimous consent? We tried unanimous consent, but abandoned it because it wasn’t feasible. Why are we holding the Iraqi people to such a higher standard, and faster standard, than we ourselves had in making a nation that has been so successful? Is it that the people who keep freaking out over the Sunnis and the [I]massive[/I] amount of time it’s taking want the government to fail? Or are they just ignorant and didn’t realize that America’s Constitution wasn’t written in a day or two?




posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Why are we holding the Iraqi people to such a higher standard, and faster standard, than we ourselves had in making a nation that has been so successful?


Who's 'we'? As far as I know, none of 'us' had anything to say about time limits put on the Iraqis to establish their government. While the claim is that the Iraqis are forming a democracy, it's unlikely to be successful under the thumb or the timetable of leaders of an entirely separate nation, the US (or the coalition)




Is it that the people who keep freaking out over the Sunnis and the [I]massive[/I] amount of time it’s taking want the government to fail? Or are they just ignorant and didn’t realize that America’s Constitution wasn’t written in a day or two?


Of those 2 choices, I vote ignorance. But I've been saying that for a while now...


Who is freaking out?
Who imposed this time limit in the first place?
Who 'imposed a democracy', for that matter?
Who is actually responsible for the mess over there?

I have no expectations for the Iraqi's Constitution. It's a sham, a joke. If it happens at all, it will be pure luck. So, I'm not complaining about the time issue. Anybody with a reasoning mind could see that imposing a democracy in the first place is ridiculous, and drawing up a constitution takes as long as it takes.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Unfortunately, it's both sides of the table. The media has been nuts with front page stories with headlines like,

"Iraqi Constitution Delayed Again"
"Is there any hope?

Other lovely things, such as talking about an impending civil war if this doesn't happen soon, using these delays as evidence that the Iraqi people are too base to live in a democracy (my words, they say not ready, usually). There has been a media assault against the competence of the Iraqi people and the massive amount of time it is taken.

Then there's also the Bush administration. Poll numbers are slipping, so a quick victory would look good for Bush. If he sets up a POS Constitution, or rather enforces an unrealistic time table on its creation, he'll look good, and whoever is the next president when civil war does break out, or the government collapses, will be at fault.

There's also this ridiculous demand that we pull our troops out of Iraq very quickly. We won't be able to do that until Iraq has a centralized, finalized government:

"Pull the troops, NOW!"
"Oh, the Iraqi people aren't going to be able to make it, they're going to fail and it's all going to be Bush's fault!"
"Pull the troops out, NOW!"

So, in my opinion, all sides are guilty of this, and all sides are using Iraq and the Iraqi people now as a pawn in their political game. It may not have started that way, but it certainly looks like it may end that way.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
should u be disappointed in how long it took for the Iraq consitution to work? u be really disappointed how long it took for the U.S. to ratified its own constitution.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
The Iraqi people had it far worse than we did.


You ever tried writing those fancy cursive letters with a feather?

I get what you're saying. But time has speed up considerably in the past 200 years. The conversation we're having now would have cost the lives of two men and pony and taken the better part of a year.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
I get what you're saying. But time has speed up considerably in the past 200 years. The conversation we're having now would have cost the lives of two men and pony and taken the better part of a year.


Assuming we lived where we do, as far appart as we (I suspect) do. The continental congresses were held in Philly (I believe) and all the delegates were there until they finished hashing out the original Articles of Confederation. That alone took 16 months, and it blew up in their faces. A lot of the 11 years was taken up through travel and communication, but it was also spent finding out how the new central government held up. Even if you could type and delete instead of having to start over to make it look pretty, there was a lot of debate and negotiations. A few months is not long enough, especially with 3 groups of people so divided. Bush is a fool for setting up and trying to hold to a timeline (setting it up isn't a bad idea, maintaining it is), and others are the same for expecting them to be able to do it well in such a time-restricted environment.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   
It did not take 11 years to create our constitution. It took roughly a year, from May 1787 to May 1788, and that included approx three months to create the document and the rest for the 9 states to ratify it. Also lets not forget that with the communications of the time and the fact that this was pretty much the first type of gov't set up in the world, a year is great timing. In modern times why should it not take a few months, perhaps half a year to ratify it? Their delegates don't have to travel hundreds of miles on horseback and read under the power of candle light.

Also it might not be a good for them to sign their CONstitution, has anybody taken a look at it? It resembles the Soviet Union's or the UN more than our constitution. Their is no right to bear arms, and on the whole issue of rights the document does not believe in the creator as their source of rights! Like the UN or USSR CONstitution rights come from the gov't! Unbelieveable, some people have no sense these days of real freedom!



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Maybe some money will help it along. You know how people with money think it can buy anything? How about some signatures?


Baghdad. The United States have offered to Sunni representatives USD 75 Million to sign the draft Constitution of Iraq, RIA Novosti announced, citing information of source close to the Constitutional Committee of the country, published in the Saudi daily Al Vatan.

Source



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join