Meanwhile, back in the real world (six days to go until the Iraqi election)

[Sanford Levinson]

I strongly recommend reading the following from today's Washington Post:
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/08/AR200510
0801352.html?referrer=email&referrer=email
 
Note especially the last paragraph.  Would it really be better if the
constitution passes because, say, only two provinces voted 2/3 against
it while the third voted, say, 60% against, or if it goes down because
the third reaches the 2/3 and forces renewed negotiations?  Why should
Sunni opponents of the constitution (and I am not defending their
opposition) treat as legitimate a process that simply disregards their
opposition?  Why isn't civil war marginally more likely if the
constitution is ratified with the vote described above than defeated?  
 
I trust that what will occur next Saturday is more important than
whether Harriet Meirs (or someone marginally different from her) makes
it to the Supreme Court.  So I intend to return to my prior role as a
daily nuisance re the news from Iraq.
 
sandy  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20051009/1819f32c/attachment.html