Iraq election (three days to go)

[Miguel Schor]

  _____  

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 11:16 PM
To: bpwilson at princeton.edu; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Iraq election (three days to go)

 

 

Query:  1)  The temporary law under which the constitution-drafting was to
be carried out suggested, among other things, that there would be
significant opportunity for public discussion of the constitution.  Does
anyone know (or even care) how many Iraqis have even seen a draft of the
constitution on which they will ostensibly be voting on the 15th.  Is this
like the House or Senate that votes on bills that no one except the majority
leader has even looked at?  (Again, do we care if this is the case, since we
apparently don't care that our so-called representative government in DC has
turned into a farce with regard to such legislation?)

2)  If you are a Sunni imbued with a "hermeneutic of suspicion," why in the
world would you take this compromise seriously?  Big deal:  A panel has the
authority to propose changes.  But then it will take a 2/3 vote of an
undoubtedly Shia-Kurd-dominated assembly to send them on to yet another
popular referendum.  Perhaps George W. Bush will appoint a bi-partisan
commission to suggest persons to appoint to the Supreme Court, though he
will first reserve the right to appoint whomever he wishes and secondly
point out that any choice will have to get the support of, say, 90% of the
Republicans in the Senate.  Would anyone take that seriously?

3)  If the operative assumption is that the present constitution, to be
voted on this Saturday, is "good for this trip only" since it will be open
to wide-scale revision, then why the rush to complete this draft and have it
voted on in a quite farcical referendum.  What lesson are we supposed to
learn from this process?  No doubt the White House will compare this to
Philadelphia and the Federalist deal to propose a Bill of Rights that they
initially wished to have no part of.  But, of course, the Bill of Rights was
of no operative importance in American constitutional life until the 20th
century.  

4)  Perhaps this will all work out for the best and Iraqi democracy will
begin taking root and the troops can come home in time for the 2006
elections so that George W. Bush can declare a famous victory in which no
one died (or was permanently maimed or left psychologically destroyed) in
vain.  But how many of you would put money on this proposition?  (I say this
as someone who has no real idea what a sound policy would be in Iraq right
now, since I do think that a premature withdrawal would simply bring on a
bloodbath of a civil war.  But perhaps someone might have thought about this
before invading the country in the first place--or, like Senator Kerry,
voting to authorize such an invasion.)

sandy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20051012/91cc880f/attachment.htm