Ace,

If this constitution is adopted, I think there can be some positive developments that, like Instapundit likes to say, are a feature and not a bug. Being that the constitution is heavily weights lawmaking towards being driven by the legislature, and not a clerical elite, the debate of the rule of Islam will enter public debate for the first time. I think this is a positive development.

I argue the point in further detailhere.

However, after my original post, it looks as if the Sunnis are going to back out, and federalism may crumble. This could change the calculus greatly, and making my argument moot.

This tends to suggest a "lowest common denominator" form of lawmaking to me. For instance, a law mandating prayer 5 times per day would violate the "rights and basic freedoms" clause. So would a law mandating that women wear the abaya, or a law making possession of a Christian Bible illegal.

On the other hand, this does leave open areas where they're in basic conflict e.g. divorce law. A strict reading of this would suggest that there are going to be large areas where the Parliament is not capable of writing law at all, even areas where law is generally accepted as being needed.

Great. 1900 soldiers dead for an Islamic constitution and a civil war. And, most of you support this policy hook, line and sinker.

(what I SHOULDA told him was) a thought occurred to me just after I posted the last comment:

To me as an engineer, a thing is what a thing does. That's certainly the case here. In practice we're going to have to wait and see just what this constitution really does mean.

Great. 1900 soldiers dead for an Islamic constitution and a civil war. And, most of you support this policy hook, line and sinker.

Self-determination is a bitch, I'll grant you that.

I got problems with Islam having any part of the constitution, but its their constitution. They've got to write it, they've got to vote on it, and they've got to live with it.
Personally I was for making Iraq into "New Texas" but what they're doing is better than what they had.
Besides, its written on paper, not carved in stone.

It's called kicking the can down the road so the next guy has to deal with it, meanwhile hoping for the best. You know, like most of real life.

(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.

(c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution.

Hmmm . . . on the upside, there won't be too much legislation at all if this is interpretted literally.

It's called kicking the can down the road so the next guy has to deal with it, meanwhile hoping for the best.

Hey - this isn't supposed to be about Clinton's approach to terrorism, Iran and North Korea!

"A strict reading of this would suggest that there are going to be large areas where the Parliament is not capable of writing law at all, even areas where law is generally accepted as being needed."

Fine. So there was in evrey 19th century parliamentary democracy.

Baby steps, people. (What *about* Bob?) Not to infantilize. But this is the first pluralist constitutional negotioation between the Pillars of Hercules and the Hindu Kush to get this far and mean this much. Flashing on T.E. Lawrence here.

The more and the more freely they talk, the less they will fight. Juan Cole, for once, has it right - only people with no concept of true civil war claim one is going on already.

The more laws a constitution prevents, the better.

It worked for us for 140 years.