Originally posted by jEEZY
I never said what I think; the Constitution does not specifically apply equal status to women. I find it mind boggling that people think that unless the Iraqi constitution doesnt include protections, that are absent from our own, that it will be a failure. The fact is that our first Constitution was an abyssmal failure. Indeed, our Constitution as written has glaring deficencies, that have only been plugged through statute, not through amendment. Equal status for women is only through Title IX, not through the Constitution. The only protected classifications in the Constitution are race and religion, not gender, not age, not sexual orientation. When discussing Constitutional issues it is imperative to be specific and precise; without preciscion the text of the Consitution tends to be lost in peoples aspirations for what they wish it said.
I note that the Constitution does protect a womens right to vote, but that's it.
This discussion regarding the Consititution illustrates the fundimental mis-understanding that most Americans have regarding our Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States of America was written not to grant rights to the people but to grant powers to the government. It was intented to be an inclusionary document. Meaning that if it is not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution then the govenment does not have that power. This concept was written about extensively by Madison in the Federalist Papers. It was not understood by many then as it is not understood now. That is the reason we have the Bill of Rights. Many did not either understand this concept nor did they trust it. Madison was not a supporter of the Bill of Rights because he believed it diluted the inclusionary concept.
For example:
No where in the Constitution does it grant the Federal Government the right to restrict the people from posessing arms. Thus the govenment does not have this power.
The Bill of Rights states that the Congress "shall make no law...", thus granting a "right" to the people as opposed to a power to the government. A "right" that can and is interpreted in many was.
In the 1st, there is no room for interpretation. The government has no explicit power to restrict the posession of arms by the people.
In the 2nd, there is much room for interpretation, and manipulation.
How does this relate to the Iraqis? We have modified the text and the interpretatin of our constitution for over 200yrs. While a great document it was/is not a perfect document. To expect the Iraqis to preduce a "perfect" documents is unreasonable. They will achieve what they can and hopfully produce a document that will unite not devide the country. As the years pass I believe it will be changed and ammended as much as our own.
I only hope that they will understand thier Constitution better that we do ours.
