Talk:Transitional Administrative Law (Iraq)

message: This needs to talk about the Shia's threatening to vote against. Secretlondon 21:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Should this article reference the old Iraqi Constitution? It was a rather republican document that might add a nice comparison/contrast to the current.
-Elliott Shultz
----
I'm not sure about this section:
Section A of Article 26 of the new constitution reads:
"Except as otherwise provided in this Law, the laws in force in Iraq on 30 June 2004 shall remain in effect unless and until rescinded or amended by the Iraqi Transitional Government in accordance with this Law."
Consequently, this makes it impossible for the Iraqis to redact any law created by the Coalition Provisional Authority when they take over on June 30th. The net result of this is that Coalition-established policy for Iraq will continue to govern it until a new constitution is drafted, which is unlikely to occur before the end of 2005.
However, by the 1/6/04 annex, "references to the Iraqi Transitional Government and its institutions and officials in this Law will apply to the Interim Government and its institutions and officials". So the interim government (before elections), like the transitional government (after elections), can overrule cpa orders and regulations
: The article, as quoted above, seems factually incorrect. The quoted section of the interim constitution states that the Coalition's laws can be changed ("by a three-fourths majority of the members of the National Assembly and the unanimous approval of the Presidency Council," according to Article 3). The commentary then contradicts that. Is there another restriction that prevents the National Assembly from, er, more closely tailoring the coalition laws and economic restructuring to the needs of Iraqis?
: Coalition-established policy on the other hand is far too slippery and vague a concept to use in a simple wikipedia article (it's more likely to muddy the waters than to clear anything up, especially if we don't define what sort of policy -- debt, oil, human rights, trade, occupation, taxation, privatisation, foreign ownership of enterprises, etc -- we're talking about). 
: For now, I'll just delete the conflicting statement. -Paul 17:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Old Iraqi Constitution 

message: I found this comment interesting, does any one know whether it is factually correct? "In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the two-thirds super-majority is characteristic of only one nation on earth, i.e. American Iraq". 
: For elections, he's probably correct in that a simple majority always wins.  For parliamentary votes it is quite common for a two-thirds or greater majority being necessary.  Especially for approving or amending a constitution.  The United States originally required a unanimous vote to ratify the Constitution of the United States#History. It was later changed to 9 of 13, just over 2/3 majority. --Klhuillier 22:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq's Transitional Administrative Law 

message: : Interesting, apparently, they even wrote law governing the taxation system. How predictable? See this quote " Orders 37 and 49 slash top tax rates from 45% to 15% - one of the lowest rates in the world. Order 54 erases all duties on imports to Iraq. Order 39 allows 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi companies except in the oil, gas and banking sectors." Source 
----
Under the section Rights
Supporters lauded the constitution's guarantees of "fundamental rights:
Is this referring to the transitional law or the constitution being drafted during the transitional period?  --Klhuillier 22:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalism export 

message: I think the transitional law is still in effect:
"Article 62. This law shall remain in effect until the permanent constitution is issued and the new Iraqi government is formed in accordance with it [my emphasis -- Cam]."
The current, still-sitting president and prime minister were chosen under the transitional law. A government has not been formed by the new assembly. Thus the use of the past tense in the article to refer to the law is premature, I think. --Cam 17:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of past tense? 

message: The new National Assembly elected on 15 December, 2005 is expected to meet in February 2006 to form the new government.
The article no longer reflects the current status. I would modify it, except i am not sure what the status is now. (I looked at the article to check.) --Kevin L'Huillier 04:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status in 2006 March 

message: It currently reads "by referendum of the on"
15:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word(s) missing in lead