My column "Articles of Consternation: Iraq's infuriatingly vague constitution," dated Aug. 23, was based on the AP's translation of an excerpt of the draft constitution—and, in some respects, on Professor Juan Cole's translation of the same, or a similar, excerpt. I qualified some of my comments to allow for the possibility of crucial omissions. For instance, in itemizing some of the draft's deficiencies, I began one sentence, "Meanwhile, the constitution (or at least the part that has been released) says nothing about how the country is to be governed." I should have, at the very least, italicized the parenthetical caveat. For it turns out a subsequent—and much fuller—translation of the constitution says a great deal about the process of government. There are sections about the duties of the president, the parliament, and the courts—in the central government and in regional and provincial administrations. Contrary to one blanket statement I made, there is also a Supreme Federal Court that rules on the constitutionality of laws and interprets the constitution's text. I made a point that one article listed a set of qualifications that presidential candidates merely "should" meet; the later translation changed "should" to "must." In other words, on several points, the constitution turns out to be less "vague" than I made it out to be.

However, the full translation only strengthens my argument that the constitution imparts great power to clerics and Islamic law. I discuss this point at some length in today's column. But to state it again briefly, Articles 90 and 91 establish a Supreme Federal Court, which consists of "judges and experts in Sharia (Islamic law) and law," and which, among other things, will rule on the constitutionality—as these judges see it—of all federal laws before they are issued.

The full text does nothing to alter my earlier observations of what the constitution says about federalism, women's rights, regional security, or the distribution of gas and oil revenues.