I dont know tons about the Iranian government, but i thought it was a constitutional parliament where a handful of unelected mullahs could overthrow laws if they violate Islam.
The US is a constitutional republic with a handful of supreme court justices who can overthrow laws if they violate the constitution.
Aside from the fact that US supreme court justices don’t interfere nearly as often or as intensely as the mullahs do in Iran, what is the difference? Is there any real difference?
The U.S. Supreme court is required to judge laws based on the Constitution in its present form. That form can be amended through legislative action (i.e. Congress plus three-fourths of the state legislatures decide and amendment is required). In contrast, the text of the Koran cannot be changed even if a majority of Muslims wish it, and the text is long and complicated and vague enough that pretty much any restriction can be rationalized (i.e. free internet access would be contrary to the “spirit” of Islam or some such).
All told, though, I seriously doubt many laws are tossed in Iran because they violate some tenet of Islam. More likely, many reforms are quashed because the Mullahs feel some aspect of Islam (as they interpret it) is being ignored.
The difference is immense. The Consititution says, essentially, that certain behaviours are to be protected and no laws can forbid them. The Koran and other holy scriptures dedicate much of their space by declaring certain behaviours forbidden and no law can permit them.
This site is a place to explore and learn.
The main problem with the Iranian system is the Council of Guardians (or Guardians Council). These are uneleved religions leaders who can disallow candidates from standing for election.
“uneleved religions leaders”…
that would be “unelected religions leaders”
Also, there’s more oversight of the Supreme Court than the Guardian Council. Court justices all have to be appointed by the President, who’s elected, and confirmed by the Senate, which is elected.
And the supreme soviet was a ‘constitutional’ government in which a whole bunch of unelected leaders could overthrow laws if they violated whatever in the hell they said they violated that day.
Stating things the way you did is just playing games with words. Defending a constitution is not the same as defending Sharia law or ‘Islam’. And the mullahs don’t just defend ‘Islam’. You can be a good Muslim and still get in trouble in Iran - all you have to do is speak up against the government. In other words, it’s an autocracy masquerading as a democracy. The elected officials have no power, and are chosen by the mullahs. There are no free elections of any sort in Iran.
I would rather argue that the two countries use similar means of excluding certain citicens from the assembly. In Iran its difficult/impossible to enter the assembly unless you are a mullah or run the errands of a mullah. In the US ints diffcult to enter the assembly unless you are rich or run the errands of someone(s) who is/are rich.
The judicial branch doesnt enter into it.