Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should it go into the Constitution?

Options
  • 30-11-2006 7:21pm
    #1
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭


    Constitutions tend to be strongly aspirational. They set down some desired beliefs, rights and set a value of life within a given country. On that basis it strikes me as disingenuous at the very least and populist at the best the range of items that are up for inclusion in the Constitution. Embryos, EU constitutions and today the issue of the age of consent. The Constitution defines who we are and how we interact with the outside world. IMO it is not the place for populist and emotive issues that are best left to well-drafted legislation. Given that there is still a very grey area with teenagers close in age and the nature of what is or is not an embryo will have its day in court again, should we really have to vote on it?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Sangre
    Registered Users Posts: 12,169 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    There is no point in well drafted legislation if the court might just strike it down as unconstitutional.


  • Options
    #3
    Rebeller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 271 ✭✭Rebeller


    is_that_so wrote:
    what is or is not an embryo will have its day in court again, should we really have to vote on it?

    We are faced with yet another "when does life begin" referendum because of the failures of successive governments to give effect to the will of the people (as expressed in the various "right to life of the unborn child" referenda) through legislation.

    The majority of the electorate have clearly agreed to allow for the termination of pregnancies where there is a threat to the life of the mother. This suggests that the right to life of the unborn child, as protected in Article 40.3.3, is not an absolute right in the same manner that the right to life of an "outside the womb entity" (this of course is a matter of debate).

    We are faced with the question of whether or not the collection of cells comprising an embryo constitutes life (for the purposes of the above constitutional provision) because the government has adopted an ostrich policy (head in sand:cool:) instead of being proactive and legislating for this area.
    is_that_so wrote:
    IMO it is not the place for populist and emotive issues that are best left to well-drafted legislation

    I agree but the problem is that the protection of life of the unborn is already contained within our basic law (the constitution) meaning that it could only be amended/removed through referendum.
    is_that_so wrote:
    Constitutions tend to be strongly aspirational

    Well, the general view is that constitutions are in fact the foundation for all law in a constitutional state. No law may be enacted that conflicts with the provisions of such a constitution. They are therefore more than aspirational.

    They are a concrete (although not always clear) statement of a state's values and rights.

    However, in practice the constitution only plays its role of guardian where we have an active, informed President (e.g. Mary Robinson and not the current incumbent) or where a specific action is taken before the Supreme Court arguing a breach of a constitutionally protected right.

    I agree (if that is what you are suggesting) that there is too much of a tendency to amend the constitution itself instead of trying legislation. However, it could be argued that referenda are a far more democratic means of implementing the will of the people than parliamentary bills?


Advertisement