How could the Irish constitution be replaced?

OTK

In some countries such as Frances there have been several constitutions (I think they're on their fifth Repuiblic now). In what circumstances could the Irish constitution be replaced with an alternative?

Tom Young

With great difficulty is the answer. The Irish Constitution is 70 years old this year and provides for various levels of protection to the organs of state.

I expect that the general system of Law and governance associated with a bicameral nation such as ours would preclude easy migration.

Essentially the Constitution outlines:

- The powers and functions of the institutions of state- oireachtas, executive, courts, president and the relationship between those bodies under separation of powers.
- The relationships between the citizen or non-citizen and the state – the fundamental rights invested in people.(Article 38, 40-45)

There are many types of Constitutional systems:

Written/Unwritten (UK), Flexible, Autochtanas, Unitary or Federal (US), Republican and Democratic (Ireland is a democratic republican system but this antedates the 1937 constitution (1948)– post 1922 we had dominion status with the UK Commonwealth and thereafter an increasingly diminished form of what De Velara termed external association), Theocratic, Unicameral or Bicameral (Ireland is Bi), Presidential (US), Parliamentary Sovereignty, Rule of Law, Separation of Powers.

dermot_sheehan

A referendum following approval of a new constitution by the Dail and Seanad


Re: Article 26 Abortion Information Bill 1996 holds that the people following the proper procedure laid down in the constitution can amend and/or repeal any provision

Tom Young

While of course that is technically the correct answer, the practicality of an entire replacement might be a little more protracted that merely approving etc.

OTK

I read up a bit about constitutions.

I didn't realise that the 1937 constitution is the second since independence. The 1922 constitution appears to have been introduced without a referendum.

In other countries new constitutions are introduced following a coup or general public dissatisfaction with the state. Usually there is a public vote to give the constitution legitimacy.

When is this bit in our constitution going to go?

"The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home."

It seems to guarantee women an income in exchange for doing the washing up.

johnnyskeleton

OTK wrote: »

I read up a bit about constitutions.

I didn't realise that the 1937 constitution is the second since independence. The 1922 constitution appears to have been introduced without a referendum.

In other countries new constitutions are introduced following a coup or general public dissatisfaction with the state. Usually there is a public vote to give the constitution legitimacy.

Well we had the war of independence and I think there was a vote on whether to accept or reject the treaty, a term of which was to adopt the constitution of Saorstait Eireann.

When is this bit in our constitution going to go?

"The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home."

It seems to guarantee women an income in exchange for doing the washing up.

It guarantees that women who have children will not be forced to neglect their children to work - i.e. they have to provide some measure of social welfare to mothers, especially single mothers.

OTK

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well we had the war of independence and I think there was a vote on whether to accept or reject the treaty, a term of which was to adopt the constitution of Saorstait Eireann.

I don't believe there was a referendum on the treaty - just a Dail vote.

It guarantees that women who have children will not be forced to neglect their children to work - i.e. they have to provide some measure of social welfare to mothers, especially single mothers.

I would take the phrase 'duties in the home' to be broader than child rearing. If the article referred only to parenting, then why use this phrase? What would an average citizen in 1937 consider to be a woman's duties in the home?

hullaballoo

I think the idea of introducing a new constitution generally follows some sort of uprisal, which is followed by some assertion that the old state is no more, and a new state is now in existence, which will be governed by a new constitution.

Technically, of course, a new constitution could be adopted by the process gabhain outlined. However, the practical reality is that it is unlikely such a referendum would gain credibility - let alone the prescribed weight in voters to get it passed. Of course, I could be wrong on that; it's just my take.

johnnyskeleton

OTK wrote: »

I don't believe there was a referendum on the treaty - just a Dail vote.

I didn't say there was a referendum, but there was a democratic method of adopting the constitution. In the context of your original question, a referendum is not essential to adopting a constitution, but now that we have a constitution which requires a referendum to amend it, we can only get rid of it by a referendum or by a major political event (such as another war of independence).

OTK wrote:

I would take the phrase 'duties in the home' to be broader than child rearing. If the article referred only to parenting, then why use this phrase? What would an average citizen in 1937 consider to be a woman's duties in the home?

Again I didn't say that it was limited to child rearing duties, but that it only applies to women with children i.e. mothers. The word mother makes it quite clear that it is inalienably connected to being a parent. Childless housewives do not share such a special position, and it is there to protect mothers who don't want or can't leave the home to work. It does not force women to stay at home, nor does it guarantee them an income to do the washing up.

In any event, what an average citizen in 1937 considered to be a woman's duties in the home is irrelevant - a constitution is a basic law that is not specific to a temporal or societal context.

johnnyskeleton

hullaballú wrote: »

Technically, of course, a new constitution could be adopted by the process gabhain outlined. However, the practical reality is that it is unlikely such a referendum would gain credibility - let alone the prescribed weight in voters to get it passed. Of course, I could be wrong on that; it's just my take.

Although given the ease with which some referenda are passed these days (and the child rights one looks like going the same way), I don't think it would be beyond the realms of possibility.

I could see politicians saying "You don't need such an old constitution which gives criminals all the rights, puts women in the dark ages, and means nothing to the ordinary man on the street" and then proceeding to replace it with something that makes as much sense as the Supreme Court decision in O v. Minister for Justice.