Constitutional Change

Dub13

As we all know each time the Government wishes to change or amend the Constitution, it must do it by holding a referendum.This can be a painfully slow process.In order to call a constitutional referendum, a proposal to amend the Constitution must be introduced in the Dáil as a Bill.The Bill must be passed by both the Dáil and the Seanad.The Bill is then submitted to the people

I think we should have the option other country's uses such a 3/4 majority of both houses.This could stream line a lot of Amendments and save us having to go to the people on every little change.

I would like to have the option of going to the people as well for big significant Amendments such as Lisbon,Nice,Referendum on Citizenship,abortion, and Divorce.At the moment we see to have a Referendum every couple of years and I don't think half of them are necessary.

I am not very up to date on how other country's handle Constitutional Change,I am sure there are some good systems been uses.Surly its time for a debate in this country about how we do it.

walrusgumble

Dub13 wrote: »

As we all know each time the Government wishes to change or amend the Constitution, it must do it by holding a referendum.This can be a painfully slow process.In order to call a constitutional referendum, a proposal to amend the Constitution must be introduced in the Dáil as a Bill.The Bill must be passed by both the Dáil and the Seanad.The Bill is then submitted to the people

I think we should have the option other country's uses such a 3/4 majority of both houses.This could stream line a lot of Amendments and save us having to go to the people on every little change.

I would like to have the option of going to the people as well for big significant Amendments such as Lisbon,Nice,Referendum on Citizenship,abortion, and Divorce.At the moment we see to have a Referendum every couple of years and I don't think half of them are necessary.

I am not very up to date on how other country's handle Constitutional Change,I am sure there are some good systems been uses.Surly its time for a debate in this country about how we do it.

really? explain?

you make it sound like the last number of referendums were not worthy of going to the people, i am sure you are aware of the past referendums and what they were about, but for purpose of this debate i list the referendums held in the past 10-15 years, they are as follows

1. July 1992 Eleventh Amendment - Maastricht - Pretty much big deal
2. Nov 1992 Twelfth Amendment dealing with right to life of unborn, was as you know rejected, and that would also be pretty much big deal
3. Nov 1992, Thirteenth Amendment (right to unborn, freedom to obtain information on services lawfully available in other countries) again big deal
4. Fifteenth - June 1996, Divorce - HUGE deal
5. Sixteenth - December 1996 - when bail could be refused - very important due to guarantees to liberty in the consitution
6. Seventeenth Amendment - Nov 1997 dealing with confidentiality of discussions and meetings of goverment in certain circumstances in teh High Court - Huge issues considering what we know about people in Dail Eireann now, important the people (who dail eireann are answerable to) got a say, regardless of the way they votes
7. eIGHTEENTH - jUNE 1998 - aMSTERDAM -
8. Nineteenth - June 1998 - amendment to articles 2 and 3, implementing Good Friday Agreement, Huge day for this island, very important ALL the people got a say,
9. 20th - June 1999 - recognition of local government and elections every 5 years, again important, allow the power to come more closer to the people as oppose to centralised Dail Eireann, (so was the plan)
10. 21st - March 2002 - removal of death penalty - ok that one was in effect out of law for over 30 years but still important admendment to show it was up to date
11. 22 admenment which dealt with removal of judges, did not get held as Oireachtas allowed it to lapse, but it would be important as the people would have empowered our politicans to keep judges in line and be a small bit more answerable to the people
12. 23 - March 2002, Incorportation of International Criminal COurt - giving more international law a say in domestic , important as its only the people who say when we should keep or give up our soverignity or be answerable to a higher authority
13. 24th - June 2001 - Nice I - we all know what happened there
14. 25th Amendment - March 2002 was rejected, again abortion - life related- again very big issue
15. 26th - Nov 2002 - Nice II
16. 27th June 2004 - Change in Citizenship - HUGE effect in ireland, stop potential abuse of citizenship by getting rid of automatic citizenship if you were born in ireland to non national parents
17. Lisbon - again important (as you have clearly stated)


all these issues were neccessary to be dealt

point is in the last 10-15 years referendums held have being of great importance, and i am sure you would be of that view. I say that anything that gives authority to another higher organisation like EU needs the people's consent. Same goes with the extention or reduction of competence enjoyed by the government, parliament and judiciary. Sometimes new rights have to be expressed. There is no point the people then complaining that EU do this that and the other or we are slaves to EU laws etc when the said people agree to ireland giving over its powers in certain areas created by EU treaties.

previous to that referendums dealt with age of voters, other EU related matters, removal of churches expressed special relationship with state, authority of adoption boards (huge significance in area of family law and rights of father), voting rights to certain non nationals, - all important issues.

Look at Lisbon, despite the support of majority of the Oireachtas and certain NGO's, the people made it very very clear on their opinion on it, whether right or wrong that was. how many parties make it clear in their election manifesto's what they stand for in for example the powers of government, fundamental rights of the person, or international matters. how many times have you really seen the EU proping up in election manifestos

even look at the divorce referendum in 1995, a time of change of opinions and attitudes - it became law by the smallist margins despite teh support of all in the dail and seanad.

the constitution is clear, you cant have it one way or the other, it is the people and only the people who can change the consitution as the laws and powers derive from the people. all the headings in the consitituion are of great importance and the deal with the mechanics of government, fundamental rights, powers of judiciary and others, governments power dealing with international groups.

some people take their right to vote seriously, if you believe a certain subject matter is not relevant to you, then you have the right not to go and and vote. i agree, though bring an admendemnt bill before the people, you never know this might actually be one of the first admendment bills that were actually a waste of time. how many people would actually vote for losing their right to vote in a referendum to change ANY part of the constitution? how many do actually trust people in Leinster House?

InFront

I don't think this would be a good idea. As it stands, there is a clear-cut requirement for holding a referendum - if you want to change the constitution, it must be the direct decision of the voting public.
While I agree there have been constitutional changes that could have been quite happily passed by the parliament, certainly a number of amendments that the previous poster claims were a big deal, the principle is there to protect from what could be some very debatable and subjective decisions as to whether or not a referendum would be required, and so it does act to prevent an abuse of power.

Who knows, if this were the case maybe the Irish voters, like their British counterparts, would not have had an opportunity to decline the Lisbon Treaty.

I think that Irish people prefer to have make their own decisions when it comes to the Constitution, and even if i agreed with your idea, i think most Irish voters would not hand over the baton on charge of that constitution so easily; after all they are its sole protectors and that is a tradition which I'm sure the citizens of many other countries would cherish.

Stabshauptmann

Dub13 wrote: »

I think we should have the option other country's uses such a 3/4 majority of both houses.This could stream line a lot of Amendments and save us having to go to the people on every little change.

WHAT?! :eek:

I don't think half of them are necessary.

Well I think walrusgumble debunked that point rather well.

I am not very up to date on how other country's handle Constitutional Change,I am sure there are some good systems been uses.Surly its time for a debate in this country about how we do it.

You propose changing the constitution of a country without the approval of that countries citizens. Yes, I can see you're not well informed.

turgon

Dub13 wrote: »

I think we should have the option other country's uses such a 3/4 majority of both houses.This could stream line a lot of Amendments and save us having to go to the people on every little change.

Or in other words once Fianna Fail and Fine Gael want it, it gets passed. No thank you.

Dub13 wrote: »

I would like to have the option of going to the people as well for big significant Amendments such as Lisbon,Nice,Referendum on Citizenship,abortion, and Divorce.

Would your full time job then be deciding which issues merit referenda?? Because unless you, in some sort of coup, can appoint your self to this position the Government would appoint a FF man. Now come the Lisbon treaty, do you think he would have sent it to the public? I think not. You can only have it one way or the other.

Overheal

Any ammendment to the constitution in any country is a big freaking deal, make no mistake about it. You should be so lucky a referendum is mandatory for a constitutional amendment: I don't think that's the case in the United States.

sink

Overheal wrote: »

Any ammendment to the constitution in any country is a big freaking deal, make no mistake about it. You should be so lucky a referendum is mandatory for a constitutional amendment: I don't think that's the case in the United States.

The US only holds referenda at state or local level and there is no provision for holding referenda on federal issues which would include the constitution. To amend the US constitution you would first require 2/3 of the upper and lower houses to introduce the bill and then it requires ratification by 3/4 of all states to come into force. The US constitution is interesting in that unlike most other constitutions including our own the existing text can not be altered and only new text can be added.

Sand

Any ammendment to the constitution in any country is a big freaking deal, make no mistake about it. You should be so lucky a referendum is mandatory for a constitutional amendment: I don't think that's the case in the United States.

I dont know about that - every fringe idealogical crazy group [ Youth Defence, some SWP front organisations, mysteriously deep pocketed agents like Libertas, washed up ex nationalist socialist terrorists like the provos, etc etc ] comes screaming out of whatever caves they live in to spread doom and gloom - regardless of the issue actually at hand. With a mob of totally uninformed voters [ "Ye wha?"] who view referendums as a chance to say "**** youse bastards!!!!", these guys get far more influence than they deserve for their crazy side projects. So we end up with a consitution thats decided by uninformed morons led by nutjobs who couldnt even get elected to run a village fair.

Not exactly an enviable position to be in.

Dub13

Don't get me wrong I think its a good thing that the Gov have to consult us on any major change,I just think we could do with a mechanism to change the constitution without going to the people.

For example the upcoming Referendum on child sexual protection,we all know whatever the Gov put to us will pass.

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

You propose changing the constitution of a country without the approval of that countries citizens. Yes, I can see you're not well informed.

Well it can happen in 26 out of 27 country's in the EU so it must not be a crazy idea.Sorry if I am not up to date on how the other 26 members went about changing there constitution,if this means I am not well informed then so be it.I presume you are well up on all EU members constitutional law...?

Dub13

sink wrote: »

To amend the US constitution you would first require 2/3 of the upper and lower houses to introduce the bill and then it requires ratification by 3/4 of all states to come into force.

There is actually 2 ways to amend the US constitution although one has never been used.

1)The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments.

2)The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about

turgon

Dub13 wrote: »

For example the upcoming Referendum on child sexual protection,we all know whatever the Gov put to us will pass.

Just the way everyone thought that Lisbon would be passed.

Dub13

turgon wrote: »

Just the way everyone thought that Lisbon would be passed.

I don't think you can compare a EU Treaty to Child protection legislation.

tolosenc

turgon wrote: »

Just the way everyone thought that Lisbon would be passed.

So Libertas is going to spread more lies, something along the lines of "How dare this crazed-euro centric nanny state, and Sarkozy, tell us not to rape kids. This bill means we'll all have to do military service!"

turgon

Dub13 wrote: »

I don't think you can compare a EU Treaty to Child protection legislation.

I wasnt. I was just saying that one cannot allow a amending bill to be passed without consultation simply on the presumption that it would be passed should it be put to a referendum.

walrusgumble

Sand wrote: »

I dont know about that - every fringe idealogical crazy group [ Youth Defence, some SWP front organisations, mysteriously deep pocketed agents like Libertas, washed up ex nationalist socialist terrorists like the provos, etc etc ] comes screaming out of whatever caves they live in to spread doom and gloom - regardless of the issue actually at hand. With a mob of totally uninformed voters [ "Ye wha?"] who view referendums as a chance to say "**** youse bastards!!!!", these guys get far more influence than they deserve for their crazy side projects. So we end up with a consitution thats decided by uninformed morons led by nutjobs who couldnt even get elected to run a village fair.

Not exactly an enviable position to be in.

but its their fundamental right to say and stand for what they believe in etc. in fairness could you really say that all pro lisbon treaty people really put a full and genuine effort into defeating libertas etc. it did not help when people like mary coughlan was caught out in the media as coming across as not knowing what lisbon was about. putting posters and leaflets about is a piece of pis* when you have the dosh, its winning the debates and going to the doors of constituents that matters. look at how each county voted. are all of these people genuinely guillable? did they all not know what lisbon was about? you cant blame any one else but themselves (ie dail eireann) for loosing the debate with the anti lisbon people. They are in politics for a living, they are use of this environment, they clearly took the people's loyality towards europe for granted by delaying their campaing (not just Fianna Fail)


i really do not believe the last referendum was a cause of f&ck those bas&ards in the dail . please we are not like the french;)


the line "uninformed morons led by nutjobs who couldnt even get elected to run a village fair" is very unfair - a huge proportion of people voted against it, now unless you actually know the backgrounds and details of such voters that is pretty unfair to assume they are idiots.

it is also unfair you referring to people who "couldnt get even elected to run a village fair". last time i checked that green party lady is a former MEP, and then you got mary lou mcdonald - MEP of the year, some while back. then that Richard Boyd fella swept the floor with many distinguisghed politicans durign the media circuit.

You seem not to realise who difficult it is to get elected without money, kissing arse and being related to the "right people";). in local politics its often about who you know and not what you know or stand for that gets you in. or if your lucky mammy daddy or uncle is vacating their local council seat for the big house in dublin and surprise surprise you get co-opt.

walrusgumble

Dub13 wrote: »

Don't get me wrong I think its a good thing that the Gov have to consult us on any major change,I just think we could do with a mechanism to change the constitution without going to the people.

For example the upcoming Referendum on child sexual protection,we all know whatever the Gov put to us will pass.

in this context probably but

well lets make and see what they put before us first and see what it provides, will it deal with age of consent? if so will there be a defence to innocent mistake of age etc?

. the divorce bill showed that one should not take people's decisions for granted.

Fratton Fred

When the country gets some decent politicians, then maybe the constitution issue could change, but I think we are a long way from that.

Maybe though, the Government having to put every major decision to the people gives them a get out of jail clause, which is why we have such bad politicians in the first place as they never have to make really tough, unpopular decisions.

Dub13

Another thing about the current system,with some referendums having very low turnouts it is only a small portion of the population who are making the decision's.Their is not much that can be done about this but maybe people are tired of referendums,I am not sure how many we have had in the last 20 years but its a lot.

McArmalite

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

WHAT?! :eek:

You propose changing the constitution of a country without the approval of that countries citizens. Yes, I can see you're not well informed.

Spot on Kaptain.

walrusgumble

Dub13 wrote: »

Another thing about the current system,with some referendums having very low turnouts it is only a small portion of the population who are making the decision's.Their is not much that can be done about this but maybe people are tired of referendums,I am not sure how many we have had in the last 20 years but its a lot.[/QUOTE

compleTE and utter laziness thats what it is., at it often those who did not bother their ar8e's who will be the first to make complaints on the way things are done, e.g various referendas dealing with europe. of course their is the practicalities of having no interest, not being in the country at the time, and the persons decision not to vote, etc

still one million votes is better than say 150 people in the oireachtas.

the reasons for so many referendums has come about by the changing attitudes and society. the 1960's saw great liberlism in irish courts and in turn certain matters needed to be dealt with on paper. issues like divorce and right to lide are expressed in the constitution, which as you know was written in 1930's - a very different time. it is only in the past say, 20-30 that dramatic changes ie post world war years that have come about worldwide, the written laws of the land needed to be changed in light of this.

dresden8

Our country, our constitution.

Muppet Cowan and plank Kenny (the second) are employees, they do what we tell them, not the other way round. (Theoretically)

Dub13

I know we are unique in Europe having to go to the people every time we need to change the constitution,is there any other country outside the EU that also has to do this..?

sink

Dub13 wrote: »

I know we are unique in Europe having to go to the people every time we need to change the constitution,is there any other country outside the EU that also has to do this..?

At least Switzerland, don't know but there could be others.

Fratton Fred

Dub13 wrote: »

I know we are unique in Europe having to go to the people every time we need to change the constitution,is there any other country outside the EU that also has to do this..?

So, what does this say about Ireland? (This could probably be a thread in itself tbh)

walrusgumble

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So, what does this say about Ireland? (This could probably be a thread in itself tbh)

that we are damn bloody lucky to have the privelige and rights to have a say in how the laws are made in this country.


we always here the words "bring power back to the people" or "power to the people" etc, well at least it has the potential of happening here at least there appears to be REAL democracy here, and a way to remind members of Dáil and Senand Éireann that it is the people of the country who have the power (to which the people authorise those powers to them) and that they are merely caretakers for 5 years (only problem is that that does nothing to quell their thirst for short term solutions to major problems, but that is all part of politics)


i might be trolling and for this i am sorry, but maybe its the attitude due to our history were irish people, for most part of its history (small exeption such as grattons parliament in college green) were ruled by another state. it was very much the ordinary people who created this state. i guess when the local government act came in in the 1890's people liked to have power to rule for themselves? maybe de valera, who at the time, some in this country and even ROME, believed or feared that ireland would be ran by a dicatator, brought it in to quash those fears?.

we are also lucky that our government can't just willy nilly bring any piece of legislation in if its possible it violates the consitution, as (as you know) the president has the power to challenge it in the supreme court and we the people can challenge the legisalation if it violates our consitutional rights (so long as one has locus standi to do so of course)

turgon

Dub13 wrote: »

Another thing about the current system,with some referendums having very low turnouts it is only a small portion of the population who are making the decision's.

If people dont exercise their right to vote then its their own fault if there lives are negatively effected by it.

BTW Denmark too.