The Irish Constitution

partyguinness

Ireland has the longest surviving Constitution in Europe and many countries in Africa/S America consulted it when drafting their own Constitutions.

Just a little fact.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

partyguinness

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You must remember most countries basically started from scratch after WWII with their constitutions.

Belgium is not a Republic.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

partyguinness

Yes thats true. Perhaps I should have clarified i was referring to Republican constitutions in the EU.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

partyguinness

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The Constitution has been in place since the 29th December 1937 with the first President being elected in June 1938. The 1949 Act was only a legislative formality.

turgon

partyguinness wrote: »

The Constitution has been in place since the 29th December 1937 with the first President being elected in June 1938. The 1949 Act was only a legislative formality.

Nottrue, it repealed the External Relations Act of 1936, which had the King as head of state in external relations. It wasnt a republic until the Republic of Ireland Act in 1949.

ChocolateSauce

Deleted User wrote: »

1) The US Constitution is in no way subservise or revolutionary. The US did not have a revolution, it had a rebellion. This has been an area of argument for historians for a while so I am willing to accept that others may not share my view. However the US Constitution just put ideas which had been polished and shined in the Enlightenment into practical effect. The French Revolution was massively subversive and revolutionary. The American "Revolution" was just the next one.

Not subversive? Are you joking? Have you ever read it? In the second section it forbids the government from making guns illegal. The primary purpose of this section is to make sure that the people have the ability to rise up against the government in armed insurrection if it should ever become oppressive. The constitution asserted that power came from the people and that all men were born equal. It also asserted that government had no right to silence detractors- can you imagine how this must have looked to the monarchies of Europe at the time? Subversive is a word that comes to mind. The French revolution came after the US (and arguably because of it).

2) I think Warren Harding would disagree with the idea that the US Constitution does not guarantee or confer rights. The First 10 amendments to it aside (I think they called those ten something...The Bill of...Rights?) were a recognition that the Constitution in its original form was woefully lacking in its protections. Furthermore the doctrine of unenumerated rights presupposes that the Constitution guarantees rights, even if not always explicitly. Oh and in case you say this is revolutionary, there had been an English Bill of Rights which guaranteed rights of citizens against the monarch through their representatives.

Well there are many people (myself included) who disagree with Warren Harding on that one; rights cannot be given, only guaranteed. If it is given it is a privilege, not a right. The US constitution does not confer any rights (saying only that man is born with certain (unspecified) inalienable ones), what it does is forbids the government from passing certain laws, for example anti-freedom of speech laws. The original constitution, as you put it, was scrapped and the modern constitution was the founding document of the country. The bill of rights is the first 10 articles of the constitution and is the part which forbids the government from interfering with people's rights; the remainder lays out the structure of the states and the government, creating the checks and balances. I must also assume you are joking when it comes to the English bill of rights; to say that in 1800 the English were in any measure as free as the Americans is a gross miscalculation.

3) Your point about corruption not being possible as it is in Ireland is either blindly naive or just idiotic. Lobby groups in the US and special interests groups are as capable of influencing politicians in the US as they are anywhere. To say otherwise is just silly. The imperial Presidency has lead to a monarch-like situation in the US which makes the President almost impossible to touch. Even the legal position of Rex non potest peccare which exists in the US is a nod to the strength of the Presidency.

My point about corruption is that it is far less likely in the government. If there is a corrupt member of government, the president is the one who answers for it- ie the whole government. Not like here where even if the head of government (Bertie) is corrupt, the government continues.

When exactly did I say politicians couldn't be influenced by lobby groups?

You exaggerate the office of president by a long shot, almost certainly because of the last 8 years. Bush was a powerful president for his first 6 years because his party also controlled both houses, but there have been presidents (like Cleaveland) who were totally lame because they couldn't get any of their legislation through. Yes, the president as the head of state and of government is a powerful man, but he is limited by 2 terms only and by the constitution and by the Congress and the Senate and he is the only person in the whole country directly elected by the whole country. If the houses are against him strongly enough, they can overturn his veto and even remove him from office.

4) The Supreme Court has the power to strike down laws but in America not only does the President appoint the Supreme Court justices but the Senate has to confirm them. This is hardly the clearest example of separation of powers. I am not for a moment saying our system is better, I am simply pointing out that the US system is not the beacon of democracy that you paint it as.

On the contrary, your example above is a fantastic example of seperation of powers. The elected head of state appoints New justices (he cannot remove old ones), who must be confirmed by the elected Senate, which represents the states, not the people. The court has the power to strike down laws made by the Senate but has very little power over the president, and the Senate/Congress has power over the President (purse strings, the power to declare war, the power to remove him and pass laws even against his wishes, etc).

Bush has seriously eroded freedom and democracy, but he as done so illegally, playing on fear and using his republican cronies to help him (the fact that many Americans appear to be idiots doesn't help), but the unspoiled structure of the state(s) is the finest in the world, though by no means perfect. But that's what democracy is- the acceptance that there can be no perfect state or government, and the hope of a compromise.



On another note, I'd just like to point out that it is imperative that the courts are never elected, and a judge's opinion is supposed to be irrelevant. A good judge will always act in accordance of the law, which is decided by the people.

The Taoiseach has almost no express powers in the Constitution. It is the Oireachtas that determines the powers of the Taoiseach.

And it just so happens that Oireachtas will invariably be controlled by the party which is headed by the Taoiseach.

I am not afraid of it! I love that our Constitution can be amended only by a popular vote. It is the most beautiful element of the document, it is what keeps it alive and makes it so flexible when the will of the people demands it.

In one state, this is all very well and good, but in a federation of 50 states you cannot have a nation-wide referendum. It would mean the people of one state are having a constitutional say in the affairs of another. In the US, the constitution can only be amended if 75% of the states vote to do so.

They were already in place in England, France, Italy, the Netherlands etc through the Enlightenment.

The American revolution happened in 1776. At that time Britain was the only major country in Europe which was not an absolute monarchy. Ireland became a part of Britain in 1801. Britain was controlled by the upper-classes almost exclusively. It wasn't until around 1840 that even the middle classes had a say, and 1918 that the vote was extended to all men.

That three fifths refers to the slaves, African Americans who the framers distinguished from the self evident truth that all men are created equal because black people were not real people at all, simply three-fifths of a real person. Not exactly a shining declaration of the virtue of the land of hope and glory.

Yes, but blacks weren't people, as you said. Today, the US is one of the least racist places on Earth. Don't come back and tell me it's a problem there, I know it is, it is everywhere. I'm just saying relative to other places.

I have to go now to get the last bus, I'll see if I can get around to more later.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Raven.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

According to Wikipedia:

A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle described two types of political revolution:
1. Complete change from one constitution to another
2. Modification of an existing constitution.[1]

Rebellion is a refusal of obedience[1]. It may therefore be seen as encompassing a range of behaviors from civil disobedience and mass nonviolent resistance, to violent and organized attempts to destroy an established authority such as the government. Those who participate in rebellions are known as "rebels".

donegalfella

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's actually quite a contentious area within historical circles. EDIT: The Raven's definitions are perfect.

Russia and France totally changed the way the country was run.

Arguably America simply altered their system slightly to cope with a non-monarchist system. The President is the head of state in a pre-Cromwellian monarch-esque way, albeit with constraints on his powers. The bi-cameral legislature of the Houses of Congress are structurally similar to the British system. The Cabinet is reflective of the King's Privy Council. There is no monumental overhaul in terms of administrative formation.

Certainly there is a philosophical shift in the position of the US from that of the British but in a pre-Benthamite Britain (actually Bentham was a contemporary of the Declaration of Independence but his influence in American thinking is difficult to gauge given his distinct lack of publishing talent.) it is hardly surprising that a shift in the idea of the source of the State's power was considered radical.

In a strict linguistic sense the American war of independence was a rebellion rather than a revolution. However the terms are so interchangeable in modern parlance that it is a semantic distinction used more to point to the relative lack of innovation in the formation of the US administrative system of government. Remember the whole thing started over them just wanting a say in Westminster. They didn't disagree with the system, just how they were being forced to interact with it, so when they came to design their own system they based it on the model which they knew best.

cson

And when De Valera came to design the Constitution he based it on the model he knew best; as far removed from the Crown as possible

This has been very interesting, great input from all sides.

ChocolateSauce

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Not subversive? Are you joking? Have you ever read it? In the second section it forbids the government from making guns illegal. The primary purpose of this section is to make sure that the people have the ability to rise up against the government in armed insurrection if it should ever become oppressive. The constitution asserted that power came from the people and that all men were born equal. It also asserted that government had no right to silence detractors- can you imagine how this must have looked to the monarchies of Europe at the time? Subversive is a word that comes to mind. The French revolution came after the US (and arguably because of it).

A few things on this section:

1)Nothing you have stated above was an original idea. It all came from Enlightenment thinkers, every last thing. Even some of the Enlightenment thinkers ideas went back as far as the 2nd century BC. The US simply put it into practise, and even then they did not put it into practise fully. (all men are created equal - not getting into that one again but still...)

As for the French Revolution thing, that was a slip on my part and an inexcusable one.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Well there are many people (myself included) who disagree with Warren Harding on that one; rights cannot be given, only guaranteed. If it is given it is a privilege, not a right. The US constitution does not confer any rights (saying only that man is born with certain (unspecified) inalienable ones), what it does is forbids the government from passing certain laws, for example anti-freedom of speech laws. The original constitution, as you put it, was scrapped and the modern constitution was the founding document of the country. The bill of rights is the first 10 articles of the constitution and is the part which forbids the government from interfering with people's rights; the remainder lays out the structure of the states and the government, creating the checks and balances. I must also assume you are joking when it comes to the English bill of rights; to say that in 1800 the English were in any measure as free as the Americans is a gross miscalculation.

Are you arguing against the unenumerated rights doctrine? This may be a philosophical difference between us on our ideas of where "rights" come from. Although you make the point that rights are not given but guaranteed which is interesting as I use the word guaranteed 3 times in the section you quote and confer once, and then only referring to Harding's position. As I stated in another post in this thread constitutional rights are there to protect the citizens from the machinations of the state. That is exactly what the English Bill of Rights purported to do.

Also, claiming that England in the 1800's was less free than America is ok as long as you are referring to the monied classes. Slavery was abolished in England in 1833, 30 years before the American Civil War. A direct comparison of England and the US at the time though is, of course, completely pointless as the US had massive territorial expansion going on and the UK was sitting in the middle of Europe which was going through enormous wars every 10 or so years and England was having a problem with Napoleon trying to take over Europe at the time. Makes the promotion of civil liberties a little more difficult than the systematic genocide of an indigenous population does in America wouldn't you agree?

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

My point about corruption is that it is far less likely in the government. If there is a corrupt member of government, the president is the one who answers for it- ie the whole government. Not like here where even if the head of government (Bertie) is corrupt, the government continues.

What happened after Nixon resigned? Did his administration collapse?

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

You exaggerate the office of president by a long shot, almost certainly because of the last 8 years. Bush was a powerful president for his first 6 years because his party also controlled both houses, but there have been presidents (like Cleaveland) who were totally lame because they couldn't get any of their legislation through. Yes, the president as the head of state and of government is a powerful man, but he is limited by 2 terms only and by the constitution and by the Congress and the Senate and he is the only person in the whole country directly elected by the whole country. If the houses are against him strongly enough, they can overturn his veto and even remove him from office.

You criticise Ireland because of the party system allowing Bertie and co. to get away with things but then when the same thing happens in the US you seem less concerned. Bush got legislation that limited civil liberties, legalised torture and bugging civilians on US soil through because of a willing Congress. Bush oversaw Abu Ghraib and never even got a censure motion. Clinton got a blowjob (not against any law I am aware of) and got an impeachment procedure. Who acted less Presidential?

The two term limited was only introduced in 1951 and it was just a convention before that helped by circumstance and accepted behaviour. Also, as someone clearly read on American Constitutional theory, you should know that the people do not directly elect the President.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

On the contrary, your example above is a fantastic example of seperation of powers. The elected head of state appoints New justices (he cannot remove old ones), who must be confirmed by the elected Senate, which represents the states, not the people. The court has the power to strike down laws made by the Senate but has very little power over the president, and the Senate/Congress has power over the President (purse strings, the power to declare war, the power to remove him and pass laws even against his wishes, etc).

Again I think our differences here are down to how we view things. Though all politics are local, I am of the opinion that the party system erodes the heart of democracy and makes the argument for Senate -v- Judiciary -v- Executive more one of theory than of reality. As Justice Clark wrote about Japanese internment during the Second World War:

The truth is—as this deplorable experience proves—that constitutions and laws are not sufficient of themselves...Despite the unequivocal language of the Constitution of the United States that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, and despite the Fifth Amendment's command that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, both of these constitutional safeguards were denied by military action under Executive Order 9066

Who exactly is empowered to sign Executive Orders? It is not just Bush that abuses the power of the Presidency.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Bush has seriously eroded freedom and democracy, but he as done so illegally, playing on fear and using his republican cronies to help him (the fact that many Americans appear to be idiots doesn't help), but the unspoiled structure of the state(s) is the finest in the world, though by no means perfect. But that's what democracy is- the acceptance that there can be no perfect state or government, and the hope of a compromise.

I don't quite get what you mean by the highlighted part to be honest. As for the acceptance of the system not being perfect, of course the US system accepts that. The words, "We the people, In order to form a more perfect Union" seem apt as evidence.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

On another note, I'd just like to point out that it is imperative that the courts are never elected, and a judge's opinion is supposed to be irrelevant. A good judge will always act in accordance of the law, which is decided by the people.

Many US judges are elected, including State Supreme Court judges. As for good judges opinions not mattering, again we are into a philosophical argument about the role of judges in terms of legislating from the bench. Also, people do not make the law, legislators do. But again we are into theories on the creation of valid laws so lets move on.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

In one state, this is all very well and good, but in a federation of 50 states you cannot have a nation-wide referendum. It would mean the people of one state are having a constitutional say in the affairs of another. In the US, the constitution can only be amended if 75% of the states vote to do so.

Why is that bad? One nation under God, indivisible after all. Also, regardless of how it is done, one State will have a say in the affairs of another given the Senators are supposed to be State representatives.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The American revolution happened in 1776. At that time Britain was the only major country in Europe which was not an absolute monarchy. Ireland became a part of Britain in 1801. Britain was controlled by the upper-classes almost exclusively. It wasn't until around 1840 that even the middle classes had a say, and 1918 that the vote was extended to all men.

I said the ideas were in place. I still maintain that. I never made any argument about practical effects.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Yes, but blacks weren't people, as you said. Today, the US is one of the least racist places on Earth. Don't come back and tell me it's a problem there, I know it is, it is everywhere. I'm just saying relative to other places.

I'm not interested in arguing race relations in the US as it is a poisoned chalice and not in the scope of this debate. My point wasn't about the US today though, it was simply refuting your claim about the US Constitution being such a laudible document. The 14th Amendment removed the term 3/5ths of all other persons after the Civil War anyway.

cson

cson wrote: »

And when De Valera came to design the Constitution he based it on the model he knew best; as far removed from the Crown as possible

This has been very interesting, great input from all sides.

If you want a really good book on Bunreacht na hEireann you should read "The Making of the Irish Constitution" by Dermot Keogh (my old Prof. down in UCC) and Andrew McCarthy. It is a brilliant book on the drafting process and the reasoning/political manouevring that went on to make the 1937 Constitution.

It also contains copies of the original correspondence and early drafts so it is a serious eye opener

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

partyguinness

turgon wrote: »

Nottrue, it repealed the External Relations Act of 1936, which had the King as head of state in external relations. It wasnt a republic until the Republic of Ireland Act in 1949.

What is not true? Yes it wasnt a republic until 1949 but the Constitution has been in place since the December 1937.

donegalfella

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You're welcome.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Perhaps, less so in France than in Russia.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I will ignore the subtle reference that I am being hoodwinked by some left-wing anti-American conspiracy. I am fully aware of the historiographical bias of those whom I choose to read. My opinions on the US Constitution are my own. If you read back over what I said I stated that the US Constitution contained many revolutionary ideas, but that those ideas were not of American design. Instead they came from Enlightenment thinkers. Even the writer of "Common Sense" was an Englishman. Structurally there really is no denying that the US model is very close to the British one. In fact I notice you have not denied it at all.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Two things about this:

1) I would consider myself left-leaning in terms of my politics and I, as evidenced by my previous posts, think that the Bill of Rights is a fantastic document. My criticisms are never levelled against the intention, just against the implementation of those intentions which, due to drafting issue and political realities of the time, has lead to problems further down the line as the US has grown to a size which the original Framers could not possibly have foreseen.

2) This is slightly off-topic but still: I have stated more than once in this thread that the purpose of a right in a Constitutional sense is to protect a citizen from the machinations of the State. This in and of itself contains a presupposition that the State shall exercise its power for the betterment of the people as a whole. Rights are there to ensure that Government doesn't overstep its boundaries.

The ideological difference between the left and the right as to how Government should interact with the people should not spill over into a subtle attempt to undermine my arguments as misinformed because I am unaware of some liberal agenda trying to turn me against Thomas Jefferson & co.

Also the agenda of the left isn't to assert the State's power over the people, it is to use the State's power to make a better society, a more perfect Union. Liberals in America abolished slavery, liberals passed the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Clean Air Act. Liberals established the New Deal. Conservatives passed the Patriot Act, approving domestic surveillance and tracking measures that made civil liberties advocates balk. This was all done under the cover of "country" and "patriotism".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

donegalfella

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I am only gonna reply to this cause we are definitely hijacking this thread.

1) I never said a liberal (and I use the true meaning of the word, not the US one) had to be a Democrat and a conservative a Republican. I mentioned the abolition of slavery as a liberal achievement. That was a Republican President.

2) You cannot definitely say the New Deal extended the Depression. The only country in the world that had a booming economy by 1935 was Germany and for well documented reasons. Also, it was unregulated American capitalism that lead to the Wall Street Crash, which, in turn, led to the calling in of loans from the Weimar Republic, which caused huge job losses and lead to the country being so downtrodden that it turned to anyone with a promise of work and prosperity. The American Dream was a causative factor in the rise of Nazism. (Godwin's Law be damned!) It was one of many factors, but one nonetheless. State oversight and regulation of industry is a necessary compromise to ensure stability. State assistance in times of dire economic need is equally so. FDR was the only President ever elected 3 times. He can't have been all that bad (although I do disagree with his internment policy, as I have states previously)

cson

To get back more toward the topic at hand, from studying the implementation of EU Law of late, I'm of the opinion that Irish Electorate has ceded the external soveriegnty of the state through the amending Article 29-4-10.

Effectively the Constitution is irrelevant with regard to EU Law.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cson

Article 26.6 does not apply with regard to EU Law. If there is a conflict between EU Law and the Constitution, EU Law will prevail.

RDM_83

Slightly of topic, but
what is the Constitutional status of Northern Ireland and its citzens now that articles 2 and 3 have been removed, I'm asking because recently renewed my (ROI) passport, and after carefully reading through all the conditions I noticed no mention on Northern Ireland at all (with the exception of refering to a british act to do with non-EU nationals in Northern Ireland _i think). I seem to remember Ireland was mentioned (as far as I know Ireland does not exist (politically and legaly)
Comparing it to the terms when I first applied when Northern Ireland was mentioned many times with clear criteria etc.

ChocolateSauce

Deleted User wrote: »

A few things on this section:

1)Nothing you have stated above was an original idea. It all came from Enlightenment thinkers, every last thing. Even some of the Enlightenment thinkers ideas went back as far as the 2nd century BC. The US simply put it into practise, and even then they did not put it into practise fully. (all men are created equal - not getting into that one again but still...)

Yes, great, mostly European enlightenment thinkers whom I admire more than any other group of people. The US was founded by these people who were the first to put it into practice.

Are you arguing against the unenumerated rights doctrine? This may be a philosophical difference between us on our ideas of where "rights" come from. Although you make the point that rights are not given but guaranteed which is interesting as I use the word guaranteed 3 times in the section you quote and confer once, and then only referring to Harding's position. As I stated in another post in this thread constitutional rights are there to protect the citizens from the machinations of the state. That is exactly what the English Bill of Rights purported to do.

And had limited success. The US bill had a far greater impact on people's lives, partly because of its school of thought. In Britain, some people were better than others, even if they were legally equal. In the US, a national mentality quickly developed where all men were equal, and so on.

Also, claiming that England in the 1800's was less free than America is ok as long as you are referring to the monied classes. Slavery was abolished in England in 1833, 30 years before the American Civil War. A direct comparison of England and the US at the time though is, of course, completely pointless as the US had massive territorial expansion going on and the UK was sitting in the middle of Europe which was going through enormous wars every 10 or so years and England was having a problem with Napoleon trying to take over Europe at the time. Makes the promotion of civil liberties a little more difficult than the systematic genocide of an indigenous population does in America wouldn't you agree?

I would. You might say the Americans were free to kill. At the end of the day, the Americans did have a more advanced and modern system of government that the British during that period, how civilised or barbaric each population was doesn't really come into it. As for slavery, the northern states did abolish it sooner than the southern, and the war was partly about cementing federal control over the states, which until the civil war had far more sovereignty than they do now.

What happened after Nixon resigned? Did his administration collapse?

Point taken.

You criticise Ireland because of the party system allowing Bertie and co. to get away with things but then when the same thing happens in the US you seem less concerned. Bush got legislation that limited civil liberties, legalised torture and bugging civilians on US soil through because of a willing Congress. Bush oversaw Abu Ghraib and never even got a censure motion. Clinton got a blowjob (not against any law I am aware of) and got an impeachment procedure. Who acted less Presidential?

I wouldn't be caught dead defending Bush or what he's done, and so there's some stuff below regarding Bush I'll address here. All that he has done, he did with the consent, either active or passive, of the houses. The courts have ruled against him on certain issues. The fact that Bush and the legislative chambers did these things is the failure of the American people, not of the way the state operates and not of the constitution. They elected Bush, they elected the representatives who supported Bush and it is those elected representatives who failed to call Bush when he overstepped his powers: IMO, if the Americans were more responsible voters, these things wouldn't have happened.

The two term limited was only introduced in 1951 and it was just a convention before that helped by circumstance and accepted behaviour. Also, as someone clearly read on American Constitutional theory, you should know that the people do not directly elect the President.

Yes, electoral colleges and all. There have been two presidents who won office but got a minority of votes, and Bush was one of them. He is still the only person who is elected by a nation-wide ballot.

Who exactly is empowered to sign Executive Orders? It is not just Bush that abuses the power of the Presidency.

Yes, people do abuse power. The best thing that can be done is to have the best safe guards possible.

I don't quite get what you mean by the highlighted part to be honest. As for the acceptance of the system not being perfect, of course the US system accepts that. The words, "We the people, In order to form a more perfect Union" seem apt as evidence.

By the highlighted part, I merely mean that I think if you have a union of states, the best model we have is the US model. As it happens, the EU, unlike its member states, does have a US-style structure, with the Commission as executive and the EP as legislative.

Many US judges are elected, including State Supreme Court judges. As for good judges opinions not mattering, again we are into a philosophical argument about the role of judges in terms of legislating from the bench. Also, people do not make the law, legislators do. But again we are into theories on the creation of valid laws so lets move on.

If a judge is elected, they have incentive to please the electorate, and what pleases the electorate isn't always the right thing to do.

Why is that bad? One nation under God, indivisible after all. Also, regardless of how it is done, one State will have a say in the affairs of another given the Senators are supposed to be State representatives.

When you're talking about altering the constitution it becomes a more serious matter. The Senate can only make laws compatible with the constitution, which means that in theory the states have already submitted to its authority. To change the constitution is to change the authority. But yes, some degree of "overlap" is needed, and indeed good.




I'm not interested in arguing race relations in the US as it is a poisoned chalice and not in the scope of this debate. My point wasn't about the US today though, it was simply refuting your claim about the US Constitution being such a laudible document. The 14th Amendment removed the term 3/5ths of all other persons after the Civil War anyway.[/QUOTE]

Nor do I. I do fully dispute that you have in anyway shown the US constitution to be anything less than a document worthy of great note.

I personally believe it is one of the most significant documents ever written.

Richard

RDM_83 wrote: »

Slightly of topic, but
what is the Constitutional status of Northern Ireland and its citzens now that articles 2 and 3 have been removed, I'm asking because recently renewed my (ROI) passport, and after carefully reading through all the conditions I noticed no mention on Northern Ireland at all (with the exception of refering to a british act to do with non-EU nationals in Northern Ireland _i think). I seem to remember Ireland was mentioned (as far as I know Ireland does not exist (politically and legaly)
Comparing it to the terms when I first applied when Northern Ireland was mentioned many times with clear criteria etc.

People from NI have the right to Irish Citizenship, and I think this is guarenteed under the GFA. As for NI's current status, it part of the UK, unless referenda north and south both say otherwise.

brianthebard

The Raven. wrote: »

According to Wikipedia:

A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle described two types of political revolution:
1. Complete change from one constitution to another
2. Modification of an existing constitution.[1]

So the change from monarchial rule from abroad to direct republican rule at home, along with the creation of a constitution and government institutions, wasn't a revolution/fundamental change in power? Riiiiight....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sceptre

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

While your figures are correct, they're conveniently ignoring that of the "Southern" representatives (ie representatives from states that had been in the CSA), 93% of Democrats opposed it while 100% of Republicans opposed it. In the Senate, it was 95% of southern Democrats who opposed it while 100% of southern Republicans opposed it. Lincoln could have hoped for better I suppose but I doubt any of it would have surprised him, not least that the Democrats used to rule the South mostly because Lincoln was a Republican. Eliminating the figures from the old CSA and you get House support from 94% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans while in the Senate it was supported by 98% of Northern Democrats and 84% of northern Republicans.

In other words, any devil can quote scripture for his own ends but the bottom line is that the Civil Rights Act 1964 was opposed very heavily by suvveners and supported heavily by yankees. Robert Byrd was the noisiest (and most long-winded) exception.