Your Constitution

Long Onion

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland.pdf

Have you read it? I reckon that everyone should from time to time, it touches all aspects of our lives. On a recent reading the following occured to me;

Under Article 27, any Bill deemed to be of National Importance can be referred to the people - what about NAMA.

Under Article 41.2.2

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.

What about changes to child benefit/social welfare?

The Preamble:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

Does this mention of the catholic religion have any place in the Constitution anymore?

So, have you read it, will you read it and most importantly, what would you like to have in your constitution?

My name is URL

Take that bull**** about Christ out of the opening sentence for a start

bluto63

My name is URL wrote: »

Take that bull**** about Christ out of the opening sentence for a start

Having that in our constitution isn't helping seperating the church from the state

Pygmalion

Long Onion wrote: »

Under Article 27, any Bill deemed to be of National Importance can be referred to the people - what about NAMA.

It can be, they just choose not to.

Under Article 41.2.2

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.

What about changes to child benefit/social welfare?

As far as I know it's been successfully used to protect stay at home mother's benefits, my mother works in the social welfare department and I think she's told me this, I could be wrong though.


I have read it, skimming through the boring bits.
My favourite part was the bit that requires the publishing of blasphemous, indecent or seditious material to be punishable by law.
It's nice to find something so solid and final to point out to all the "Oh god, it's all Fianna Fáil's fault blasphemy isn't allowed" people

My name is URL

bluto63 wrote: »

Having that in our constitution isn't helping seperating the church from the state

I dunno who it benefits more, the Church will always have a stake in our lives and the Government will always use it as a stonewall for progression

Euro_Kraut

I have read it. It’s a nice read.

That preamble is outdated, as is the line about women in the home. It was written in a far more conservative age. For it time and in the context of what was going on in Europe is a relatively liberal document. Despite the preamble its a pretty secular document too. Compare our set-up to that in Britain for example where the Queen and Prime Minister have defined roles in the Protestant Church.

Long Onion

Ironically, it goes on to say that the State shall not endorse any religion ... hmmmmmmm

I suppose my point is that does something framed in 1937 really be expected to have 100% relevance in 2009? Can we really interpret what the drafters would have said about peer-to-peer servers etc,

Do we need a new one?

connundrum

Was there not supposed to be something in there stating that the Government Party(s) cannot lobby for either side in a referendum vote?

i.e. Lisbon?

Thought I heard that said somewhere..

Wazdakka

I haven't read it actually..
But I think I'm going to print it out and go through it tonight / tomorrow..
I don't think I can bitch with much conviction about how the country is run if I haven't read it.

If all else fails it'd be a great toilet book..
Anything I really dont like about it, I can wipe my arse with.

Pygmalion

Long Onion wrote: »

Ironically, it goes on to say that the State shall not endorse any religion ... hmmmmmmm

As far as I know Catholicism was an actual official "state" religion when the constitution was written, sicne then it's been amended, either by referendum or in the brief period when a state of emergency was declared for World War 2 to remove this endorsement, they obviously didn't bother changing the preamble.

I suppose my point is that does something framed in 1937 really be expected to have 100% relevance in 2009? Can we really interpret what the drafters would have said about peer-to-peer servers etc,

Even if the constitution was written today it would make no mention of peer-to-peer servers, that's not the kind of thing a constitution is for, that's what regular lawmakers are for.
Basically the constitution is "We're trusting the government to make our decisions for us, but only so far as it doesn't go against these few ground rules". It's not a place for specifics.

bluto63

Long Onion wrote: »

Ironically, it goes on to say that the State shall not endorse any religion ... hmmmmmmm

I suppose my point is that does something framed in 1937 really be expected to have 100% relevance in 2009? Can we really interpret what the drafters would have said about peer-to-peer servers etc,

Do we need a new one?

The constitution has served us well up to this point, attempting to write a new one would open up a whole world of ways to abuse it. I'd imagine it will end up getting written by businessmen looking out for their profits rather than the people

Long Onion

Pygmalion wrote: »

It can be, they just choose not to.

If we were all aware, could we not demand it to be referred?

toiletduck

bluto63 wrote: »

The constitution has served us well up to this point attempting to write a new one would open up a whole world of ways to abuse it

How many amendments have there been, twenty or so? I'm not disagreeing with your statement but it does seem to be changed rather a lot...

Long Onion

Pygmalion wrote: »

Even if the constitution was written today it would make no mention of peer-to-peer servers, that's not the kind of thing a constitution is for, that's what regular lawmakers are for.
Basically the constitution is "We're trusting the government to make our decisions for us, but only so far as it doesn't go against these few ground rules". It's not a place for specifics.

The constitution is the reference point for all laws enacted in the state, there have been many advances such as stem-cell research that are really impossible to reference against the mindset of those who drafted the document.

Laws are really no more than words on a page and are always dependant on interpretation, the problem is that when interpretations are heaped on each other and precedent is thrown into the mix, the basic tex begins to lose its relevance. The preamble itself holds that we defer to the holy trinity, yet we do not endorse a religion, yet we base the family on marriage etc. etc.

Just because something has always been the case doesn't mean we should be afraid to tackle it?

bluto63

toiletduck wrote: »

How many amendments have there been, twenty or so? I'm not disagreeing with your statement but it does seem to be changed rather a lot...

A complete rewrite would be far more chaotic than amendments made over time. Having the entire country focused on one part of the constitution at one particular time rather than looking at the entire constitution at one time would leave far less room for manipulation

bluto63

Long Onion wrote: »

Just because something has always been the case doesn't mean we should be afraid to tackle it?

Good point

nerophis

Long Onion wrote: »

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

Obviously you can change the articles of Bunreacht na hÉireann through a referendum. I don't think you can change the preamble (as outdated and in some cases probably offensive to our citizens as it is) from my limited understanding. So is a re-write needed? Who'd feel that the Ireland of 1937 bears any similarity with that of 2009?

Hagar

Moved to Politics.

Min

The funny thing is Jesus Christ is mentioned and some automatically start bitching about it being the state endorsing Catholicism.......so the Protestants believe in who exactly?

prinz

Long Onion wrote: »

If we were all aware, could we not demand it to be referred?

We elected officials to make those decisions for us. So no we could not demand it to be referred.

walrusgumble

Long Onion wrote: »

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland.pdf

Have you read it? I reckon that everyone should from time to time, it touches all aspects of our lives. On a recent reading the following occured to me;

Under Article 27, any Bill deemed to be of National Importance can be referred to the people - what about NAMA.

Under Article 41.2.2

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.

What about changes to child benefit/social welfare?

The Preamble:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

Does this mention of the catholic religion have any place in the Constitution anymore?

So, have you read it, will you read it and most importantly, what would you like to have in your constitution?

no rights are absolute though, as sinnots found out in 2002 (son of the waun who was a MEP for Munster)

interesting point here

DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL POLICY

Article 45

The principles of social policy set forth in this Article are intended for the general guidance of the Oireachtas. The application of those principles in the making of laws shall be the care of the Oireachtas exclusively, and shall not be cognisable by any Court under any of the provisions of this Constitution.

1. The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the whole people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice and charity shall inform all the institutions of the national life.

2. The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing:

i. That the citizens (all of whom, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood) may through their occupations find the means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs.

ii. That the ownership and control of the material resources of the community may be so distributed amongst private individuals and the various classes as best to subserve the common good.

iii. That, especially, the operation of free competition shall not be allowed so to develop as to result in the concentration of the ownership or control of essential commodities in a few individuals to the common detriment.

iv. That in what pertains to the control of credit the constant and predominant aim shall be the welfare of the people as a whole.

v. That there may be established on the land in economic security as many families as in the circumstances shall be practicable.

3. 1° The State shall favour and, where necessary, supplement private initiative in industry and commerce.

2° The State shall endeavour to secure that private enterprise shall be so conducted as to ensure reasonable efficiency in the production and distribution of goods and as to protect the public against unjust exploitation.

4. 1° The State pledges itself to safeguard with especial care the economic interests of the weaker sections of the community, and, where necessary, to contribute to the support of the infirm, the widow, the orphan, and the aged.

2° The State shall endeavour to ensure that the strength and health of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children shall not be abused and that citizens shall not be forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their sex, age or strength

at times, this seems alot of lip service as far as the current government and past government are concerned. but then if one spouts that, they might get accused of being a bit of red:rolleyes:

walrusgumble

nerophis wrote: »

Obviously you can change the articles of Bunreacht na hÉireann through a referendum. I don't think you can change the preamble (as outdated and in some cases probably offensive to our citizens as it is) from my limited understanding. So is a re-write needed? Who'd feel that the Ireland of 1937 bears any similarity with that of 2009?

check out what the all party oireachtas committee on constitutional reform said in 1996 (and subsequent papers) constitutional reform paper
http://www.constitution.ie/reports/crg.pdf

Salvelinus

How dare you all mock this, DeValera wanted the fair maidens to be dancing at the cross roads, obviously sending off the emigrating hoardes. Thanks for sustaining that Jesus.
That's just embarassing, and people laugh at the US.

Long Onion

Min wrote: »

The funny thing is Jesus Christ is mentioned and some automatically start bitching about it being the state endorsing Catholicism.......so the Protestants believe in who exactly?

I think it's the mention of the Holy Trinity that causes that.

Long Onion

prinz wrote: »

We elected officials to make those decisions for us. So no we could not demand it to be referred.

So democracy is dead once the count is done? If there is a majority vote, the bill can be referred to the people, if enough pressure is put on our elected representatives then, in theory, we should get a chance to have a vote on it.

My real point is that, as a nation, we tend to forget the constitution is there, it should be more to the forefront, it impacts on us all, every day of our lives.

prinz

Long Onion wrote: »

So democracy is dead once the count is done? If there is a majority vote, the bill can be referred to the people, if enough pressure is put on our elected representatives then, in theory, we should get a chance to have a vote on it..

If the correct number of signatories supported a petition to refer the Bill to the President and the President can decide whether or not to refer the matter to the people. The reality is that very, very few instances IMO would result in the Dáil and Seannad requesting a Bill be put before the people, IIRC an 'ordinary' referendum as in this case has never been exercised.

Long Onion wrote: »

My real point is that, as a nation, we tend to forget the constitution is there, it should be more to the forefront, it impacts on us all, every day of our lives.

+1.

_ZeeK_

Long Onion wrote: »

Ironically, it goes on to say that the State shall not endorse any religion ... hmmmmmmm

I suppose my point is that does something framed in 1937 really be expected to have 100% relevance in 2009? Can we really interpret what the drafters would have said about peer-to-peer servers etc,

Do we need a new one?

No. Its fine. A constitution is only as good as the the Constitutional Courts interpretation. No text is set in stone, it evolves with the times as the Courts give new judgements and offer elaborations on the text. For example, in Norris v. Attorney General, the Courts recognised a right to privacy in the context of a homosexual relationship.

The French Constitution (older than Bunreacht na hEireann), with similar provisions re: private property, privacy, and due process was interpretted by the French Courts in the context of a peer-to-peer case. They held that the right to internet access was an essential component of the right to freedom of expression and that no state agency could disconnect an individual without a proper hearing by a Court.

The preamble, while it has religious references, is not law. The legal text of the Constitution starts with Article 1.

With respect, you are all lay-men and you are only reading half the material here. Constitutional law is more than the text of the Constitution itself. It is the caselaw interpretting the Constitution. If you want to proffer an informed opinion, I suggest you read a Constitutional Law textbook. The industry standard is Kelly:Irish Constitutional Law - about €200 and over 2000pages. A fine read it is too.

Relax.

Long Onion

_ZeeK_ wrote: »

No. Its fine. A constitution is only as good as the the Constitutional Courts interpretation. No text is set in stone, it evolves with the times as the Courts give new judgements and offer elaborations on the text. For example, in Norris v. Attorney General, the Courts recognised a right to privacy in the context of a homosexual relationship.

The French Constitution (older than Bunreacht na hEireann), with similar provisions re: private property, privacy, and due process was interpretted by the French Courts in the context of a peer-to-peer case. They held that the right to internet access was an essential component of the right to freedom of expression and that no state agency could disconnect an individual without a proper hearing by a Court.

The preamble, while it has religious references, is not law. The legal text of the Constitution starts with Article 1.

With respect, you are all lay-men and you are only reading half the material here. Constitutional law is more than the text of the Constitution itself. It is the caselaw interpretting the Constitution. If you want to proffer an informed opinion, I suggest you read a Constitutional Law textbook. The industry standard is Kelly:Irish Constitutional Law - about €200 and over 2000pages. A fine read it is too.

Relax.

A bit holier than thou sir. Am I not correct in saying that one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law is that laws should be clear and precise. This should apply regardless of whether or not one has studied Kelly on the Constitution. A muddle of judicial interpretations all bound by judicial precedence lead to conflicts eventually. Who decided that the legal text began with article 1, the preamble was not inserted fur the craic, it has been oft argued that it is a written exclaimation of the spirit by which the text should be interpreted

There is every case to be made for re-writing a constitution especially if the people of the state feel that the current one is no longer capable of accurately reflecting the society in which we live. I am not saying that this is the case in Ireland, but it could well be in the future.

For what it's worth, I have studied law myself and have also read Kelly so I would think twice about casting "laymen" comments about willy nilly. The constitution is for the people of Ireland, all opionions on it are valid. Despite what you may think, it is not the property of a snobbish elite.

Euro_Kraut

Min wrote: »

...so the Protestants believe in who exactly?

Ian Paisley.

prinz

Long Onion wrote: »

A bit holier than thou sir. Am I not correct in saying that one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law is that laws should be clear and precise. This should apply regardless of whether or not one has studied Kelly on the Constitution. A muddle of judicial interpretations all bound by judicial precedence lead to conflicts eventually......

Long Onion wrote: »

For what it's worth, I have studied law myself.....

What exactly did you study? . Seems to me you missed the first class about what our legal system is. Common Law v Civil Law is fairly basic stuff tbh.

_ZeeK_

1st class hons in law here.

As noted by Prinz, this is one of the foundations of our law. Judicial precendent. It is not unclear. All judges are bound by previous decisions. They are not conflicting. They are complimentary. Each elaborates on the preceding body of case law.

You sir, could not be more wrong.

You would know, if you had read caselaw, that all decisions are based on the numbered articles of the Constitution. No decision is based on the preamble. It does not form part of the legal text.