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

The Unenumerated Rights Doctrine

Options
  • 25-01-2014 10:38am
    #1
    lons3
    Registered Users Posts: 42 ✭


    I can't decide on my position when it comes to the URD... not too sure whether I like it or not. Do I like the doctrine or do I just like the outcomes? Can judges have this much power? why can't they have this much power? Maybe it was good at the time but now it is unnecessary with the ECHR?

    Who wants to help?
    Tagged:


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,724 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    URD is gone.

    The sixties and seventies were full of that sort of thing but over time, Governments have realised that giving citizens rights was, at best, a very poor idea.


  • Options
    #3
    lons3
    Registered Users Posts: 42 ✭lons3


    Are you saying it is no longer necessary or desirable ?


  • Options
    #4
    234
    Registered Users Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    lons3 wrote: »
    Are you saying it is no longer necessary or desirable ?

    Honestly, if you have read up on this area then you really have to make up your own mind. Others can't help you decide if you already know the arguments.


  • Options
    #5
    LutherBlissett
    Registered Users Posts: 191 ✭✭LutherBlissett


    Sounds like somebody is trying to complete a college essay...


  • Options
    #6
    Bepolite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭Bepolite


    LutherBlissett wrote: »
    Sounds like somebody is trying to complete a college essay...

    Another one :P


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    hullaballoo wrote: »
    URD is gone.

    The sixties and seventies were full of that sort of thing but over time, Governments have realised that giving citizens rights was, at best, a very poor idea.

    I thought in a republic, the citizens gave govt rights....

    There's a soviet russia joke here somewhere.




    But didn't the English/Walsh* courts set a new tort during the week?




    *phonetic pronunciation


  • Options
    #8
    lons3
    Registered Users Posts: 42 ✭lons3


    234 wrote: »
    Honestly, if you have read up on this area then you really have to make up your own mind. Others can't help you decide if you already know the arguments.

    but all the arguments seem so plausible... :(


  • Options
    #9
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,505 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    But didn't the English/Walsh* courts set a new tort during the week? n


    Deadly. I hope they accepted my idea for the tort of fromagatry - unlawful interference in the cheese making process.


  • Options
    #10
    234
    Registered Users Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    lons3 wrote: »
    but all the arguments seem so plausible... :(

    Part of studying law is learning to critically evaluate arguments and decide which you think is most plausible. You will rarely be in a situation where there is knock out argument for one point of view and nothing of substance to be said for another. Often it will simply be a matter of personal judgment as to which side you come down on. What you have to learn to do it articulate why you find one arguments more persuasive than another. If somebody here simply said that "x is right, y is wrong" and you adopted that as your view you would be missing out on one the most valuable elements of a law degree.


  • Options
    #11
    lons3
    Registered Users Posts: 42 ✭lons3


    234 wrote: »
    Part of studying law is learning to critically evaluate arguments and decide which you think is most plausible. You will rarely be in a situation where there is knock out argument for one point of view and nothing of substance to be said for another. Often it will simply be a matter of personal judgment as to which side you come down on. What you have to learn to do it articulate why you find one arguments more persuasive than another. If somebody here simply said that "x is right, y is wrong" and you adopted that as your view you would be missing out on one the most valuable elements of a law degree.

    If I adopt the wrong view will I not be marked poorly?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    lons3 wrote: »
    If I adopt the wrong view will I not be marked poorly?

    Who said there's a wrong view? There are bad arguments for each point of view and there are valid arguments. Articulate the valid ones in support of whichever viewpoint you decide, address the valid arguments on the other side and why you don't agree with them and then conclude with a persuasive enunciation of why you came down on the side you eventually chose, with a mind to persuading others to choose that side.

    The Supreme Court still make decisions about unnenumerated rights to this day. It's not a remnant of another time, it's a living idea that stands as a bulwark between the power of the State and the citizenry. The Fleming decision has some very interesting commentary on this whole area


  • Options
    #13
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,713 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    It could also be argued that this doctrine has been eclipsed by that of the Human Rights which emanate from the ECHR. Whilst not fully constitutional, judgements there which expand rights in an excremental or block fashion very much influence legal/judicial thinking in Ireland - such as issues revolving around rights when being questioned by AGS .


  • Options
    #14
    Bepolite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭Bepolite


    lons3 wrote: »
    If I adopt the wrong view will I not be marked poorly?

    Sitting on the fence is always a good strategy for under grad law. Unless it's something your really passionate about and then you'll do almost anything to stick it to people who disagree with you.

    There aren't any wrong views but judge your lecturer. Adopting a very conservative view with a very liberal lecturer should not be a problem if it's properly backed up but bear in mind if you put someone one on the defensive it can 'subconsciously' affect marks. The same can be said for funky fonts, poor spelling or grammar.


  • Options
    #15
    234
    Registered Users Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    Bepolite wrote: »
    Sitting on the fence is always a good strategy for under grad law. Unless it's something your really passionate about and then you'll do almost anything to stick it to people who disagree with you.

    There aren't any wrong views but judge your lecturer. Adopting a very conservative view with a very liberal lecturer should not be a problem if it's properly backed up but bear in mind if you put someone one on the defensive it can 'subconsciously' affect marks. The same can be said for funky fonts, poor spelling or grammar.

    Honestly, unconventional formatting, poor spelling or grammar, etc aren't subconscious reasons for marking-down. They are, quite rightly, things that you get heavily penalised for.


  • Options
    #16
    Bepolite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭Bepolite


    234 wrote: »
    Honestly, unconventional formatting, poor spelling or grammar, etc aren't subconscious reasons for marking-down. They are, quite rightly, things that you get heavily penalised for.

    Well heavily is a bit much, but the point I was making is if you make it difficult for someone reading 200 scripts it's obviously not going to help. I think 10% is the convention but if the point is muddled by the error it impacts on the other 90%. Just see so many of my posts as examples :D


Advertisement