Constitutional Challenge

http://forum.globalhousepricecrash.com/index.php?showtopic=14372


After reading above - what do ye reckon

Our man in Havana

Deleted User wrote:

http://forum.globalhousepricecrash.com/index.php?showtopic=14372


After reading above - what do ye reckon

No barrister would take on such a no hoper of a case.

Jo King

First of all there is the locus standi situation. Have you got a mother willing to go to court and testify that she is forced to work outside the home due to economic necessity?
Secondly, what reliefs would this mother be seeking? The courts have made it clear in the TD and Sinnott cases that they are not going to spend the States money. It is a matter for the legislature to allocate resources between the various claims on them.
In the Crowley case the courts interpreted the constitutional right of children to primary education as merely obliging the state to "provide for" primary education. It is not a requirement that the state see that every child gets a primary education no matter what the circumstances.
The constitution also provides a right to earn one's livelihood. It is not a guarantee of a job. It simply means that the courts will intervene if there is unwarranted interference with ones attempt to work.
If a mother works to pay for a house in a middle class area rather than live in a council estate is she working due to economic necessity or as a lifestyle choice?

Jo King

Jo King wrote:

First of all there is the locus standi situation. Have you got a mother willing to go to court and testify that she is forced to work outside the home due to economic necessity?
Secondly, what reliefs would this mother be seeking? The courts have made it clear in the TD and Sinnott cases that they are not going to spend the States money. It is a matter for the legislature to allocate resources between the various claims on them.
In the Crowley case the courts interpreted the constitutional right of children to primary education as merely obliging the state to "provide for" primary education. It is not a requirement that the state see that every child gets a primary education no matter what the circumstances.
The constitution also provides a right to earn one's livelihood. It is not a guarantee of a job. It simply means that the courts will intervene if there is unwarranted interference with ones attempt to work.
If a mother works to pay for a house in a middle class area rather than live in a council estate is she working due to economic necessity or as a lifestyle choice?

Absolutely - I agree the state already provides or "endeavors" through social housing.
But what about :

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