The significance of the constitution

Tim Robbins

Hello!
What's so good about our constitution?
Initially it had high ideals:
1. A terroritorial claim to the North: Gone
2. A special position for the Catholic Church: Gone
3. A ban on divorce: Gone

There are still some daft parts in it which seem very out of sync with Irish society. A woman shouldn't have to, out of economic necessity, go out and work and hence not be with her children? sounds very 2008?

I feel the constitution is nothing more then a hangover of Dev. It was written in 1930's before the EU was even set up and has now twice meant that we have rejected European Treaties. The most recent rejection was nothing more than a subversion of the European project by ignorance. We rejected a complicated treaty without even being able articulate a coherent intelligble reason.

No voters giving out about not been able to read Lisbon, how many of them have even read the constitution? In fact, how many Irish people even know the constitution, 5%?

So tell me does this constitution have any significance, should it be completly re-drafted? Isn't it time to move on and have our state run by mechansms that reflect 2008 not 1937?

turgon

Tim Robbins wrote: »

We rejected a complicated treaty without even being able articulate a coherent intelligble reason.

So I suppose you were at the forefront of the debate about Lisbon? Because you are so informed! A European genius in the making. And you are calling No-siders ignorant? Says the man who claims that 800,000 all voted No for no reason. :rolleyes:

I was going to find the thread where one of the No-siders outlined rational reasons for voting No. But then I had a brain wave. Trying to clean up such a mis-informed view that you seem to articulate is a waste of my time.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No voters giving out about not been able to read Lisbon, how many of them have even read the constitution? In fact, how many Irish people even know the constitution, 5%?

Gees, you really are one in a million! The constitution is severely less complicated than the international amending treaty that is the Treaty of Lisbon. Plus no other knowledge of the law is required, where as the Treaty of Lisbon requires certain knowledge in European history and politics and law.

If you really want to start a real mature discussion, you should not take the opportunity to have a jab at those that do not agree with you.

oscarBravo

In case anyone's tempted, this isn't a thread about the Lisbon treaty.

Cannibal Ox

I think...

Article 1

The Irish nation hereby affirms its inalienable, indefeasible, and sovereign right to choose its own form of Government, to determine its relations with other nations, and to develop its life, political, economic and cultural, in accordance with its own genius and traditions.

...that is quite significant

I think there is some wording that could be changed, but it'd require a referendum, which would cost money, and at the moment, I don't think the state can afford to spend money to change a couple of words. I think in general its fine and its easy enough to understand without a degree in law.

mountainyman

I agree. Our constitution is too long. It provides little actual protection to the citizen. It is a quasi fascist document based on outdated Catholic social thinking. It was passed by a majority of a minority in dubious circumstances.

MM

Tim Robbins

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I think...

...that is quite significant

I think there is some wording that could be changed, but it'd require a referendum, which would cost money, and at the moment, I don't think the state can afford to spend money to change a couple of words. I think in general its fine and its easy enough to understand without a degree in law.

The quotation you provided I am sure is axiomatic for any nation state.
It has no real definining meaning.

For example, it doesn't really describe our culture so saying we should just have one? How much significance is that?

As for turgon, yes majority of no siders are / were ignorant as our most people. Unfortunately.

Cannibal Ox

Tim Robbins wrote:

For example, it doesn't really describe our culture so saying we should just have one? How much significance is that?

If we wanted to describe our culture in a single document, it'd be a very long document Nor is that really what should be included in a constitution, they're legal documents not manifestos. Sure, the law of the land is influenced by our culture/society and that's going to be reflected in the constitution, but its not really necessary to describe our culture/society in the constitution.

I also don't think the general populace cares enough about high minded ideals to the point that they'd swallow the expenses of a referendum. So I think whether or not the constitution accurately reflects modern Ireland or not is a mute point, its not going to change anytime soon.

Fratton Fred

A constitution is going to be outdated almost as soon as it is written. there is nothing in there that really interferes with people's lives on a day to day basis so changing it would be more hassle than it is worth imho.

what matters is practice and there is plenty of that that could be changed and have a far more positive impact on people than changing the constitution.

thehighground

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Hello!
What's so good about our constitution?
Initially it had high ideals:
1. A terroritorial claim to the North: Gone
2. A special position for the Catholic Church: Gone
3. A ban on divorce: Gone

There are still some daft parts in it which seem very out of sync with Irish society. A woman shouldn't have to, out of economic necessity, go out and work and hence not be with her children? sounds very 2008?

I feel the constitution is nothing more then a hangover of Dev. It was written in 1930's before the EU was even set up and has now twice meant that we have rejected European Treaties. The most recent rejection was nothing more than a subversion of the European project by ignorance. We rejected a complicated treaty without even being able articulate a coherent intelligble reason.

No voters giving out about not been able to read Lisbon, how many of them have even read the constitution? In fact, how many Irish people even know the constitution, 5%?

So tell me does this constitution have any significance, should it be completly re-drafted? Isn't it time to move on and have our state run by mechansms that reflect 2008 not 1937?

There is an All-Party Oireachtas Committee that continually reviews the Constitution. At the moment they are working through the section on the family as far as I know. It is possible to make submissions to this Committee.

For more information check here:

http://www.constitution.ie/work-programme/default.asp?UserLang=EN

EDIT: Strange that you mention this being a hangover from the 1930s. By the 'Free State' Constitution the Dail could have passed the Lisbon Treaty like every other European country just has.

brianthebard

Surely not if crotty still applied? Also you realise the 1937 constitution was written for the free state?So either way you're pretty much wrong.

mountainyman

The free state constitution is the 1922 constitution.

thehighground

brianthebard wrote: »

Surely not if crotty still applied? Also you realise the 1937 constitution was written for the free state?So either way you're pretty much wrong.

You might want to check this this link (provided above): http://www.constitution.ie

Constitution Of Ireland
Bunreacht Na hÉireann

In a plebiscite held on 1 July 1937 the people enacted a new Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann, to replace the 1922 Constitution of the Irish Free State.

Even though the 1922 Constitution had been approved by Dáil Éireann, there continued to exist throughout the country a substantial body of opposition to it owing to its being circumscribed by the terms of the Treaty, its recognition of the British monarch as part of the national legislature and its requirement that members of the Oireachtas swear an oath of faithfulness to that monarch.

Much of the case for a new Constitution was the need to make perfectly clear that the source of authority in Ireland and of the fundamental law of the state is the people of Ireland. Hence the Preamble to Bunreacht na hÉireann says: 'We, the people of Éire,...do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution'. There was a desire to give the state all the characteristics of a republic (and so all references to the British monarch were removed).

There also seemed to be a desire to strengthen or entrench the rights of the citizen as against the state. It had been possible to amend the Constitution of the Irish Free State by a simple Act of the Oireachtas without recourse to the people in a referendum.

The proposal to adopt Bunreacht na hÉireann was carried by 685,105 votes in favour to 526,945 votes against, a majority of 158,160.

johnnyskeleton

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A constitution is going to be outdated almost as soon as it is written. there is nothing in there that really interferes with people's lives on a day to day basis so changing it would be more hassle than it is worth imho.

what matters is practice and there is plenty of that that could be changed and have a far more positive impact on people than changing the constitution.

There's plenty in the constitution that makes a difference on a daily basis, such as the right to a fair trial, the right to personal liberty, the guarantee of equality, the right of access to the courts, the right to life, the unenumerated personal rights (e.g. free speech, freedom of assembley etc).

Every country needs a constitution, and our is pretty good. Granted, there is a lot of stuff that is a bit outdated, but it isn't really causing any harm (or any harm that the OP is able to articulate anyways) so I agree with you that it's a lot of hassle to change the entire constitution and for very little gain.

Jim_Are_Great

Tim Robbins wrote: »

A woman shouldn't have to, out of economic necessity, go out and work and hence not be with her children

I don't see what's so terrible about that article. There is no obligation on a woman to stay at home with her children.

mountainyman wrote: »

It provides little actual protection to the citizen.

What about article 38.1 and its commitment to due process? Or the number of fundamental rights in article 40? Or the seperation of governmental powers established by article 6? How would you like to better protect the citizen using the constitution?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The quotation you provided I am sure is axiomatic for any nation state.

Similarly axiomatic for a nation state is a constitution establishing state powers.

brianthebard

thehighground wrote: »

You might want to check this this link (provided above): http://www.constitution.ie

whats your point,the state continued to be the irish free state after bunreacht passed.

dothis

brianthebard wrote: »

Surely not if crotty still applied? Also you realise the 1937 constitution was written for the free state?So either way you're pretty much wrong.

Well, under the 1922 constituion the State could just amend the Constitution because there was a provision that allowed them to do this for X numbers of years and as this time was running out they amended that provision to read Y years. Also the courts held that any Act that was enacted during this time that was repugnant to the constitution was deemed to have tacitly ameded the constitution.

On the other question; it's a matter of argument if or not the Constituion of 1937 declared a new State I would argue that it does. Because Art 48 repleals the 1922 Constituion also Art 49 and 50 continues on the Laws and of the powers as well as repealing or transfering some which suggests to me that they were two different entities.

Gurgle

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What's so good about our constitution?

Having one.
Ultimately, the constitution is our only defence against our government.
Its our one and only recourse for when a law is 'wrong'.

With the attention to detail shown by those who draw up (and colour in) the laws, I would not be too quick to abandon the constitution.

But I think it should be simplified & condensed, theres a lot of crap in there which complicates the thing and reduces the value of the rest.

I reckon I could reduce it to two double-sided A4 sheets without losing anything.

As for the "nobody's read it" arguement, thats irrelevant. Its not a novel, its a reference book, like the dictionary.

turgon

brianthebard wrote: »

whats your point,the state continued to be the irish free state after bunreacht passed.

Well not really. One of the first few articles of our current constitution defines the states title as "Eire" ("Ireland"). So saying the Free State was still around is Im pretty sure wrong.

Also remember that "The Republic of Ireland" is only the description of the country, not its name. So saying, for example, I was born in the Republic of Ireland is, I think again, actually wrong. Saying that you are born in Ireland should suffice for people to realize that you were born in the state that describes itself as a Republic.

Calling it the Republic of Ireland has only grown to differentiate the political state of Ireland from the geographic island of Ireland. This makes the statement in the paragraph above wooly.

IMO, the parliamentary system of the state (as described in the constitution) needs to be changed a bit.

Gurgle

turgon wrote: »

Saying that you are born in Ireland should suffice for people to realize that you were born in the state that describes itself as a Republic.

I never call it the republic of ireland & I don't know anyone who would feel the need to specify.

Works out for all sides in the north too:
They can say they're from Ireland, Northern Ireland, or the UK, all of which are accurate.