Legal Voxpop, Please help!!!

chris.jennings

Hey all, just doing a quick voxpop of law students for my constitutional class.. Would appreciate your participation. The Question is... "What one part of the irish constitution would you change and why?" Lets see if we see any patterns! Thanks all, Chris

234

The Preamble. Get rid of the overt Catholicism.

chris.jennings

234 wrote: »

The Preamble. Get rid of the overt Catholicism.

Very interesting and simple point. Thank you. Anyone else have an area they want changed??

Manach

1 - Keep the preamble, in recognition that Catholics have been one of the key foundation groups of the state.
2 - Remove Article 39 on treason, as it has never been used.

MagicSean

Update the parts on marriage and the family to account for modern relationships.

ResearchWill

Take it throw it all away and start all over again.

Tom Young

The most recent amendment on judicial pay, if you want to be controversial.

The last poster suggests taking it and starting over again. Can't see why you would, the current constitution is 74 years old and works relatively well.

Inserting areas of rights based issues and amending the provisions on the Family to bring the areas up to date would be useful.

Tom

_JOE_

An insertion recognising and protecting the rights of the child...

ResearchWill

Tom Young wrote: »

The most recent amendment on judicial pay, if you want to be controversial.

The last poster suggests taking it and starting over again. Can't see why you would, the current constitution is 74 years old and works relatively well.

Inserting areas of rights based issues and amending the provisions on the Family to bring the areas up to date would be useful.

Tom

The problem I have with the Irish Constitution, is that it is too specific, so as not to allow the SC to interpret it in a way that reflects todays society rather than the 1930's. We are only tinkering with it now and as seen with a number of issues only causing further problems.

Starting from scratch with a smaller constitution, is someting I for one would rather.

234

Manach wrote: »

1 - Keep the preamble, in recognition that Catholics have been one of the key foundation groups of the state.

So were white people. Should this be acknowledged in the Preamble?

chunkylover4

_JOE_ wrote: »

An insertion recognising and protecting the rights of the child...

Why exactly? surely provisions effecting the rights of the family do so. Is there any problems with protection of children under the constitution as it stands?

chunkylover4

234 wrote: »

The Preamble. Get rid of the overt Catholicism.

But the preamle is only aspirational, also the courts justify some rights on the basis of the christian and democratic nature of the state as it is very difficult to justify why some rights exist.

234

chunkylover4 wrote: »

But the preamle is only aspirational, also the courts justify some rights on the basis of the christian and democratic nature of the state as it is very difficult to justify why some rights exist.

If you are refering to 40.3.2 then you know that the courts haveno problem getting creative with the enumeration of rights. The whole Christian and Democratic thing is dead since the Abortion Information Case. If you are familiar with this area you would alos know that it is full of holes and contradictions. The Preamble as an interprerative aid caused much more trouble than it was worth.

Hippo

chunkylover4 wrote: »

Why exactly? surely provisions effecting the rights of the family do so. Is there any problems with protection of children under the constitution as it stands?

The rights of the family, (and under the Constitution this means the marital family) and the rights of children do not necessarily coincide.

We ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child many years ago, but because of the Constitution's stance on the family, we are unable fully to honour our legislative commitments under the Convention.

MagicSean

What rights would you introduce that wouldn't be covered by an update to the family section or current existing rights.

Hippo

MagicSean wrote: »

What rights would you introduce that wouldn't be covered by an update to the family section or current existing rights.

An express statement to the effect that children have rights, thus affording them recognition under the constitution. I don't understand the focus on 'family' here, children, as individuals, are not necessarily part of a family.

MagicSean

Hippo wrote: »

An express statement to the effect that children have rights, thus affording them recognition under the constitution. I don't understand the focus on 'family' here, children, as individuals, are not necessarily part of a family.

What rights are not available to children?

johnnyskeleton

Hippo wrote: »

MagicSean wrote: »

What rights would you introduce that wouldn't be covered by an update to the family section or current existing rights.

An express statement to the effect that children have rights, thus affording them recognition under the constitution. I don't understand the focus on 'family' here, children, as individuals, are not necessarily part of a family.

article 40 gives express rights to all persons. Are you saying a child is not a person?

Hippo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

article 40 gives express rights to all persons. Are you saying a child is not a person?

I was waiting for that! I'd refer you to much of Geoffrey Shannon's writing on the topic. The courts frequently seem to have had difficulty in ascribing 'individual' rights to children beyond the confines of the marital family, in that the married parents' rights will be paramount, rather than the rights or needs of the child. A Constitutional amendment expressly guaranteeing the rights of children would at least in part address the problem of the Constitutional primacy of the marital family, and would be in keeping with our international commitments.