Constitutional Law reading list!

Aquilinus

Hi
Can some body tell me preferably from BCL if we have to read all the cases articles and books below that I just copied and pasted from moodle?

I am in week 4 and have read a small fraction of this as it is only 1 of my 5 subjects for this semester and has the most reading of them all by far.

It takes me like an hour to read some cases maybe more depending on how long the judgment.

It is only week ****ing four and we have all this reading does anyone that isn't a nerd, and that doesn't live in the library or in their room with no life, capable of doing all the THINGS I have copied and pasted below?

Topic 1: The Idea of a Constitution and Irish Constitutional History
Reading
o Casey, Constitutional Law in Ireland (Sweet & Maxwell, 2000, 3rd edition) Ch 1

Back-ground material
o Farrell ed., De Valera’s Constitution and Ours (Gill and MacMillan, 1988)
o MacCormick N., The English Constitution, the British State and the Scottish Anomaly



Topic 2: The Nation, the State and Sovereignty

Section A: Articles 1, 2, 3 & 4


Reading
- Doyle, Constitutional Law – Ch 1.
- Kelly, The Irish Constitution, Ch 3 ([3.1.01] – [3.1.36] &[ 3.2.01] – [3.2.52], Ch 8 ([8.2.02] – [8.2.81])
- Casey, Constitutional Law in Ireland, Ch 2 (pp 29-43) (pp 43 – 69)

Supplemental Reading
- Humpherys, ‘Constitutional Contradictions: Accommodating Multiple Identities after the Good Friday Agreement’, in Carolan & Doyle, The Irish Constitution: Governance & Values
- Kelly, Hidden Treasure and the Constitution (1988) 10 Dublin University Law Journal 5
- Lenihan, Royal Prerogatives and the Constitution (1989) 24 Irish Jurist
- Costello, The Expulsion of the Royal Prerogative from Irish Law: Quantifying and Remedying the Loss of the Royal Prerogative (1997) 32 Irish Jurist 145

Article 1
Attorney General v. Crawford [1940] I.R. 33
* Byrne v. Ireland [1972] I.R. 241
* Crotty v An Taoiseach [1987] IR 371

Articles 2 & 3
In re Article 26 and the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill [1977] IR 129
* Boland v. An Taoiseach [1974] 338
* McGimpsey v. Ireland [1990] 1 IR 110
Lobe and Osayande [2003] 1 IR
See article by Donal O’Donnall S.C. on the Good Friday Agreement – (1999) 4 Bar Review 174

Extra-territorial effect of laws
In re Article 26 and the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill 1975 [1977] IR 129


Article 4
Ellis v. O’Dea (No.1) [1989] IR 530, [1990] ILRM 87



Article 5 – Sovereignty
* Comyn v. AG [1950] IR 142
Commissioners of Public Works v. Kavanagh [1962] IR 216
* Byrne v. Ireland [1972] IR 241
Kearney v. Min. for Justice [1986] IR 116
Ryan v. Ireland [1989] IR 177
The State (Devine) v. Larkin [1977] IR 24
* Crotty v. An Taoiseach [1987] IR 713

The Implications of the term "democratic state "
de Búrca v. AG [1976] IR 38
State (M) v. AG [1979] IR 73
* Redmond v. Minister for the Environment [2001] 4 IR 64

Article 49 - Prerogatives
* Byrne v. Ireland [1972] IR 241.
* Cork Co. Co. and Burke v. Commissioners of Public Works [1945] IR 561
* Howard v. Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland [1993] ILRM 665
* Webb v. Ireland [1988] IR 353
* Geoghegan v Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland, [1995} 3 IR 86


* Indicates particularly significant cases


Topic 3: Constitutional Interpretation

Reading

o Doyle, Ch 17
o Kelly, Ch 1 - [1.1.01] -[1.1.70], Ch 2 – [2.1.01] – [2.1.45], Ch 7 [7.1.08] – [7.1.20]

Supplemental Reading

o O’Hanlon, ‘Natural Rights and the Irish Constitution’, (1993) 11 Irish Law Times 8
o O’Mahony, ‘Societal Change and Constitutional Interpretation’, (2010) 1 Irish Journal of Legal Studies 71
o Clarke, ‘Interpreting the Constitution: Essentially Contested Concepts’, in Carolan & Doyle, The Irish Constitution: Governance & Values
o Murphy, ‘Garrett Braden and Irish Natural Law Jurisprudence’, in Carolan & Doyle, The Irish Constitution: Governance & Values
o Kavanagh, “The Quest for Legitimacy in Constitutional Interpretation” (1997) XXXII Irish Jurist (NS) 195)
o Hogan: “Constitutional Interpretation” in The Constitution of Ireland 1937-1987 (Litton) (ed), Dublin 1988), pp 173-191.)

Literal Approach
The literal approach relies on the literal meaning of a word – no scope for flexibility

*The State (Browne) v. Feran [1967] IR 147
*The People (DPP) v. O’Shea [1982] 384
Riordan v An Taoiseach [1997] 3 IR 502

Broad Approach
The broad approach is guided by the actual language of the Constitution but rejects an excessively literal approach

*Att. Gen. v. Paperlink [1984] ILRM 348
O’Byrne v. Minister for Finance [1959] IR 1
Melling v. Ó Mathghamhna [1962] IR 1
*Murray v. Ireland [1985] IR 532

Historical Approach
Provisions of the Constitution should be given the same meaning now as they would have been legally understood in 1937 when the Constitution was enacted

Historical Legal situation

Re Art 26 and the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Bill, 1940 [1940] IR 470
*Melling v. Ó Mathghamhna [1962] IR 1
McMahon v. AG [1972] 69
*Sinnott v. Minister for Education [2001] 2 IR 545

Historical public opinion/values

*McGee v. The Att. Gen. [1974] IR 287
The People (DPP) v. O’Shea [1982] 384
*Norris v. Attorney General [1984] I.R. 36
*Zappone and Gilligan v. Revenue Commissioners [2006] IEHC 404 [Dunne J]

Natural Law Approach
The use of Natural Law generally refers to the use of ‘extra-constitutional’ principles (principles from outside the Constitution) in interpreting the Constitution.

State (Ryan) v. Lennon [1935] IR 170
*Ryan v. The Att. Gen. [1965] IR 294
*McGee v. The Att. Gen. [1974] IR 284
*Re Article 26 and the Regulation of Information (Services out of the State for
Termination of Pregnancies Bill) 1995, [1995] 1 IR 18
*T.D v. Minister for Education [2001] 4 IR 259
Lobe and Osayande [2003] I IR 1

Harmonious interpretation
Different articles of the Constitution should not be construed (understood) separately but should harmonise with each other

The State (DPP) v. Walsh [1981] IR 412
*The People (DPP) v. O’Shea [1982] 384
AG v. Hamilton (No.2) [1993] 3 IR 227, [1993] ILRM 821
*Tormey v. Ireland [1985] IR 289, [1985] ILRM 542

Hierarchy of constitutional rights
Are some rights more important than other rights?

Dillion-Leetch v. Calleary (No 1) 31st July 1974) Supreme Court
*The People v. Shaw [1982] IR 1
*The Att. Gen. v. X [1992] 1 IR 1

Current approach of the Irish Court to Constitutional Interpretation
*Curtain v. Dail Eireann, Unreported Supreme Court, 9th March 2006

Crucial cases marked with *


Topic 4: Introduction to the Separation of Powers & the Executive Power

Introduction to the Separation of Powers

Reading
Casey, pp 223 - 228
Kelly, The Irish Constitution, - [3.2.53] – [3.2.126]

Article 6

1. All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.
2. These powers of government are exercisable only by or on the authority of the organs of State established by this Constitution.

O’Byrne v. Minister for Finance [1959] IR 1


Executive Power

Reading
Doyle, Ch 12
Kelly, The Irish Constitution p 421 – 459, p 491 - 512

Article 28.2 – The executive power of the State shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, be exercised by or on the authority of the Government.

Article 29.4.1 – The executive power of the State in or in connection with its external relations shall in accordance with Article 28 of this Constitution be exercised by or on the authority of the Government.

Haughey v. Moriarty [1999] 3 IR 1

Powers in relation to Immigration / Asylum

Laurentiu v. Minister for Justice [1999] 4 IR 26
Bode v. Minister for Justice [2007] IESC 62


Powers in relation to Foreign Affairs

Boland v. An Taoiseach [1974] IR 338
Macken v. An Taoiseach (1984) Irish Times, 26 May
Crotty v. An Taoiseach [1987] IR 713, [1987] ILRM 400

Article 29.3 - Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States.

Article 28.3.1° - War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann.

Horgan v. An Taoiseach [2003] 2 ILRM 357
Dubsky v. Government of Ireland [2005] IEHC 442

Cabinet Confidentiality

AG v. Hamilton [1993] 2 IR 250, [1993] LIRM 81

Holding By-Elections

Dudley v. An Taoiseach [1994] 2 I.L.R.M. 321.
Doherty v. Ireland [2010] IEHC 369

It is actually frustrating I thought first year was about settling in maybe settling in to the library from the time the lectures are over till 10 maybe ughh do we have to read all those THINGS above I hope not

Breifne72

i really hope we don't have to read all this.... i barely read the book like

Aquilinus

Breifne72 wrote: »

i really hope we don't have to read all this.... i barely read the book like

Hey are you a BCL 1 too? I hope so too...

Breifne72

adammc21 wrote: »

Hey are you a BCL 1 too? I hope so too...

nah im doin EPL but i think the two courses are together for some law lectures

Aquilinus

Breifne72 wrote: »

nah im doin EPL but i think the two courses are together for some law lectures

Awe yea you share some classes with me Constitutional, Tort and Criminal I assume.

Gunslinger92

No you don't have to read everything on that list, but what you can do if you don't understand a topic is read one or two things from the list to help you get a better grasp
Who is teaching ye constitutional this year? We had Eoin Daly last year for semester 1 but he went to UCD this year. (Mark Coen taught the advanced module, dunno if it's the same this year). Depending on your lecturer, the notes might be sufficient if they're good enough.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

BCL 3 here. Take it handy with the reading lists. If you read all those cases you'd probably know more about the subject than your lecturer.

There's a simple formula to follow for most law subjects if you want achieve a solid pass (2:2/2:1) read the lecture notes, a few textbook chapters, the main cases/legislation and throw in a relevant journal article if you find one along the way for bonus points. Most lecturers will not expect first years to be able to list off 15 relevant cases for a single question. Typically 5/6 cases per question has served me well. I've got a 2:1 average the last two years and never failed a subject. I have only read I'd say 3 or 4 complete cases throughout the entire course (but that's just me.) The thing to focus on in a case is the point of law the judges came up with - a rule and a test to go with it, if there is one. Reading the facts of the case is basically a waste of time unless the case turned on it's particular set of circumstances or it helps you to remember which case is which.

That said, that's only if you're trying to do minimal work to get a decent result. If you want a first you have to really go above and beyond with law subjects. You'd want to know 10+ cases inside out, stick in plenty of legislation, articles and textbooks. You'd also have to write it properly which a few people seem to have difficulty with - there's no point dropping in all these articles etc. if the guy reading your exam/assignment hasn't a clue what you're on about.

I have run for class rep this year - at the moment I'm in a tie with someone else for the position and we'll have to see what the result is but if I do get the position I'm going to try and set up a little tutoring scheme with SLAG - basically to get some willing 3rd/2nd years to show 1st year BCLs the ropes - I remember my first criminal assignment being very daunting but if someone had told me what was expected of me I'd have been a lot more relaxed. If the class rep avenue proves fruitless I'll have to look at getting the new law society involved but at the moment I'm not really sure what their actual objectives are.

EDIT: By the way, the little 'formula' above is really for cramming the week or so before the exam. If you are struggling to understand what the lecturer is on about when s/he talks about a certain topic, some light reading should do the trick - a textbook chapter/a summary of the case. Nutshells/nutcases are extremely helpful if you're completely lost but NEVER cite them in an assignment/exam.

EDIT2: Just saw that Mark Coen is possibly lecturing you. His notes are stripped down - he will basically only give you the most relevant quotes, to try and get you to work more. If there's loads of cases under a certain topic, pick the most relevant ones - he's a very fair marker and won't punish you unduly just because you left an unimportant case out, even if it's in his notes.

Ashashi

Alyssa Narrow Nachos wrote: »

BCL 3 here. Take it handy with the reading lists. If you read all those cases you'd probably know more about the subject than your lecturer.

There's a simple formula to follow for most law subjects if you want achieve a solid pass (2:2/2:1) read the lecture notes, a few textbook chapters, the main cases/legislation and throw in a relevant journal article if you find one along the way for bonus points. Most lecturers will not expect first years to be able to list off 15 relevant cases for a single question. Typically 5/6 cases per question has served me well. I've got a 2:1 average the last two years and never failed a subject. I have only read I'd say 3 or 4 complete cases throughout the entire course (but that's just me.) The thing to focus on in a case is the point of law the judges came up with - a rule and a test to go with it, if there is one. Reading the facts of the case is basically a waste of time unless the case turned on it's particular set of circumstances or it helps you to remember which case is which.

That said, that's only if you're trying to do minimal work to get a decent result. If you want a first you have to really go above and beyond with law subjects. You'd want to know 10+ cases inside out, stick in plenty of legislation, articles and textbooks. You'd also have to write it properly which a few people seem to have difficulty with - there's no point dropping in all these articles etc. if the guy reading your exam/assignment hasn't a clue what you're on about.

I have run for class rep this year - at the moment I'm in a tie with someone else for the position and we'll have to see what the result is but if I do get the position I'm going to try and set up a little tutoring scheme with SLAG - basically to get some willing 3rd/2nd years to show 1st year BCLs the ropes - I remember my first criminal assignment being very daunting but if someone had told me what was expected of me I'd have been a lot more relaxed. If the class rep avenue proves fruitless I'll have to look at getting the new law society up and running but at the moment I'm not really sure what their actual objectives are.

EDIT: By the way, the little 'formula' above is really for cramming the week or so before the exam. If you are struggling to understand what the lecturer is on about when s/he talks about a certain topic, some light reading should do the trick - a textbook chapter/a summary of the case. Nutshells/nutcases are extremely helpful if you're completely lost but NEVER cite them in an assignment/exam.

EDIT2: Just saw that Mark Coen is possibly lecturing you. His notes are stripped down - he will basically only give you the most relevant quotes, to try and get you to work more. If there's loads of cases under a certain topic, pick the most relevant ones - he's a very fair marker and won't punish you unduly just because you left an unimportant case out, even if it's in his notes.

Our aims are not being made public because we are still in the process of forming our committee. If you want to propose any ideas you are free to run for a position at tomorrows EGM

Aquilinus

Yea I will try to do that formula munkymanmatt, thanks for the advice Gunslinger92. I just submitted my first criminal law assignment and Foundations of law and legal research assignment, I hope it will get good marks for them. I have Roderic O'Gorman for constitutional law and Mark Coen teach's Tort. It is hard balancing study with the social part of college, though I will have to keep trying though.

partay pooper

Ahhh Eoin Daly a proper Legend made Constitutional law understandable without being overly simplistic. Gone but not forgotten

Aquilinus

Touching partay pooper touching.