Irish or American Constitutional Preamble?

Lyaiera

Which is better? The Irish Constitutional Preamble or the American Constitutional Preamble.

American wrote:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Irish wrote:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,


We, the people of Éire,


Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,


Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,


And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,


Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

Edit: Forgot to add a poll. I thought you had to post and edit your post after, but maybe you have to tick a box when posting the thread.

GoldFour4

We really need to get rid of all that religious fluff from our constitution. it's an embarrassment.

conorh91

My favourite phrase from any constitution anywhere is to be found in the Irish preamble.

"[We] give to ourselves this constitution"

There is so much legal weight in those short words, and they are the words that stated, at the very outset, that Bunreacht is a republican constitution.

I don't have the same feelings towards the American constitution at all. Whatever about its contents, at times, Bunreacht is a very cleverly and even beautifully drafted document.

Lyaiera

You see, I doubt that part of "[We] give to ourselves" for precisely the reason I like the American constitution. There are a lot less noble things in the Irish Preamble (and main Constitution) than there is in the American. The American isn't dated, it has stayed quite strong in it's goals because although inspired by the times it also speaks of values greater than those times, and of ideals for the country. And it speaks the mind of many people who do want what is best for each other. It makes no mention specific immediate factors, it's written to last. Whereas the Irish preamble has a number of elements that are written from the perspective of an individual, and without understanding of such "universal truths" as said in the American preamble. There's an attempt it it, but it's clouded by other factors, such as putting in religion and even the goals of the country can be said to be religious. I don't think the Irish preamble could be said to be timeless or representative. It doesn't even give rise to debate of what the goals of the country are. It's set in stone probably because it was written by one man and with one man' vision. To add a bit of metaphor the American constitution was written democratically (by many people) while the Irish one was written by one person (Dev.) They had checks and balances in it's writing and we didn't have any.

And that's why I find the "We" part weak. (And the American one good and Irish poor.)

Mr. Incognito

Eamon was sending the draft constitution to the bishop for religious edit

Thats a disgrace by todays standards but thats just the way it was.

I wish we could scrap it and establish a more modern document.

Look at all the crap in the states over the right to bear arms from the 1770s

People have too much respect for the past trampling the practicalities of the present

cml387

The British seem to manage quite well without one.

If only it was possible to write down in words what it is to be a human being.

dr.bollocko

We should take out the religion stuff and put in some amendment banning pyjamas in tesco. If they want to wear pyjamas they can wear them in Aldi.

Lyaiera

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I wish we could scrap it and establish a more modern document.

Look at all the crap in the states over the right to bear arms from the 1770s

People have too much respect for the past trampling the practicalities of the present

That's the thing. I don't think their preamble does need to be edited. I think it's stood the test of time. Now you may argue that the American preamble is isolationist by not mentioning America's relationship with other countries. You could even argue that it was the birth of American Exceptionalism.

conorh91

Lyaiera wrote: »

The American isn't dated, it has stayed quite strong in it's goals because although inspired by the times it also speaks of values greater than those times, and of ideals for the country.

But isn't it the case, therefore, that the American constitutional conception of morality is relative, and less objective than the Irish version?

After all what is the purpose of a Basic Law?

Surely, the purpose of a Basic Law is to provide a stable set of objective moral criteria, or principles, to ensure the just ordering of society, protected from the arbitrary whims of lawmakers and judges.

You seem to view the timelessness of the American constitution as an admirable quality, whereas I would suggest it is a flaw.


I would sooner have one new constitution every few generations, than the same vague, non-prescriptive document lasting 300 years or more.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Eamon was sending the draft constitution to the bishop for religious edit

Thats a disgrace by todays standards but thats just the way it was.

The hypothesis about the Church's role in the drafting of Bunreacht has been fairly well discredited.

Timmyctc

cml387 wrote: »

The British seem to manage quite well without one.

If only it was possible to write down in words what it is to be a human being.

There's only so many ways you can phrase "****"

cml387

Timmyctc wrote: »

There's only so many ways you can phrase "****"

And yet you forgot to bold the "w"

Lyaiera

conorh91 wrote: »

But isn't it the case, therefore, that the American constitutional conception of morality is relative, and less objective than the Irish version?

After all what is the purpose of a Basic Law?

Surely, the purpose of a Basic Law is to provide a stable set of objective moral criteria, or principles, to ensure the just ordering of society, protected from the arbitrary whims of lawmakers and judges.

You seem to view the timelessness of the American constitution as an admirable quality, whereas I would suggest it is a flaw.


I would sooner have one new constitution every few generations, than the same vague, non-prescriptive document lasting 300 years or more.

But the preamble isn't law. It's just something that gives reference to the explicit laws laid out in the body of the constitution. It's an introduction to the constitution, almost like a "Mission Statement." It's often brought up in American courts, and would be argued widely, but unless a right is mentioned specifically in the main body of the constitution nothing can be read from the preamble. I'm not too sure what the situation is in Ireland, but I vaguely remember there being something about clarity can be sought from the preamble for something in the main body. Although I don't know if that's a legal argument that's been decided or if it's a political argument within the law.

The point is that both are attempts give rise to the ideals and intentions behind the law and the constitution writers. Showing what the republic is behind a bare framework of rights. I think the American's preamble is good, for reasons I've set out. I think the Irish is bad.

DS86

The preamble to the United States constitution of course. It is almost a work of literature, most notably James Madison's input into the document. Our constitutional preamble, and much of the rest of the document is like something straight out of a Father Ted episode in comparison.

Reindeer

I find the American Declaration of Independence to be more moving.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...

krudler

They both pale in comparison to this in fairness

Good morning. In less than an hour, aircraft from here will join others from around the world. And you will be launching the largest aerial battle in the history of mankind.

"Mankind." That word should have new meaning for all of us today. We can't be consumed by our petty differences anymore. We will be united in our common interests. Perhaps it's fate that today is the Fourth of July, and you will once again be fighting for our freedom... Not from tyranny, oppression, or persecution... but from annihilation.
We are fighting for our right to live. To exist.
And should we win the day, the Fourth of July will no longer be known as an American holiday, but as the day the world declared in one voice: "We will not go quietly into the night!" We will not vanish without a fight! We're going to live on! We're going to survive! Today we celebrate our Independence Day!!!

President James Whitmore, 1996

Mr. Incognito

conorh91 wrote: »

But isn't it the case, therefore, that the American constitutional conception of morality is relative, and less objective than the Irish version?

After all what is the purpose of a Basic Law?

Surely, the purpose of a Basic Law is to provide a stable set of objective moral criteria, or principles, to ensure the just ordering of society, protected from the arbitrary whims of lawmakers and judges.

You seem to view the timelessness of the American constitution as an admirable quality, whereas I would suggest it is a flaw.


I would sooner have one new constitution every few generations, than the same vague, non-prescriptive document lasting 300 years or more.


The hypothesis about the Church's role in the drafting of Bunreacht has been fairly well discredited.

Ah no, it hasnt

http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/the-catholic-church-and-the-writing-of-the-1937-constitution/

conorh91

Lyaiera wrote: »

But the preamble isn't law. It's just something that gives reference to the explicit laws laid out in the body of the constitution. It's an introduction to the constitution, almost like a "Mission Statement." It's often brought up in American courts, and would be argued widely, but unless a right is mentioned specifically in the main body of the constitution nothing can be read from the preamble. I'm not too sure what the situation is in Ireland, but I vaguely remember there being something about clarity can be sought from the preamble for something in the main body. Although I don't know if that's a legal argument that's been decided or if it's a political argument within the law.

It's been decided, in the sense that the Irish courts will cite the preamble in their discovery, or interpretation, of specific constitutional provisions.

I am aware that it is mainly declaratory, I hadn't intended to indicate that the preamble is directly justiciable.

I merely admire the tone it creates, in setting out what it intends to achieve.

The notion of the People giving the constitution to themselves is eloquently expressed, and is a valiant idea, despite the difficulties this concept raises over time.

The point is that both are attempts give rise to the ideals and intentions behind the law and the constitution writers. Showing what the republic is behind a bare framework of rights. I think the American's preamble is good, for reasons I've set out. I think the Irish is bad.

Yes, but as you say, there is a timelessness to the American constitution.

To me, that timelessness is (not always, but) often tantamount to vagueness.

And whilst constitutions should always remain somewhat vague (the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth; per Norris v Ireland) too much vagueness defeats the whole purpose of a Constitution.

cml387

If I may quote (with licence) from the American Declaration of Independence

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that arguing the finer points of constitutional law in After Hours on a Saturday is a complete waste of time"

Zebra3

Hard to tell which is more embarrassing, the Irish one with all its religious crap and referencing a non-existent jew or the US and its crap about justice while the nation was being build on the genocide of Native Americans.

conorh91

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Ah no, it hasnt

http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/the-catholic-church-and-the-writing-of-the-1937-constitution/

I would refer you to Ireland's foremost constitutional scholar, Judge Gerard Hogan, judge of the High Court, and his book The origins of the Irish Constitution.

https://www.ria.ie/publications/books/history/origins-of-the-irish-constitution-1928-41.aspx

As Hogan says, historians and lawyers ought to be friends. But the problem is that historians often misunderstand the Irish constitution, its justiciability, and the scope of its legal application.

They overstate the Christian aspect, although their misunderstanding of the origins of the constitution is harder to forgive.

Reindeer

Zebra3 wrote: »

Hard to tell which is more embarrassing, the Irish one with all its religious crap and referencing a non-existent jew or the US and its crap about justice while the nation was being build on the genocide of Native Americans.

At the time of the Declaration, there were treaties and most hostilities hadn't yet started. Still, there was slavery, so there's that hypocrisy. The genocide really turned the corner when the Union won the war, and basically began it's expansion and consolidation of power. In the new America, there wasn't room for Indians.

Lyaiera

conorh91 wrote: »

It's been decided, in the sense that the Irish courts will cite the preamble in their discovery, or interpretation, of specific constitutional provisions.

I am aware that it is mainly declaratory, I hadn't intended to indicate that the preamble is directly justiciable.

I merely admire the tone it creates, in setting out what it intends to achieve.

The notion of the People giving the constitution to themselves is eloquently expressed, and is a valiant idea, despite the difficulties this concept raises over time.

Well, yes. It is valiantly put and it's very much of it's time. Except in the literal sense it wasn't a "we" who gave it to us, but a single person writing it with legal advice. We voted on it, but I find beauty in the idea of the Americans writing it as a democracy. And it's also quite a reactionary tone in relation to independence. We gave "independence" to ourselves via war. Where America has a hopeful tone to it.

Yes, but as you say, there is a timelessness to the American constitution.

To me, that timelessness is (not always, but) often tantamount to vagueness.

And whilst constitutions should always remain somewhat vague (the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth; per Norris v Ireland) too much vagueness defeats the whole purpose of a Constitution.

Do you think the American Preamble is too vague? And surely a vague preamble is recognition that no document can hold everything. And there's a nice balance between that appearing in a preamble (much as you said where the preamble is vague enough to read this from it) and the solidity given within the main body of the constitution. And yes the whole purpose of a constitution is to define a nation, but still less than the people define it. A constitution isn't a set of rules to be obeyed, it's the framework for a nation.

wendell borton

Archbishop mcquad was the man behind the curtain during the years dev was in power, Ireland was a theocratic state along the lines of Iran.

conorh91

Lyaiera wrote: »

in the literal sense it wasn't a "we" who gave it to us, but a single person writing it with legal advice. We voted on it

But I think we have grounds for suggesting that the drafters of the constitution (or, more correctly perhaps, the single drafter) created the document with the nature and the will of the People in mind.

Thereafter, Bunreacht was 'given to ourselves' by way of a plebiscite.

I do accept that questions of legitimacy arise after almost 80 years, of course.

It's unlikely that we are still willfully giving Bunreacht to ourselves, in toto. I am thinking particularly of the Eighth Amendment and the constitutional position on gay marriage.

What i admire is merely the concept of popular sovereignty contained within the notion of taking this constitution, and the concept of giving it to ourselves. Not necessarily the practical veracity of that phrase, which will change over time, and ought to be addressed.

And yes the whole purpose of a constitution is to define a nation, but still less than the people define it.

But you must agree that the latter part of your statement risks the advancement of populism over constitutional certainty and moral guidance?

Again I go back to the whole, original point of enacting and 'giving to ourselves' a constitution.

We do it, in part, so as to provide some sort of moral certainty, devoid of the whims and fleeting, short-term emotions of popular causes.

In short, it is a protective barrier against moral relativism.

Tail Docker

I never liked a preamble, it always ruined my appetite for the amble. Hunger is the best sauce.

feargale

Does a constitution need a preamble? Ordinary laws don't have one.

Lyaiera

conorh91 wrote: »

But you must agree that the latter part of your statement risks the advancement of populism over constitutional certainty and moral guidance

No. I was just saying it recognises that a nation is greater its constitution, which was recognised in the American one and I see less so in the Irish.

Tail Docker

Lyaiera wrote: »

No. I was just saying it recognises that a nation is greater its constitution, which was recognised in the American one and I see less so in the Irish.

Maybe we like not being "greater"..feckin yanks, everythings bigger and better and greater...feckin yanks...

SpaceTime

French Constitution Preamble (1958 version)

The French people solemnly proclaim their attachment to the Rights of man and to the principles of national sovereignty as defined by the Declaration of 1789, confirmed and completed by the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946. By virtue of these principles and of that of the free determination of peoples, the Republic offers to those Overseas territories which express a desire to accept membership of them new institutions founded on the common ideal of liberty, equality and fraternity and conceived with a view to their democratic evolution.

1946 Preamble (referenced) above

In the morrow of the victory achieved by the free peoples over the regimes that had sought to enslave and degrade humanity, the people of France proclaim anew that each human being, without distinction of race, religion or creed, possesses sacred and inalienable rights. They solemnly reaffirm the rights and freedoms of man and the citizen enshrined in the Declaration of Rights of 1789 and the fundamental principles acknowledged in the laws of the Republic.
They further proclaim, as being especially necessary to our times, the political, economic and social principles enumerated below:
• The law guarantees women equal rights to those of men in all spheres.
• Any man persecuted in virtue of his actions in favour of liberty may claim the right of
asylum upon the territories of the Republic.
• Each person has the duty to work and the right to employment. No person may suffer
prejudice in his work or employment by virtue of his origins, opinions or beliefs.
• All men may defend their rights and interests through union action and may belong to
the union of their choice.
• The right to strike shall be exercised within the framework of the laws governing it.
• All workers shall, through the intermediary of their representatives, participate in the
collective determination of their conditions of work and in the management of the
work place.
• All property and all enterprises that have or that may acquire the character of a public
service or de facto monopoly shall become the property of society.
• The Nation shall provide the individual and the family with the conditions necessary
to their development.
• It shall guarantee to all, notably to children, mothers and elderly workers, protection
of their health, material security, rest and leisure. All people who, by virtue of their age, physical or mental condition, or economic situation, are incapable of working, shall have to the right to receive suitable means of existence from society.
• The Nation proclaims the solidarity and equality of all French people in bearing the burden resulting from national calamities.
• The Nation guarantees equal access for children and adults to instruction, vocational training and culture. The provision of free, public and secular education at all levels is a duty of the State.
• The French Republic, faithful to its traditions, shall conform to the rules of international public law. It shall undertake no war aimed at conquest, nor shall it ever employ force against the freedom of any people.
• Subject to reciprocity, France shall consent to the limitations upon its sovereignty necessary to the organization and preservation of peace.
• France shall form with its overseas peoples a Union founded upon equal rights and duties, without distinction of race or religion.
• The French Union shall be composed of nations and peoples who agree to pool or coordinate their resources and their efforts in order to develop their respective civilizations, increase their well-being, and ensure their security.
• Faithful to its traditional mission, France desires to guide the peoples under its responsibility towards the freedom to administer themselves and to manage their own affairs democratically; eschewing all systems of colonization founded upon arbitrary rule, it guarantees to all equal access to public office and the individual or collective exercise of the rights and freedoms proclaimed or confirmed herein.

It's a bit more useful and a lot more meaningful than the pompous, religious, humble drivel we put into our preamble! The French preamble is more like a brief synopsis of the fundamentals of the post colonial era French Republic. Almost like an executive summary of the constitution.

conorh91

feargale wrote: »

Does a constitution need a preamble? Ordinary laws don't have one.

They kinda do.

It isn't unusual for an Act's "long title" to be opened before a Court, in order to assist the Court with its interpretation.

It describes the what the writer intended to achieve, just like the preamble sets out what the writer intended.

Of course, Courts will not always be interested in what was intended, even in a constitutional provision.

But the bottom line is that the preamble helps with interpretation.

Lyaiera wrote: »

No. I was just saying it recognises that a nation is greater its constitution, which was recognised in the American one and I see less so in the Irish.

Surely a constitution should be an up-to-date reflection of the People of the jurisdiction.

If the People are "greater than" the constitution, this relegates the role of the constitution , and pushes populism to the fore.

I respect your opinion on this, but I disagree with that kind of populism, although I am sure you would see it as being more democratic than populist, of course.

Lyaiera

conorh91 wrote: »

If the People are "greater than" the constitution, this relegates the role of the constitution , and pushes populism to the fore.

I believe it was used in a hopeful context. It's not about abandoning a constitution (and of course the people can change the constitution) nor is it about relegating the constitution, it's about recognising that a nation is more than it's constitution. Our daily life takes as much from everything else as it does the constitution. The constitution is designed to protect the people from themselves but equally if it doesn't do this then the people are free to decide otherwise. It's a collective decision (much why you like the "we give to ourselves." Recognising there's more to a country than what's written on a piece of paper doesn't mean you entirely ignore what's written on the paper. You seem to be taking a very all or nothing view of this.

Mr. Incognito

conorh91 wrote: »

I would refer you to Ireland's foremost constitutional scholar, Judge Gerard Hogan, judge of the High Court, and his book The origins of the Irish Constitution.

https://www.ria.ie/publications/books/history/origins-of-the-irish-constitution-1928-41.aspx

As Hogan says, historians and lawyers ought to be friends. But the problem is that historians often misunderstand the Irish constitution, its justiciability, and the scope of its legal application.

They overstate the Christian aspect, although their misunderstanding of the origins of the constitution is harder to forgive.

Did you read this book? It talks about Fr. McQuaids role and dev trying to get papal approval for the draft constitution.

Are you a historian or a lawyer because saying the church had no role of influence as you contend is nonsense on the facts and on your own linked source material

Here is the synopsis of the book you linked

http://www.extempore.ie/2012/05/09/a-fitting-anniversary-tribute/#more-2059

conorh91

Lyaiera wrote: »

The constitution is designed to protect the people from themselves but equally if it doesn't do this then the people are free to decide otherwise. It's a collective decision (much why you like the "we give to ourselves." Recognising there's more to a country than what's written on a piece of paper doesn't mean you entirely ignore what's written on the paper. You seem to be taking a very all or nothing view of this.

Yes, I'd accept that my preference lies keenly on the side of constitutionalism and, as such, probably comes across as black-and-white.

The nib of the issue is reconciling stability with legitimacy. It's not an easy task (much less easy, at 1am, on AH!).

Someone once used the metaphor of a moving train, going from Belfast to Dublin. At the beginning of the journey, a constitution (or some kind of moral rulebook) was written. But as the journey progressed, a lot of people alighted the train, and a lot of newcomers (presumably, with more diverse moral viewpoints) boarded. The critical question was 'how much legitimacy do the original rules retain?'

The inevitable conclusion is that one must update the Basic Law sufficiently regularly so as to maintain legitimacy, or else maintain sufficient ambiguity in a Basic Law, so as to make room for legitimacy.

Personally, I would prefer the former. I think it's time for a major constitutional overhaul.

Creating a vague document which could be construed any-which-way may be more legitimate, but it just seems a bit pointless. I am not saying that in a derogatory way towards you, it's a very subjective personal opinion.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Did you read this book? It talks about Fr. McQuaids role and dev trying to get papal approval for the draft constitution.

Are you a historian or a lawyer because saying the church had no role of influence as you contend is nonsense on the facts and on your own linked source material

Here is the synopsis of the book you linked

http://www.extempore.ie/2012/05/09/a-fitting-anniversary-tribute/#more-2059

It;s pretty thorough, it raises a rake of issues, Have you read the book? What is your opinion on its discussion of John Hearne?

Hogan J says that Bunreacht was informed by Catholic social teaching, but that it dwells heavily on what he calls "Protestant" values of liberal democracy.

I note that he also uses words like "overstatement" and "fuss", to the extent that nobody could legitimately claim confusion as to his opinions on historians' hypotheses on the influence of the Catholic Church over the irish constitution.

He explicitly says there is nothing particularly exceptional about this.

Perhaps you might be interested in this contribution by the same man, wherein he refers specifically to this issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mX3LLn3l6Q

Capt'n Midnight

cml387 wrote: »

The British seem to manage quite well without one.

UK constitution is very simple

"The House of Commons is God"

Cameron is just one votes away from legally being Dictator for Live.

And thanks to the Parliament Act he doesn't even need the House of Lords to rubber stamp it.

conorh91

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Cameron is just one votes away from legally being Dictator for Live.

Yeah but so are we.

I am not sure whom i distrust more, the People, or the TDs (whom the media are more willing to criticize)

cml387

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

UK constitution is very simple

"The House of Commons is God"

Cameron is just one votes away from legally being Dictator for Live.

And thanks to the Parliament Act he doesn't even need the House of Lords to rubber stamp it.

I was in Cork this afternoon and a protest march was calling for the repeal of the eighth amendment.

Now there may have been any number of political groups in that march I disagree with on many issues, but on this one they are spot on.

LeinsterDub

Reindeer wrote: »

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...

Unless of course your a women or black then the self-evidence will take a other 100 years or so to become evident.

Noble words are meaningless if you're just going to ignore them from the off.

Capt'n Midnight

conorh91 wrote: »

Yeah but so are we.

Do you even know what a written constitution means ?

conorh91

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Do you even know what a written constitution means ?

Uh, yes, I really do.

To clarify, in one popular vote, our constitutional "freedoms" could be abolished, and a President-for-life could be established.

That fact is not assailable.

Lets move on.

I am subsequently putting forward an opinion that our media feel more free to criticize the opinions of our public representatives, than they do in criticizing the opinions of their paying customers.

In other words, the proposition that we are better protected by the public than we are when governed by TDs, is not established.

Sunglasses Ron

Reindeer wrote: »

I find the American Declaration of Independence to be more moving.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...

Moving? Some of the lads who drafted that kept slaves.

Reindeer

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Moving? Some of the lads who drafted that kept slaves.

Some of the men whom drafted it were also deeply religious. But, I don't hold that against them. The whole is more than the sum of the parts - which is sort of the purpose of government, constitutions, etc.

Mr. Incognito

conorh91 wrote: »

Yes, I'd accept that my preference lies keenly on the side of constitutionalism and, as such, probably comes across as black-and-white.

The nib of the issue is reconciling stability with legitimacy. It's not an easy task (much less easy, at 1am, on AH!).

Someone once used the metaphor of a moving train, going from Belfast to Dublin. At the beginning of the journey, a constitution (or some kind of moral rulebook) was written. But as the journey progressed, a lot of people alighted the train, and a lot of newcomers (presumably, with more diverse moral viewpoints) boarded. The critical question was 'how much legitimacy do the original rules retain?'

The inevitable conclusion is that one must update the Basic Law sufficiently regularly so as to maintain legitimacy, or else maintain sufficient ambiguity in a Basic Law, so as to make room for legitimacy.

Personally, I would prefer the former. I think it's time for a major constitutional overhaul.

Creating a vague document which could be construed any-which-way may be more legitimate, but it just seems a bit pointless. I am not saying that in a derogatory way towards you, it's a very subjective personal opinion.



It;s pretty thorough, it raises a rake of issues, Have you read the book? What is your opinion on its discussion of John Hearne?

Hogan J says that Bunreacht was informed by Catholic social teaching, but that it dwells heavily on what he calls "Protestant" values of liberal democracy.

I note that he also uses words like "overstatement" and "fuss", to the extent that nobody could legitimately claim confusion as to his opinions on historians' hypotheses on the influence of the Catholic Church over the irish constitution.

He explicitly says there is nothing particularly exceptional about this.

Perhaps you might be interested in this contribution by the same man, wherein he refers specifically to

You remind me of this guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnZ0Y4rvz6E

All the wherein etc and fluffy language.

I am going to presume you are a law student. Lawyers dont use "wherein" and heretofore. Also you don't need to say things like "subjective personal opinion," it's repeating what subjective means.

My first month as a trainee solicitor my managing partner gave me a book by Lord Denning to read called "what next in the law" The striking thing was the economy of language. It was an excellent practical example of simplicity of language for clear communication.

There is no need for unclear high brow language. What you are typing makes no sense to anyone bar yourself and certainly doesn't make your point. (which I am not sure what it actually is anymore)

My point is simple. The church had a massive influence in the constitution.

This is a fact from a historic and legal perspective. Its why women were forced to leave employment when they got married for the first 25 years of the republic.

Sometimes you just have to admit to being wrong rather than to keep digging a hole for yourself and retrain yourself to write for your own sake.

Reindeer

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Unless of course your a women or black then the self-evidence will take a other 100 years or so to become evident.

Noble words are meaningless if you're just going to ignore them from the off.

Well, there's a good argument women still haven't proven that they are equal...

conorh91

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

All the wherein etc and fluffy language.

Oh would you give it a rest. How many paragraphs of nonsense did I just read? I wish I could get that minute of my life back. Let me state this clearly.

I am not interested in back-and-forth personal attacks. I have put forward a clear proposition, and explained the basis for my opinion. One could counter that proposition by way of an alternative, but you chose to engage in a strange barrage against the character of some stranger on the internet.

I don't even care enough to judge you for that, I'm just pointing it out to you.

Manach

The Irish, given its traditional roots in the Catholic ethos which has been one of the foundational supports of Ireland being one of the oldest and most stable of democratic societies in the world.

Mr. Incognito

conorh91 wrote: »

Oh would you give it a rest. How many paragraphs of nonsense did I just read? I wish I could get that minute of my life back. Let me state this clearly.

I am not interested in back-and-forth personal attacks. I have put forward a clear proposition, and explained the basis for my opinion. One could counter that proposition by way of an alternative, but you chose to engage in a strange barrage against the character of some stranger on the internet.

I don't even care enough to judge you for that, I'm just pointing it out to you.

You didnt propose anything. You disagreed with a statement then posted support for the statement you dis-agreed with. I pointed this out to you and you posted indecipherable dribble as a retort.

Once again, the church had a role in the drafting of the constitution. Not to labour the point.

I have tried to be of assistance to explain that you are articulating yourself very poorly and now you are just being petulant. I am not the only poster here to point this out.

Lets just agree to disagree. Take care.

feargale

Zebra3 wrote: »

Hard to tell which is more embarrassing, the Irish one with all its religious crap and referencing a non-existent jew or the US and its crap about justice while the nation was being build on the genocide of Native Americans.

I don't care to find myself on the same side as the bootboyism of A&A, but yes, that Holy Trinity stuff in the preamble should go. A constitution should be inclusive. Incidentally, and I don't wish to drag the thread off topic, but re the "non-existent Jew" to whom you refer, his existence was independently verified by at least one contemporary historian.