How does clamping not affect constitutional rights?

iwishihadaname

Friend of mine got clamped yesterday. Just got me thinking - how is a public authority allowed to clamp your vehicle without infringing on your consitutional right to property? I'm aware there's legislation but doesn't the constitution trump that?

*Edit* to take out "enjoy" property because that seems to be a sticking point taking away from my question.

Basically, wouldn't it be more proportional to balance social good and property rights by simply ticketing cars and not clamp cars? (I'm not a solicitor or anything, genuine question)

seamus

What part of the constitution grants the "right to enjoy" property?

In any case, if you read the constitution you'll find that practically all rights guaranteed by the constitution are balanced with the ability of a government to limit those rights where necessary for the common good.

Mr. Incognito

Because your democratically elected members have passed a law authorising clamping on your behalf.

Victor

iwishihadaname wrote: »

How does clamping not affect constitutional rights?

The flip side of this is 'How does improper parking not affect constitutional rights to property?' - the vehicle user is depriving the occupier of their right to their own land.

iwishihadaname

Article 40.3.2 requires the State to vindicate the property rights of every citizen.

I understand in Article 43 and in Shirley Vs O'Gorman it is indicated where the State is pursuing a social justice it may require the restriction of property rights in light of the common good. But wouldn't it be more proportional to balance social good and property rights by simply ticketing cars and not clamp cars? (I'm not a solicitor or anything, genuine question)

Speedwell

All laws infringe on someone's "right" to do something. Taxation is slavery. Do what thou wilt. Don't bogart the spliff, man.

Victor

iwishihadaname wrote: »

But wouldn't it be more proportional to balance social good and property rights by simply ticketing cars and not clamp cars?

This went on for years and was completely ineffective. Ticketing moves the problem down the line, clamping is relatively immediate - you don't to the dog for digging a hole int eh garden last week.

For ticketing to work, private property owners would need to be able to access the vehicle / driver database. Do you want that?

seamus

iwishihadaname wrote: »

Article 40.3.2 requires the State to vindicate the property rights of every citizen.

And article 43 sets out what those rights are. "Right to enjoy" is not included in there.

You could argue that by immobilising the vehicle the state has effectively "taken" your property. However, as you still retain full ownership over the vehicle and the clamp is intended purely as a temporary measure to alert the owner to illegal parking, then that falls well within what the state is permitted to do for the common good.

Funnily enough, it's the far more effective measure of lifting and seizing badly-parked vehicles that would be more constitutionally fraught.