Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Points of Law/ Statutory Interpretation

  • 24-08-2019 4:19pm
    #1
    Whitecarstones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 130 ✭✭


    What happens when something in an act conflicts with the laws in the constitution? What takes precedence?

    Also, if a word is not defined in the constitution or any Act, and it is been challenged, does a judge look at a universal definition when making their minds up?

    Sorry if its unclear. Abit hard to explain.


Comments

  • #2
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Whitecarstones wrote: »
    What happens when something in an act conflicts with the laws in the constitution? What takes precedence?

    Strictly speaking there are no "laws in the constitution", rather laws must be compatible with the constitution and enacted accordingly in line with the provisions of it. What it creates is a constitutional order.

    All laws are afforded a presumption of constitutionality unless declared repugnant by the HC, CA or SC.


    Whitecarstones wrote: »
    Also, if a word is not defined in the constitution or any Act, and it is been challenged, does a judge look at a universal definition when making their minds up?

    That very much depends on the word and the context it is used in, sometimes the ordinary meaning will be used, sometimes a specific interpretation will be applied depending on the intent of the legislator, I have even seen cases where the common dictionary has been used.

    I made a brief post before here regarding statutory interpretation.


  • #3
    GerardKeating
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,804 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    Whitecarstones wrote: »
    What happens when something in an act conflicts with the laws in the constitution? What takes precedence?

    Also, if a word is not defined in the constitution or any Act, and it is been challenged, does a judge look at a universal definition when making their minds up?

    Sorry if its unclear. Abit hard to explain.

    The constitution that precedence over any/all laws.

    Few words are defined in the constitution, judges will take the common usage of the word, and sometimes the intent of those drafting it in determining the meaning of the constitution


  • #4
    usernamegoes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 901 ✭✭✭usernamegoes


    GM228 wrote: »
    All laws are afforded a presumption of constitutionality unless declared repugnant by the HC, CA or SC.

    To be clear for the OP, only those enacted after 1937. Pre-1937 don't enjoy the presumption.
    GerardKeating wrote: »
    The constitution that precedence over any/all laws.

    For the benefit on the OP, who might be thinking about an EU law. EU laws can override what the constitution says as they have precedence. Although technically, they are not inconsistent because the constitution allows them to be, if that makes sense.


  • #5
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    usernamegoes wrote: »
    To be clear for the OP, only those enacted after 1937. Pre-1937 don't enjoy the presumption.

    Yes I should have mentioned that, it also applies to pre 1937 Acts which are post 1937 amended.


    usernamegoes wrote: »
    For the benefit on the OP, who might be thinking about an EU law. EU laws can override what the constitution says as they have precedence. Although technically, they are not inconsistent because the constitution allows them to be, if that makes sense.

    Oh the Supremecy of EU law over the Constitution debate - the ECJ has long held that it applies to Constitutions since the Flaminio Costa vs E.N.E.L.C-6/64 case, however, the Supreme Court and the German Bundesverfassungsgericht (the Federal Constitutional Court) seem to be at odds with them on that issue...


Advertisement