Constitutionality of current restrictions

padser

It may have been discussed here already, but it struck me today that the current restrictions must be blatantly unconstitutional.

Off the top of my head, they breech a number of rights that are either specified or have already been defined as unenumnerated rights (family, privacy and travel come to mind but I'm sure there are more).

Additionally, given there are provisions to declare emergency and suspend constitutional rights, and the governement has chosen not to use them. So I cant see what argument the government could have in terms of needing to go down this route.

I'm conscious that this is likely what Gemma O D and John W are arguing and I dont like the company I'm keeping....

Any thoughts?

Scuid Mhór

Constitutional rights are a balancing act i.e. the right to earn a livelihood versus the right to life; the right to liberty versus "the public interest". The restrictions are not blatantly unconstitutional. The entire point of constitutional law is that different constitutional rights will always be in conflict with one another (for example, detaining someone accused of criminal misconduct is an example of a curtailing of that individual's right to liberty - but it still must be done in the public interest of administering justice).

The point is that the general healthcare and lives of the nation as of right now is trumping any of the other rights libertarians might be harping on about. The restrictions are, constitutionally speaking, totally fine.

GM228

Usually when restrictions on movement or personal liberties are questioned people are very quick to cite Article 40. 4.1° of the Constitution:-

40.1° No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law.

But they forget the most important part which is highlighted in bold. If there is a law which allows for your detention etc which is in force at the time and used accordingly you can't use Article 40 4.1° to make a claim that the law is unconstitutional, you need to use something else in the Constitution.

Also to remember all rights are not absolute and subject to competing rights, public policy and of course public health.

The pigeon man

It's always interesting to debate the constitutionality of laws.

I think there's a chance the laws may be unconstitutional.

The Oireachtas shall hold at least one session every year.

8 1° Sittings of each House of the Oireachtas shall be public.

2° In cases of special emergency, however, either House may hold a private sitting with the assent of two-thirds of the members present.

I'm wondering was the sitting of the Oireachtas held in private for the passing of the health act 2020?

If so I highly doubt two thirds of the members were present.

Caranica

"With the assent of two thirds of the members present" translates as"with the agreement of two thirds of the members who are there" to me to and I'm sure the AG will have confirmed that translation.

The pigeon man

Caranica wrote: »

"With the assent of two thirds of the members present" translates as"with the agreement of two thirds of the members who are there" to me to and I'm sure the AG will have confirmed that translation.

Ah yes I think you're onto something here.

Peregrinus

The pigeon man wrote: »

I'm wondering was the sitting of the Oireachtas held in private for the passing of the health act 2020?

The sittings of both Dail and Seanad at which the Health Bill was discussed and voted on were public.

It's vanishingly rare for either the Dail or the Seanad to sit in private. On occasion in the 1919-21 period the Dail sat in private for obvious reasons, but I'm pretty sure never since then, and the Seanan never has. The facility for private sittings remains partly in case a similar emergency ever befalls, and I think partly to remind the members that there was once a time when such things were necessary.

Dail and Seanad Committees can and I think occasionally do sit in private, usually when investigating sensitive matters (e.g. what is the Secret Service vote spent on?). The investigations culminates in a report, which is public, but when they are at the taking evidence stage of the investigation they may want to hear witnesses in private, and have time to deliberate on how much of their evidence ends up in the report.

Lmklad

The pigeon man wrote: »

It's always interesting to debate the constitutionality of laws.

I think there's a chance the laws may be unconstitutional.

The Oireachtas shall hold at least one session every year.

8 1° Sittings of each House of the Oireachtas shall be public.

2° In cases of special emergency, however, either House may hold a private sitting with the assent of two-thirds of the members present.

I'm wondering was the sitting of the Oireachtas held in private for the passing of the health act 2020?

If so I highly doubt two thirds of the members were present.

The new health act (with a fantastically unwieldy name) passed in the Dail without decent so no vote was needed. A minimum of 20 TDs are required to make a quorum and at the moment 27 are allowed into the chamber.

The two thirds you mentioned are two thirds of those *present* in the house at the time a vote for closed session is called, not two thirds of the number of TDs eligible to sit.