Article 42 Subsection 4 of Constitution

marieholmfan

Bunreacht_Na_hEireann wrote:

IThe State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

Could a legal challenge to school closing succeed on the basis of the above?

Marcusm

marieholmfan wrote: »

Could a legal challenge to school closing succeed on the basis of the above?

It could succeed just as well as a challenge on the basis that such schooling is not provided on weekends or during the months of July and August.

sydthebeat

marieholmfan wrote: »

Could a legal challenge to school closing succeed on the basis of the above?

What school closing?

marieholmfan

Marcusm wrote: »

It could succeed just as well as a challenge on the basis that such schooling is not provided on weekends or during the months of July and August.

Are you suggesting that an administrative decision to increase the primary school weekend to 6 days and the summer holidays to ten months a year would not be open to challenge?

Smee_Again

It’s a temporary closure so very unlikely to succeed.

And even if schools closed more permanently as long as primary education is provided for ie work sent home etc the state has met its obligations.

Family are after all the primary and natural educators of children. (Art. 40.1)

Victor

Marcusm wrote: »

It could succeed just as well as a challenge on the basis that such schooling is not provided on weekends or during the months of July and August.

The let them home in the afternoons as well. Some schools are only use for about 11% of the year.

coylemj

marieholmfan wrote: »

Could a legal challenge to school closing succeed on the basis of the above?

Article 42.4 starts .....

The State shall provide for free primary education ....

I would contend that the word 'for' trumps your hypothetical rights on the basis that it does not say that the state 'shall provide'.

'Provide for' is usually taken to mean that the appropriate money is set aside for the purpose, not that the subject actually delivers the goods or service.

Taken alongside the earlier (42.1) clause which states 'that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family', I'd say you have no case.

banie01

coylemj wrote: »

Article 42.4 starts .....



I would contend that the word 'for' trumps your hypothetical rights on the basis that it does not say that the state 'shall provide'.

Taken alongside the earlier (42.1) clause which states 'that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family', I'd say you have no case.

Every time a hypothetical such as the OP's is raised I find myself reminded that people generally only read the parts of the constitution they want to.(Not a dig Marie, and something I'm often guilty of myself)

@Coylemj; Your example above is a great demonstration of precisely why no portion of the text should be read in isolation.
It needs to be taken as a whole and any challenge based on a provision must ensure that it's not addressed elsewhere in the doc.

Mr. Incognito

No

Constitutional rights have to be balanced.

The right of the State to protect its citizens on health grounds trumps the schools staying open.

Also a judicial review is at least 30 K

Do you have 30K to throw at a brain fart

Marcusm

marieholmfan wrote: »

Are you suggesting that an administrative decision to increase the primary school weekend to 6 days and the summer holidays to ten months a year would not be open to challenge?

That’s hardly what is being suggested!

marieholmfan

marieholmfan wrote: »

Could a legal challenge to school closing succeed on the basis of the above?

First of all they are not closed. Secondly, and more appropriately, I’d estimate the chances of winning even if they were closed at something close to 1% maximum.

marieholmfan

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

No

Constitutional rights have to be balanced.

The right of the State to protect its citizens on health grounds trumps the schools staying open.

Also a judicial review is at least 30 K

Do you have 30K to throw at a brain fart

If I won I'd get it back wouldn't I; I'd probably get it back even if I lost.

marieholmfan

marieholmfan wrote: »

If I won I'd get it back wouldn't I; I'd probably get it back even if I lost.

Win you get an order for costs. Which covers a decent chunk of your actual costs.

Lose and you won't get your costs. Incredibly unlikely. And you'll be doing well to avoid paying the other side's costs.