Is the constitution fit for purpose?

dublincc2

I came across this very interesting video outlining some of the issues with Bunreacht as it currently exists. I personally think we need a new Irish constitution, one that is secular and more akin to the US constitution, which limits the powers of government, ensures fundamental rights and leaves the rest open-ended. One has to remember that de Valera was aiming for a constitution that had Catholicism infused, while this made sense at the time clearly it does no longer.

https://youtu.be/yZToj8H-8yo

Hotblack Desiato

I have many issues with Dev's "Catholic constitution for a Catholic people" but yer man is clearly not all there.

Kiteview

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058341524/is-the-constitution-fit-for-purpose

I don’t see why that requires a new constitution. Why not articulate what is misssing/needs changing in the existing one and seek to alter it accordingly?

And, I’d be wary of putting the US constitution up on a pedestal, since amending it seems to be next to impossible in recent decades and I don’t regard the fact that their Supreme Court is now increasingly partisan is a plus point for the US system.

Sam Russell

The 8th amendment should never have been put to the people. Flowery language was not appropriate to the constitution because it hid the unexpected consequences that took many years and many amendments to undo the 8th.

The people have learnt the lesson and rejected the last two because the wording was wrong. What is a 'durable' relationship? Answer - NO!.

Our constitution is robust and in good hands - the hands of the people.

ednwireland

Yep seems to put the brake on politicians having free reign.

Hotblack Desiato

There should have been a straight deletion of the 'duties in the home' nonsense, the big mistake was trying to shoehorn feel-good wooey stuff in there which simply does not belong in a constitution at all.

Similarly with the family, why on earth do we need a statement in the constitution on what constitutes a family? What on earth is the practical effect of such a definition supposed to be?

Despite the family supposedly being defined in the constitution, Revenue define a family in a certain way for their purposes, DSP in a different way for theirs, Justice another. This can all be altered in law as events and circumstances require. What is the problem exactly?

Delete the preamble, delete all references to god, delete the oaths and define them in law. None of that belongs in a constitution either.

We should really be aiming to get the whole thing to fit on both sides of a single A4 page.

But instead other nonsense is being proposed like a constitutional right to housing (if that happens, best advice for any taxpayer is emigrate immediately) or how our water systems operate. Complete rubbish that should be entirely matters for the Oireachtas to decide - it only took us 35 years to realise that abortion had no place in a constitution, what damage will the next round of feel-good woo cause?

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121955733#Comment_121955733

I agree with most of that.

Perhaps a simple statement that the gender of a citizen is not material in law and their rights are identical and the term 'man' or 'woman' are interchangeable as to rights under the constitution.

Another one should be that no non-citizen can have greater rights in Irish law than an Irish citizen.

Manach

That the Constitution is somewhat tainted by being influenced by the Catholic social doctrine and natural law jurisprudence of the time is so much claptrap: it reflect the relative homogenous and aspirations of the people as we were (source, standard constitutional law class, first lecture). It had manged to hold together and serve to provide a relatively stable set of foundational laws. Now however, it became the whiteboard unto which the progressives seek not to reflect the people's will but impose a top down idealised version of whatever is their doctrine du jour.

Hotblack Desiato

Another one should be that no non-citizen can have greater rights in Irish law than an Irish citizen.

Sounds like a far-right talking point tbh, in what way can a non-citizen currently have greater rights?

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121957022#Comment_121957022

Impose? hah.

I'll break out my tiniest violin for the death of doctrinaire state Catholicism.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121958631#Comment_121958631

Well, it is not far right, but an attempt to head off the far right at the pass.

combat14

the biggest issues facing the country at present are the housing crisis, uncontrolled illegal immigration, health crisis, investment in education, value for money investment in infrastructure, reunification and paying down our national debt..

another attempt at changing our constitution after the recent government and opposition debacle or the introduction of hate speech laws is surely is not on the cards

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121957022#Comment_121957022

Now however, it became the whiteboard unto which the progressives seek not to reflect the people's will

Incorrect. The recent constitutional amendments re. Marriage and Abortion do not back this statement up in any respect. You may not like the results, as is your right, but that is immaterial. The people's will was enacted by a substantial majority diktat. And if those amendments are ever removed, it'll be by the people once more.

Indeed it's a sign of a healthy democracy that it's foundational document is updated to reflect the will of the people. your personal opinion or ideology becoming the minority direction does not mean it has all gone wrong, or some cabal of progressiveness ignoring the majority; feel free to take that fallacy to the conspiracy theory.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121958707#Comment_121958707

It could be a potential minefield for the courts though, especially if it came up against things like the ECHR

The great thing about the Irish Constitution is we can amend it, and do so regularly.

The US haven't touched theirs since 1992 and the mere mention of trying to amend it is ridiculed.

Since the last US amendment we've had about 30 referendums of which the amendment passed about 75% of the time.

Sam Russell

Quote:It could be a potential minefield for the courts though, especially if it came up against things like the ECHR

Surely, that is exactly the area where it would be most important. How can some foreign national claim protection that is not available to all Irish citizens?

Another area would be where foreign corporations attempt to sue the state for losses caused by an Irish statute. For example. the banning of cigarette packaging advertising, or advertising of gambling.

SuperBowserWorld

....

Brussels Sprout

I watched that entire video and still don't know what point he was trying to make.

He seemed to have big 'Jet fuel can't melt steel beams' energy though:

"Look at the colour. Look at the colour people!"

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121958707#Comment_121958707

I'll ask again. In what way can a non-citizen have greater rights than a citizen?

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121957022#Comment_121957022

The word 'relative' is doing a lot of work there.

There was plenty of opposition to de Valera's constitution, unfortunately those opposed were unable to form a coalition and successfully oppose it and the many regressive and sectarian measures it contained.

Irish women had more rights in 1922 than they had in 1972.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121958794#Comment_121958794

The national debt is a complete non-issue.

Reunification remains a pipe dream in the absence of a British government willing to conduct a border poll and the absence of a majority of the NI electorate desiring reunification. The Irish government has no power in either regard. I'd rather not import the major social and economic problems of NI, created by the British (in every sense), into the quite successful state I live in and pay taxes in, thanks all the same.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121963655#Comment_121963655

I do know how a non citizen can claim greater rights than a citizen, but it is an often quoted line by protestors against migrants getting state provided accommodation.

If the constitution states that it cannot happen, then those protesters cannot make that claim.

Hotblack Desiato

It seems I must ask for a third time. What rights can a non-citizen claim over and above those afforded to an Irish citizen?

Yakov P. Golyadkin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121964067#Comment_121964067

That's a bit mad - Should the constitution contain a counterpoint to every wild claim that is, or may be, made?

Article 8901.1.23 - The Earth is not flat

Article 8901.1.24 There is no ice wall surrounding the poles.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121964067#Comment_121964067

Sure they can. This is a topic on which false claims, easily demonstrable as false, abound. One more false claim won't present a barrier to people who, by and large, don't care about the falsity of their claims.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121964067#Comment_121964067

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121964106#Comment_121964106

I think what Sam is getting at is an idealistic attempt, in law, to close off the kind of false narratives peddled by the right wing; that if our constitution said it in a line that migrants couldn't ever have "more rights", thus all the bad faith arguments would dissolve. But as @Peregrinus notes, the right would simply pivot to a whole new set of falsehoods and scaremongering tactics.

And as the Cobra Effect notes, well meaning attempts to solve problems can yield unintended consequences that make scenarios even worse; I daresay this constitutional element could cause some weird court cases, maybe even prejudicial results towards migrants at that.

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121964067#Comment_121964067

There is no need for the constitution to say this, because it's an utter fantasy that such things exist in the first place.

Changing the constitution to pander to far-right racists isn't a good path forward for a democracy, IMO.

Edit: and most of our obligations to non-nationals (legal or illegal) are enshrined in European law and the UN Conventions anyway, so we most likely couldn't do it even if we wanted to.

RetroEncabulator

It could definitely do with an update to the preamble. As meaningless as it probably is legally, it frames it in a very odd theological context which is quite weird for a republic.

We were a corporatist state when it came to how we interacted with the church, certainly post 1937. The church wasn't a lobby. It was directly brought into policy making and given direct roles that sidestepped democracy. Again that wasn't all that unusual in Europe - a lot of countries had state religions - several still do, including various places we'd consider quite progressive.

If you compare the French constitution's preamble to the Irish one, ours is like the opening of Mass. Theirs very much sets out a modern republic with big ideals.

There are a few other bits and pieces in it that are quite odd around religion and so on too, but by a large it's a modern (ish) document, albeit one that is of its era.

You also have to remember the Irish constitution wasn't very radical in many ways. It sort of preserves the status quo not straying all that much away from the theocratic constitutional monarchy that the modern UK evolved from too. The idea of a fully secular constitution in the 1930s was fairly radical, and not many places had one other than the US and France, and the Americans kept trying to walk back from that with 'in god we trust' etc

I mean, we still start the meetings of the Oireachtas with a big prayer, which I find quite odd tbh.

There's a lot of scope for updating it - and I think we need to get away from being overly prescriptive and trying to legislate with the constitution.

The marriage referendum text insert was a very good example of how it should be done - simple, clean language giving a fundamental right.

The abortion referenda over the years mostly sought to tie the hands of legislators by placing what amounted to mini pieces of legislation directly into the constitution. That kind of thing should simply never happen.

I'd fully agree, just deleting the women in the home stuff would have been adequate. We've extensive rights protecting carers and so on already in legislation. There was no need to overcomplicate it.

dulpit

I would like to de-gender the language in the constitution (e.g. the president is referred to as "he" throughout). I would also bin that pre-amble.

I'd also like some way to have the constitution be amended via a route not just the Dáil. But it couldn't be direct democracy but some way to have a public petition or something to have something then drafted in proper legalise that would then be put before the country. Maybe.