Constitution

Kappar

Dose any one here believe that Ireland needs a new, contemporary, constitution for the 21st century? My position on the present constitution is that it is archaic, although it probably was not so when it was drafted when you look at the context of the time. Moreover, IMHO the architect, Emanon Devalara, was too inclined towards the Catholic Church, consulting with the Archbishop Macquid, Papal Nuncio and The Pope. I feel that a constitution, the framework for all organs of the state legislative, executive and judicial, is know place for memorializing ones religious views. Once again it comes down the context of the time, and in the context of the time this Might have been acceptable.

I also feel that the constitution dose not go far enough to enshrine the rights of citizens. With the “Fundamental Rights” section riddled with “In accordance with the law” and other such clauses and maybe worst of all ambiguity.

I think that my argument is buttressed by the fact that in the 53 years from 1937-1990 it was amended 10 times and then the following 10 years is has been amended 9 times. This shows, Ostensibly, People feel that it needs updating.What are peoples vies on this?

Victor

I think you are overstating the religious connotation as the only direct reference to religion is in the preamble, which is difficult to amend (and to be honest, does it really need amending, there are more important things to do with one's time).

Text of the Constitution:
http://www.gov.ie/taoiseach/publication/constitution/english/contents.htm

Kappar

I have found a least one more direct example of a Religion in

Article 44

1. The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.

Understandably this is in the section ‘Religion’, although it dose say ‘state’ not Nation it dose infer, to me, the members of the state.
However, although I was talking about the direct inclusion of Religion in the constitution I was leaning more towards the indirect inclusion of “Catholic Morals”

Keeks

Fifth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1972
[Removed from the Constitution the special position of the Catholic Church and the recognition of other named religious denominations.]

Keeks

btw...what are "Catholic Morals"?

Victor

Originally posted by Kappar
Understandably this is in the section ‘Religion’, although it dose say ‘state’ not Nation it dose infer, to me, the members of the state.

Yes it recognises that many people adhere to religion, but it does not espouse any one particular religion.

Originally posted by Kappar
However, although I was talking about the direct inclusion of Religion in the constitution I was leaning more towards the indirect inclusion of “Catholic Morals”

Then what are you suggestion be included. You say it is "wrong", but you don't offer suggestions of what would be "right".

Kappar

Originally posted by Keeks
what are "Catholic Morals"?

By the term "Catholic morals", I meant to mean good old-fashioned Catholic Ireland. Moreover not want this to sound judgmental or patronizing.

Kappar

Yes it recognises that many people adhere to religion, but it does not espouse any one particular religion.

IMHO, I take this to mean that, the state, which represents all the people of Ireland, pays homage to Almighty God, not almighty Gods or nothing for those who do not choose to worship any God. Furthermore, the portion “and shall respect and honour his religion”. How can the state honour every, and no religion simultaneously?

Then what are you suggestion be included. You say it is "wrong", but you don't offer suggestions of what would be "right".

No, what I suggest, initially, is that Rights be included that Do not hurt any Human beings, obviously this would need some conditions.

Victor

Originally posted by Kappar
IMHO, I take this to mean that, the state, which represents all the people of Ireland, pays homage to Almighty God, not almighty Gods or nothing for those who do not choose to worship any God. Furthermore, the portion “and shall respect and honour his religion”. How can the state honour every, and no religion simultaneously?

Well first off, the quote “and shall respect and honour his religion” does not appear in the Irish Constitution.

Originally posted by Kappar
IMHO, I take this to mean that, the state, which represents all the people of Ireland, pays homage to Almighty God, not almighty Gods or nothing for those who do not choose to worship any God. ... How can the state honour every, and no religion simultaneously?

By honour, they mean "not unfairly harm", "be nice to", "consider the opinions of", it does not mean the state should "[pay] homage" or "worship" God.

Originally posted by Kappar
No, what I suggest, initially, is that Rights be included that Do not hurt any Human beings, obviously this would need some conditions.

WTF?

Other than the Preamble (I don't think it can be amended), any reference to God is in a 'secular' sense, it merely acknowledges that many people are religious in one way or another. Look at any other country, the USA even has "In God we trust" on their money.

Finally, the state does not create the Constitution, it is the people of the state / nation. In Ireland the people are sovereign, not the parliment and not the state.

sceptre

Originally posted by Victor




WTF?

Other than the Preamble (I don't think it can be amended),

The last Constitution Review group was a little unclear, but basically they came to the same opinion.

Very difficult to come up with an entirely new document that would be accepted by the people. There are simply too many small groups represented by or with vested interests in particular articles in the constitution. The current abortion scnario is a case in point. Any amendment would have to take account of the opposite sides of the argument (plus people like Dana who straddle both sides for various reasons).

Very difficult to achieve - I'd even say "impossible". Don't disagree with your major point though - the constitution is now becoming a little unwieldy. I've always thought the constitution of a state should list basic inviolable rights of the people and not that much more else to be honest. With the detail our constitution has, I very much doubt we'll ever see more than chopping and editing over time.

TNS Radio

Kappar wrote: »

Dose any one here believe that Ireland needs a new, contemporary, constitution for the 21st century? My position on the present constitution is that it is archaic, although it probably was not so when it was drafted when you look at the context of the time. Moreover, IMHO the architect, Emanon Devalara, was too inclined towards the Catholic Church, consulting with the Archbishop Macquid, Papal Nuncio and The Pope. I feel that a constitution, the framework for all organs of the state legislative, executive and judicial, is know place for memorializing ones religious views. Once again it comes down the context of the time, and in the context of the time this Might have been acceptable.

I also feel that the constitution dose not go far enough to enshrine the rights of citizens. With the “Fundamental Rights” section riddled with “In accordance with the law” and other such clauses and maybe worst of all ambiguity.

I think that my argument is buttressed by the fact that in the 53 years from 1937-1990 it was amended 10 times and then the following 10 years is has been amended 9 times. This shows, Ostensibly, People feel that it needs updating.What are peoples vies on this?

Interesting post, I'll address this response to the original poster.

Firstly the history of Bunreacht Na hÉireann it seems has been clouded over time, I even heard Michael D say it was 75 years old when in fact it was written between 1917 and 1919 in Vaughans hotel in Dublin by the Irish republican brotherhood, in 1922 Michael Collins acting as agent for King George operating in the "Constitution room" in the Shelbourne Hotel altered (Lacking the authority to do so as he had abandoned the Republic by making an oath to King George) the text of Bunreacht na hÉireann as instructed. Bunreacht na hÉeireann was written for a 32 county republic only, and was taken verbatim from the Proclamation of 1916. The only way any change could be made to it was by a 32 county referendum, as required by the proclamation. The provisional government that are presently in place do not hold sovereignty. The original Bunreacht na hÉireann is still not the property of the Corporate provisional government that are operating still the Oireachtas which was and still is a Crown construct. To address the posters concerns with regard to rights of the people, the proclamation very clearly provides that the people are sovereign (mentioned three times) and that they have indefeasible rights, ergo Bunreacht na hÉireann reflected that, in a nutshell, if you did not expressly consent no one could assume your consent.

K-9

Thread is over 10 years old.