mkdon05 wrote: » the state shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.
mkdon05 wrote: » Decided to have a read through the constitution today, as its something fundamental to all our rights as citizens of Ireland and which I have never looked at before! After a few minutes scanning it, I came across Article 41 section 2; the state shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home. This got me thinking of all the mothers that are forced to work to help pay for all the taxes that the state are imposing on households. Surely this is breaching the constitution as the government are creating an economic necessity to engage in labour?
mkdon05 wrote: » This got me thinking of all the mothers that are forced to work to help pay for all the taxes that the state are imposing on households. Surely this is breaching the constitution as the government are creating an economic necessity to engage in labour?
hyperborean wrote: » The Irish constitution is largely ambigious, it was designed to be able to defend itself from queries just like yours. As for mothers working if they need to pay their dues, of course they should! If they are able to bring the child into the world they should have to provide for it not depend on handouts.
SB2013 wrote: » The dole plus free house more than covers the basics for families.
CJC999 wrote: » The irish constitution is 76 years old and therefore 76 years (or more) out of date, out of touch and completely ridiculous when considered in relation to Irelabd today. It needs to be scrapped and rewritten to reflect the people if Irekand today and not generations long since dead.
mkdon05 wrote: » And by dues you mean, income tax, usc, prsi, water charges, broadcast charges. Property tax, vat and any other "handout" that the state comes looking for.
hyperborean wrote: » You speak of the state like it is some kind of vampire entity that is bleeding poor mothers who should not have to contribute just because they birthed a child. The state is you, me and everyone that depends on Irish society, we are the state. everyone needs to contribute.
mkdon05 wrote: » Mothers should be at home looking after their children whilst fathers work and provide for them. Or even a role reversal, main thing is that kids shouldn't have to be dumped on grandparents/ minders / creches! Like it used to be. I take it you are aware that your contribution is going to pay for bad decisions made by an elite few. It's not being used within our society anymore (a huge chunk anyway) so in that sense the leaders of our state are like vampires, to use your analogy.
hyperborean wrote: » The Irish constitution is largely ambigious, it was designed to be able to defend itself from queries just like yours.
RATM wrote: » All constitutions are purposely ambiguous. That way over time intrepretations of the constitution can be made by different judges. The US Constitution is famously only 4 pages long. But that document has ruled the US since 1789 and has only had 27 amendments in those 200+ years (10 of which were the Bill of Rights) Our consititution on the other hand is by and large way out of date for modern society. When deValera wanted won written instead of looking to the US Constitution for inspiration (not forgetting Dev was more American than Irish) he handed the task to a bunch of bishops and cardinals who said that women should stay in the home. What we have today is a country which is overwhelmingly a product of the Catholic Church, it is a document that defines Ireland as a theoracy, not a democracy. Read through it more and you'll find where it gives a 'special place' to the Church. The very idea of a Republic is that Church and State are seperated - the French did it first in the French Reveloution, shortly thereafter followed by the Americans. They are true republics, we are more like a theocracy who calls itself a republic. In a republic you have a fundamental seperation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judicuary. Our 'Republic' doesn't have that- the politicians appoint their mates as judges, in a real republic the public vote in the judges to keep the job out of the hands of politicians who would appoint their mates (as we see with commonly with FF/FG/Lab. Our whole 1937 Constitution is a bit of a farce. It gives too much power to the Church while kicking women in the stomach too. And people laugh at Iran and its mullahs. We had plenty of them here ourselves when the 1937 Constitution got written and plenty of those in power now agree with them.
mkdon05 wrote: » So everybody should ditch their mortgage and job and apply for a free house? I don't think its quite as easy as that!
hyperborean wrote: » That type of emotive rhetoric has an audience for sure but some of us are realists and understand that no one gets a free ride even birthing mothers or homebound fathers, Who are these elites you so clearly blame for the countries woe's? It was the citizens who voted the governments into power so the citizens should in part fix the problems the government they elected into power caused. Or you could just keep spouting nonesense and pretend that it was only the "elites" or as the CT forum theorists like to call them "Lizard People" that got us in this mess
mkdon05 wrote: » Who said anything about a free ride? I'm talking about one parents income being sufficient to run a household. Not government handouts. (I am aware that some mothers would prefer to work, but it would be beneficial if that was a choice and not a necessity as it seems to be in most cases.)!!
mkdon05 wrote: » CT forum? Lizard people? Get the boat, I'm talking about Fitzpatrick, Fingleton, Drumm, the financial regulator et al. They are the elites who were inadvertently gambling with a generations future!!
hfallada wrote: » The irish constitution is all over the place. It's enforced and understood by whatever ever government is in power and how it suits them.
hfallada wrote: » Eg your allowed an abortion under the constitution but your can't get one in Ireland.
hfallada wrote: » Also same sex marriage is banned because the constitution says we must protect the institution of marriage most likely a reference to divorce rather than same sex marriage which is a 21 st century idea. Still that brief line is used as the argument Against it
hyperborean wrote: » Everyone pays! why should mothers have preferential treatment? And the governement deficit has nothing to do with it? The bankers and gamblers are only a small part of the problem and harping on like some sort of two bit soapbox prophet doesnt change the fact that we are spending way more than we are making, this is simple budgetary economics, cut your cloth to measure and in order to do this everyone must contribute even the poor mothers who have to pay taxes
I Heart Internet wrote: » That's not true. The constitution is interpreted, if necessary in points of conflict, by the courts - not the government. Every citizen can challenge the constitutionality of legislation. The constitution is clear that there is an equal right to life of mother and unborn child. As spoken about at the hearings on abortion in January, unless you want pages of detailed medical descriptions, examples and case-studies inserted into the constitution to try to cover all possible risks to the life of the mother then that's the best a constitution can do. That successive governments have failed to legislate according to legal decisions on the X-case is an entirely seperate issue from the constitution - no referendum is required - no constitutional change. 41 1(2) sets out to protect the family and 41 3(1) to protect the institution of marriage. The thing is, nobody could claim that waht is meant by marriage in the constitution is anything other than one man marrying one woman. So if we are to allow same-sex marriage, the constitution would have to be changed. Otherwise any legislation to allow for same sex marriage wouldn't have a constitutional leg to stand on. As someone pointed out previously, constitutions are usually ambiguous and vague to cover a lot of ground. The protection of marriage clause was probably inserted to defend against divorce (but as we know a recent amendment has rendered that null and void anyway) is also to protect marriage from other forms of reinterpretation, undermining or manipulation. That "brief line" as you put it means we have to think long and hard about same-sex marriage - as we should. If we do decide to change it, citizens who want to enter into same-sex mariages will then have a very firm legal basis on whaich to do so.
WileyCoyote wrote: » Most Irish families are not on the dole and most Irish families are not in social housing (which is not free anyway), surprised you posted that tbh.
mango salsa wrote: » I'm not entirely convinced that same sex marriage is specifically barred by the constitution. It depends on how the supreme court interprets it.http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/constitution-is-not-an-obstacle-to-legalising-gay-marriage-1.537288
conorhal wrote: » The real breach of the constitution came from that odious little tool, and one of the primary architects of or current woes, Charlie McCreevy when he introduced tax individualization. The net effect of the legislation was to force women into the workforce rather then allow them to choose between working or choosing to raise their children at home. Tax individualization reduced the family, at a stroke, to a series of economic units to be exploited and was the most poisonous, corporatist anti-family peices legislation ever produced by the state.
discus wrote: » Hold on a second, while I agree that it destroyed the family as a unit, it was brought in so that women could work and have careers!
I Heart Internet wrote: » He makes a decent case but, as he says, it is not a clear-cut one. He suggests "leaving it up to the Oireachtas". This would mean that, even if same-sex marriage was legalised by one government, it could be reversed by another. With no explicit provision in the constitution for it, people who enter into a same-sex marriage could be on shaky ground. Although that could be true of other things not stated explicitly in the constitution. Whether you're for the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples or not, if the state allows it they deserve to be on good, solid legal ground. Anyway, if the public groundswell of support is as supporters claim it is, it should pass a constitutional referendum, no? Any other means of facilitating same-sex marriage risks being seen as a nod-wink, let's not ask the public what they think kind of thing. It won't wash politically. Put it to the people!
