Irish or American Constitutional Preamble?

Mr. Incognito · 24-08-2014 12:49AM

conorh91 wrote: »

I would refer you to Ireland's foremost constitutional scholar, Judge Gerard Hogan, judge of the High Court, and his book The origins of the Irish Constitution.

https://www.ria.ie/publications/books/history/origins-of-the-irish-constitution-1928-41.aspx

As Hogan says, historians and lawyers ought to be friends. But the problem is that historians often misunderstand the Irish constitution, its justiciability, and the scope of its legal application.

They overstate the Christian aspect, although their misunderstanding of the origins of the constitution is harder to forgive.

Did you read this book? It talks about Fr. McQuaids role and dev trying to get papal approval for the draft constitution.

Are you a historian or a lawyer because saying the church had no role of influence as you contend is nonsense on the facts and on your own linked source material

Here is the synopsis of the book you linked

http://www.extempore.ie/2012/05/09/a-fitting-anniversary-tribute/#more-2059

conorh91 · 24-08-2014 01:08AM

Lyaiera wrote: »

The constitution is designed to protect the people from themselves but equally if it doesn't do this then the people are free to decide otherwise. It's a collective decision (much why you like the "we give to ourselves." Recognising there's more to a country than what's written on a piece of paper doesn't mean you entirely ignore what's written on the paper. You seem to be taking a very all or nothing view of this.

Yes, I'd accept that my preference lies keenly on the side of constitutionalism and, as such, probably comes across as black-and-white.

The nib of the issue is reconciling stability with legitimacy. It's not an easy task (much less easy, at 1am, on AH!).

Someone once used the metaphor of a moving train, going from Belfast to Dublin. At the beginning of the journey, a constitution (or some kind of moral rulebook) was written. But as the journey progressed, a lot of people alighted the train, and a lot of newcomers (presumably, with more diverse moral viewpoints) boarded. The critical question was 'how much legitimacy do the original rules retain?'

The inevitable conclusion is that one must update the Basic Law sufficiently regularly so as to maintain legitimacy, or else maintain sufficient ambiguity in a Basic Law, so as to make room for legitimacy.

Personally, I would prefer the former. I think it's time for a major constitutional overhaul.

Creating a vague document which could be construed any-which-way may be more legitimate, but it just seems a bit pointless. I am not saying that in a derogatory way towards you, it's a very subjective personal opinion.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Did you read this book? It talks about Fr. McQuaids role and dev trying to get papal approval for the draft constitution.

Are you a historian or a lawyer because saying the church had no role of influence as you contend is nonsense on the facts and on your own linked source material

Here is the synopsis of the book you linked

http://www.extempore.ie/2012/05/09/a-fitting-anniversary-tribute/#more-2059

It;s pretty thorough, it raises a rake of issues, Have you read the book? What is your opinion on its discussion of John Hearne?

Hogan J says that Bunreacht was informed by Catholic social teaching, but that it dwells heavily on what he calls "Protestant" values of liberal democracy.

I note that he also uses words like "overstatement" and "fuss", to the extent that nobody could legitimately claim confusion as to his opinions on historians' hypotheses on the influence of the Catholic Church over the irish constitution.

He explicitly says there is nothing particularly exceptional about this.

Perhaps you might be interested in this contribution by the same man, wherein he refers specifically to this issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mX3LLn3l6Q

Capt'n Midnight · 24-08-2014 01:16AM

cml387 wrote: »

The British seem to manage quite well without one.

UK constitution is very simple

"The House of Commons is God"

Cameron is just one votes away from legally being Dictator for Live.

And thanks to the Parliament Act he doesn't even need the House of Lords to rubber stamp it.

conorh91 · 24-08-2014 01:23AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Cameron is just one votes away from legally being Dictator for Live.

Yeah but so are we.

I am not sure whom i distrust more, the People, or the TDs (whom the media are more willing to criticize)

cml387 · 24-08-2014 01:32AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

UK constitution is very simple

"The House of Commons is God"

Cameron is just one votes away from legally being Dictator for Live.

And thanks to the Parliament Act he doesn't even need the House of Lords to rubber stamp it.

I was in Cork this afternoon and a protest march was calling for the repeal of the eighth amendment.

Now there may have been any number of political groups in that march I disagree with on many issues, but on this one they are spot on.

LeinsterDub · 24-08-2014 02:02AM

Reindeer wrote: »

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...

Unless of course your a women or black then the self-evidence will take a other 100 years or so to become evident.

Noble words are meaningless if you're just going to ignore them from the off.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-08-2014 02:05AM

conorh91 wrote: »

Yeah but so are we.

Do you even know what a written constitution means ?

conorh91 · 24-08-2014 02:09AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Do you even know what a written constitution means ?

Uh, yes, I really do.

To clarify, in one popular vote, our constitutional "freedoms" could be abolished, and a President-for-life could be established.

That fact is not assailable.

Lets move on.

I am subsequently putting forward an opinion that our media feel more free to criticize the opinions of our public representatives, than they do in criticizing the opinions of their paying customers.

In other words, the proposition that we are better protected by the public than we are when governed by TDs, is not established.

Sunglasses Ron · 24-08-2014 04:02AM

Reindeer wrote: »

I find the American Declaration of Independence to be more moving.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...

Moving? Some of the lads who drafted that kept slaves.

Reindeer · 24-08-2014 08:51AM

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Moving? Some of the lads who drafted that kept slaves.

Some of the men whom drafted it were also deeply religious. But, I don't hold that against them. The whole is more than the sum of the parts - which is sort of the purpose of government, constitutions, etc.

Mr. Incognito · 24-08-2014 09:21AM

conorh91 wrote: »

Yes, I'd accept that my preference lies keenly on the side of constitutionalism and, as such, probably comes across as black-and-white.

The nib of the issue is reconciling stability with legitimacy. It's not an easy task (much less easy, at 1am, on AH!).

Someone once used the metaphor of a moving train, going from Belfast to Dublin. At the beginning of the journey, a constitution (or some kind of moral rulebook) was written. But as the journey progressed, a lot of people alighted the train, and a lot of newcomers (presumably, with more diverse moral viewpoints) boarded. The critical question was 'how much legitimacy do the original rules retain?'

The inevitable conclusion is that one must update the Basic Law sufficiently regularly so as to maintain legitimacy, or else maintain sufficient ambiguity in a Basic Law, so as to make room for legitimacy.

Personally, I would prefer the former. I think it's time for a major constitutional overhaul.

Creating a vague document which could be construed any-which-way may be more legitimate, but it just seems a bit pointless. I am not saying that in a derogatory way towards you, it's a very subjective personal opinion.

It;s pretty thorough, it raises a rake of issues, Have you read the book? What is your opinion on its discussion of John Hearne?

Hogan J says that Bunreacht was informed by Catholic social teaching, but that it dwells heavily on what he calls "Protestant" values of liberal democracy.

I note that he also uses words like "overstatement" and "fuss", to the extent that nobody could legitimately claim confusion as to his opinions on historians' hypotheses on the influence of the Catholic Church over the irish constitution.

He explicitly says there is nothing particularly exceptional about this.

Perhaps you might be interested in this contribution by the same man, wherein he refers specifically to

You remind me of this guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnZ0Y4rvz6E

All the wherein etc and fluffy language.

I am going to presume you are a law student. Lawyers dont use "wherein" and heretofore. Also you don't need to say things like "subjective personal opinion," it's repeating what subjective means.

My first month as a trainee solicitor my managing partner gave me a book by Lord Denning to read called "what next in the law" The striking thing was the economy of language. It was an excellent practical example of simplicity of language for clear communication.

There is no need for unclear high brow language. What you are typing makes no sense to anyone bar yourself and certainly doesn't make your point. (which I am not sure what it actually is anymore)

My point is simple. The church had a massive influence in the constitution.

This is a fact from a historic and legal perspective. Its why women were forced to leave employment when they got married for the first 25 years of the republic.

Sometimes you just have to admit to being wrong rather than to keep digging a hole for yourself and retrain yourself to write for your own sake.

Reindeer · 24-08-2014 03:48PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Unless of course your a women or black then the self-evidence will take a other 100 years or so to become evident.

Noble words are meaningless if you're just going to ignore them from the off.

Well, there's a good argument women still haven't proven that they are equal...

conorh91 · 24-08-2014 09:15PM

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

All the wherein etc and fluffy language.

Oh would you give it a rest. How many paragraphs of nonsense did I just read? I wish I could get that minute of my life back. Let me state this clearly.

I am not interested in back-and-forth personal attacks. I have put forward a clear proposition, and explained the basis for my opinion. One could counter that proposition by way of an alternative, but you chose to engage in a strange barrage against the character of some stranger on the internet.

I don't even care enough to judge you for that, I'm just pointing it out to you.

Manach · 24-08-2014 09:18PM

The Irish, given its traditional roots in the Catholic ethos which has been one of the foundational supports of Ireland being one of the oldest and most stable of democratic societies in the world.

Mr. Incognito · 24-08-2014 10:39PM

conorh91 wrote: »

Oh would you give it a rest. How many paragraphs of nonsense did I just read? I wish I could get that minute of my life back. Let me state this clearly.

I am not interested in back-and-forth personal attacks. I have put forward a clear proposition, and explained the basis for my opinion. One could counter that proposition by way of an alternative, but you chose to engage in a strange barrage against the character of some stranger on the internet.

I don't even care enough to judge you for that, I'm just pointing it out to you.

You didnt propose anything. You disagreed with a statement then posted support for the statement you dis-agreed with. I pointed this out to you and you posted indecipherable dribble as a retort.

Once again, the church had a role in the drafting of the constitution. Not to labour the point.

I have tried to be of assistance to explain that you are articulating yourself very poorly and now you are just being petulant. I am not the only poster here to point this out.

Lets just agree to disagree. Take care.

feargale · 25-08-2014 03:22PM

Zebra3 wrote: »

Hard to tell which is more embarrassing, the Irish one with all its religious crap and referencing a non-existent jew or the US and its crap about justice while the nation was being build on the genocide of Native Americans.

I don't care to find myself on the same side as the bootboyism of A&A, but yes, that Holy Trinity stuff in the preamble should go. A constitution should be inclusive. Incidentally, and I don't wish to drag the thread off topic, but re the "non-existent Jew" to whom you refer, his existence was independently verified by at least one contemporary historian.

Irish or American Constitutional Preamble?

Comments