If you ain't no punk holler "we want pre-nup!"

Sleepy wrote: »

Let's start by making it unnecessary for a court to "interpret" it. Let the lawyers go tell each other how great they are in the bar whilst leaving some technical writers define a new constitution.

First off, let me thank you and your pally wally who thanked you for your comment. You made me laugh heartly . Nothing better to listen to someone who hasn't thought his statement through

So, you advocate a Constitution about 300 pages so, which will be specific as to the meaning of every word or provision. Make the Document inflexible and potentially contradictory, thus the need for many referendums to change it. Though I assume, you probably oppose referendums on certain areas.


Leave it to the Legislatures, I hear you say?

You are surely aware of the dangers with Legislators having all of the power (was going to say Parliament but they are a joke) who guillotine legislation into law eg Marriage Referendum , still waiting on this adoption act that was due to get rid of the arguments from the No side about adoptions (always intended to be last minute enactment)

This might shock you, but...... the guys who draft the legislation of this country.... tend to be lawyers! The very same guys who are or were in the Law Library . Certainly aint the TD's. They kinda have to look at the Law to ensure that they are complying with the Constitution


So, you have a major problem with the State Departments /government/State, you go to Court. You don't want an Independent Body like the Judiciary to interpret what a certain word in the Constitution means, or to listen to your argument that a provision, in light of today's society should actually mean something else (something in your favour). Roooiiigggghhhttteeee.

Sleepy wrote: »

You say this as if references to fairytales in legal documents are acceptable.

Sound bites don't make good argument. You gotta make more of an effort

This is what I said

The following to be changed: The Preamble.

I doubt one would dispute the removal of this now harmless provision.


I also said

1. the church special position is gone, - Fact. Gone since 1973. Anticipating your reply, The Equality Act provision is separate to that, part of religious freedom. School run by the Church is also separate to that previous sub provision. (oh how did Ruairi get on with changing the schools again? How many changed?)

2.the parents are still the people responsible for the kids subject to better State intervention (hopefully with the new amendment amendment) Fact, no fairy tale. Remains to be seen how effective the State intervention will be . So, far courts are full of child care applications, so... Other than were it's merited ,you advocate in State Interference of families?

Sleepy wrote: »

**** what the special interest lobby groups want. A single line stating that no laws can be enacted on the basis of gender would be the ideal imo.

I don't really have an issue with the provision on place in the home and non obligation to work, in order to raise the family, being gender neutral. I'm all for the man /father to have a better deal. However, I am interested in what is practical, and not what "would be ideal"

I doubt you could really say that certain women's groups who participated in the Convention discussions over the past 10 years could be classed in the same league as lobby groups for business. They do represent a very good proportion of the electorate. However, a lobby group is a lobby group. Lobby groups tend to be the voice of alot of people that it represents , yall.

All I said to this , is that economically and politically, that won't fly.Guaranteed paternity leave? Whose gonna get out and work?.

Sleepy wrote: »

That blasphemy is considered a crime is farcical in the first instance. Believe the world was accidentally created when an incorporeal nose sneezed for all I care, just don't expect me to respect that belief.

Meh, I have no real opposition towards getting rid of it. Though, I oppose the despicable behaviour of the Je Suis Charlie bigots, even if it was towards Muslims. It is strange that it was in the Constitution, don't think other Constitutions had it or have it.

No one cares what you think, you are just one person (my comment about the likelihood of it succeeding to be removed, is just an educated guess,no more) Suffice to say, that might have a rocky enough passage to be removed (not a reason to prevent a discussion or referendum of course)

Sleepy wrote: »

And with good cause. Property rights would obviously form part of a new constitution. Which is why I stated we should start afresh rather than do without one.

Eh, why would you start "afresh"?, we already have strong property rights and right to a good name, contained in the current Constitution. Who on earth would suggest not having property rights in any Constitution?

Sleepy wrote: »

Do you think the convention meetings were in any way representative of the population of Ireland?

No, but, they pushed the gay marriage referendum ...

Everyone is invited to make submissions at these Conventions, so......

Society can't stop and wait just because people in society are too busy, uninterested or down right stupid to engage in discussions or meetings about how we want our society .the election polls are pretty poor, so, can you really say that our current Dail is really a true reflection on our society ?

The only true test of what the people think is the Referendum

Conventions also comprise of experts in the field dealing with the subject. You have also got the legal experts who state what the laws have been since the meeting. You kinda need that, to know what you are seeking to change.

All seriousness, do you think proposals some how come out of thin air?

Most referendum proposals come directly from Constitutional Review Conventions unless of course, they are in response to a recent court case

What are you looking for, a populist vote on important Constitutional matters? Great, an never ending amendment based on the witterings of whomever is in power at a particular time.

Sleepy wrote: »

That those present were even the most competent to represent them or govern them? I wouldn't think so.

I wonder whether you even know who tends to attend these Conventions. I kinda of doubt it.Suffice to say, keep your eyes and ears peeled for the next one, you are welcome to attend

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm far from a "social leftie", the most accurate label I've seen for my politics would be "meritocratic".

Praise the Lord

Sleepy wrote: »

I can't see Bunreacht na hEireann as a solid document. It's a relic from a distant past and to use an analogy of something of a similar age,

You see nothing. You haven't a clue about what the Constitution says. Your lengthy statements above confirm this.

You have barely addressed anything about how the Constitution would drastically be any different if it was drawn up today.

The Constitution more or less has ALL of the Fundamental Rights that we now see in the European Court on Human Rights. THe Constitution was drafted in 1937, Convention in 1956. The Court Interpretations, which, you laughably want rid of, kept Bunreacht na hEireann up to date to meet with modern times (some of which was inspired by the ECHR which wasn't part of our laws, domestically, until 2003).

If the Court can't or won't rule in your favour, in theory , one avenue is to call for a referendum to change the Constitution.

Sleepy wrote: »

a Ford 136 can have it's oil changed, it's brakes upgraded and it's steel patched but sooner or later, it comes time to replace, rather than patch things.

Waffle . You believe in change for the sake of change, but don't have the foresight or intelligence to note how similar a new Constitution would be to Bunreacht na hEireann, one that would REALISTICALLY be approved by a majority of the people of this country. You have failed to identify substantial provisions that would be removed or changed. (I emphasise on the word substantial)

Sleepy wrote: »

Or are you a fan of Trigger's theory on savihng the council money by maintaining his brush?

Hey, Sleepy, here is a made idea: Educate yourself as to what you are talking about and lay off the irrelevant comparisons, like a good chap.

For a start, those brushes needed a change and really, they once the original head and broom went......

The Constitution , most of it would be the same as Bunreacht na hEireann.Cosmetic Surgery no more, like a tit job. Not necessary, but desirable


Thanks for the Laugh.:D