|
Post by cato on Feb 22, 2018 18:45:25 GMT
In Ireland the president taoiseach and ministers all take an oath to defend the constitution. Thats what we pay them for at great expense .
Given that virtually all of them are now seeking to undermine that constitution by campaigning to remove a fundamental human right who actually defends the constitution as it exists? This is a genuine question. If for example a future government sought to remove free speech who would resist this?
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Feb 22, 2018 19:33:42 GMT
It's an interesting question. I think Justin Barrett has said that he would put the fundamental principles of the Republic beyond democratic alteration.
|
|
|
Post by irishconfederate on Feb 22, 2018 22:45:35 GMT
That is an interesting question. I wonder what is the answer to solving this weakness of our constitution. Any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by servantofthechief on Feb 23, 2018 14:16:30 GMT
The problem with that question, Cato is they still are the official defenders of the constitution, both as it exists and as they want it to become. Just as they were still before and after the Gay Marriage referendum, however underhanded their tactics or foul their co-operation with foreign interests. That is why they have to abide by it in referring it to the people's vote in a referendum, because the constitution forces their hand to do so, I have no doubt they would change it willy nilly if this was not the case, so in that sense, I am glad the constition refuses any legitimate alteration to its body except by democratic majority and not the whims of the representatives. If they tried to do such without enacting the referendum mechanic, the government would officially be rogue and illegitimate, and our army would be completely justified in a coup to oust the pretendeers and hold new elections. (funnily enough this is not neccessarily laid out in the constitution, I don't think, but would fall under the purvey of the Sedition Acts, only the army would be removing illegitimate tainstes, Taoiseach and TDs rather than besieging some cult, or having running battles with paramilitaries)
I lost faith in our government's willingness to defend what they are supposed to defend a long time ago, Lisbon 2 and the entire furor over the Lisbon 1 referendum result and the kowtowing of our political class to the technocratic bureaucratic nightmare of Brussels rather than saying F the world and siding by their people as they were honour bound to do. But sadly so long as the constitution stands, and is not abused without the peoples' consent, they are its legitimate defenders, wether or not they want to be.
That is the legalist in me speaking of course, if you mean in spirit, then no, the are not its defenders, they are its sworn enemies, a fifth column of toadies and lackies of globalistic and foreign interests, traitors to the nation, and they mean any and all harm to Ireland and to Irishness for there is no greater rejection of all our ancestors stood for... than in killing their descendants before they are born. I would sooner see half the Dail hanging from street lamps than allow abortion to be legitimised on this island, but then, I have no power. (Literally, Irish citizen but living in the North, I cannot vote)
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Feb 23, 2018 19:39:01 GMT
The problem with that question, Cato is they still are the official defenders of the constitution, both as it exists and as they want it to become. Just as they were still before and after the Gay Marriage referendum, however underhanded their tactics or foul their co-operation with foreign interests. That is why they have to abide by it in referring it to the people's vote in a referendum, because the constitution forces their hand to do so, I have no doubt they would change it willy nilly if this was not the case, so in that sense, I am glad the constition refuses any legitimate alteration to its body except by democratic majority and not the whims of the representatives. Legally, of course that is right (not that I know anything about law, but it makes sense). However, logically, it's an interesting conundrum. If Presidents, Taoisigh and Ministers do take an oath to defend the Constitution, how can they then seek to alter it? I can only find the text of the President's oath, which speaks of "maintaining" the Constitution (in a way, this makes any change even more problematic). I can't find the text of any Taoiseach's or Minister's oath, or confirmation that there is one, though I don't doubt that there is.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Feb 23, 2018 22:48:03 GMT
Those who take that oath probably persuade themselves they are loyal to the various procedures and structures mandated in Bunreacht na h Eireann. As others have mentioned they have no time for underpining philosophy of the constitution and indeed are actively hostile to it. De Valera in 1937 could never have envisaged this scenario were those with a secular globalist outlook empty the constitution of its' real meaning while paying lip service to it.
One example was redefining families . A family is really any couple. Children are not an essential part of the concept anymore.
Another example is the concept of basic democratic fairness. For years various Irish governments misused their positions in promoting one sided agendas with public funds until the economist Ray Crotty managed to get the courts to mandate equal treatment of both sides during referenda campaigns.Crotty is one of the great unsung heroes of Irish democracy.
I have already heard people like minister Zappone complain that the prolife side has to get equal time in a referendum debate. These temarks was ignored by media commentators .There is a deeply elitist anti democratic streak among some of those dismantling core human rights.
|
|
|
Post by servantofthechief on Feb 24, 2018 0:56:44 GMT
On the contrary, Cato, its clear the elites love democracy.
So long as the people vote 'correctly.'
|
|
|
Post by cato on Feb 27, 2018 12:28:46 GMT
I wonder can any constitution be designed to withstand a cultural legal and spiritual revolution/meltdown? Once the elites and then the wider population cease to believe in the vision of the founders we are in deep trouble. We are living at the end of European Christianity which has little or no problem deluding itself all is well apart from the need to build more windmills and promote more diversity.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Mar 6, 2018 21:12:27 GMT
Tomorrow the supreme court of Ireland will give a judgement on a case which will detail the extent of the rights of the unborn. St Thomas More and the Martyrs of Ireland pray for us.
|
|
|
Post by ClassicalRepublican on Mar 7, 2018 11:43:09 GMT
I would make 2 changes to our operation of the Constitution.
First, I would makes amendments possible only by 50%+1 of the eligible ELECTORATE (regardless of registration), not the turnout.
In the United States, Thomas Jefferson argued well that the constitutions should have a life span of 19 years so that every succeeding generation would have an opportunity to vote on the structure of their government. My second idea would be for every citizen to be given a copy of the Constitution on his or her eighteenth birthday and invited to their town hall, local registrar etc. to sign the Constitution. If the Constitution remains in state of being unsigned by 50% minus one of the electorate for a year and a day then a constitutional convention is called to redraft.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Mar 7, 2018 13:44:27 GMT
I would make 2 changes to our operation of the Constitution. First, I would makes amendments possible only by 50%+1 of the eligible ELECTORATE (regardless of registration), not the turnout. In the United States, Thomas Jefferson argued well that the constitutions should have a life span of 19 years so that every succeeding generation would have an opportunity to vote on the structure of their government. My second idea would be for every citizen to be given a copy of the Constitution on his or her eighteenth birthday and invited to their town hall, local registrar etc. to sign the Constitution. If the Constitution remains in state of being unsigned by 50% minus one of the electorate for a year and a day then a constitutional convention is called to redraft. I think your first proposal has merit in that it should be difficult to undermine or ammend constitutional rights . The second idea if I understand you properly, is more problematic. The last thing on earth we need are regular reviews of the constitution. It would be an invite for every social justice leftist group to invent rights and to start campaigns to influence public policy and law by launching constitutional campaigns/reviews. Not that they don't already do this but there is no point mandating regular reviews and encouraging liberal termites to further undermine the legal foundations of society. The constitution should be venerable and unchanging as much as possible. Otherwise it becomes a pointless slave of fad and fashion. We have all seen how the "impartial" citizens assembly has operated in the Republic of Ireland.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Mar 7, 2018 15:03:39 GMT
That's a very interesting point about Thomas Jefferson. It's funny that many Americans tend to see the Constitution as quasi-sacred, and yet one of the founders wanted it to be re-drafted regularly.
I'm inclined to agree with Cato, perhaps because I am constitutionally conservative (no pun intended). But I see the pitfalls of that viewpoint, too.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Mar 7, 2018 16:50:59 GMT
That's a very interesting point about Thomas Jefferson. It's funny that many Americans tend to see the Constitution as quasi-sacred, and yet one of the founders wanted it to be re-drafted regularly.... Some Americans tend to get upset if reminded the founding fathers had a high proportion of masons , heterodox deist christians and slave owning dead white males in their midst. Still they got the basic constitutional principles right for the USA. The devotion shown to the flag and the physical protection and veneration shown to the founding documents in Washington show how even secular states have an exaulted view of politics and the nation state. As an aside I get constantly annoyed at the shoddy disrespect we have towards the national flag especially among sports fans writing on it and defacing it generally. And then all the blank stares if you point out the flag is green white and orange .... not green white and gold ! Never ever do this in a pub if you value unbroken bones . There is a special place in the underworld for the Wolfe Tones.
|
|
|
Post by ClassicalRepublican on Mar 7, 2018 19:15:01 GMT
To clarify, mine and Jefferson's idea (:-P) is that constitutions are re-ratified, not necessarily re-written. I misspoke when I wrote 're-draft'.
This is abject idealism on my part, hoping to engender a culture of active citizenship and civic engagement.
|
|