Irish Constitution ‘not fit for purpose' in 21st century, claims Labour leader amid calls for radical rewrite
Deputy Bacik said as, it approaches the 90th anniversary of the Constitution, it is clear to see it has atrophied.
She said it is time for a radical rewrite and indeed, a degenderising approach.
'When this was drafted, there was a special place for a particular religious, now that has been removed happily but we still see doctrinal teaching so influential in the text.
'We still have those religious references.
'We see religion denominating throughout and that is a key reason why we need the radical rewrite and a key reason to say yes, the text is atrophied, and it is no longer fit for purpose in a 21st century secular, polarised republic.
'This is not the constitution of the Republic; nowhere within it is the word republic mentioned,' said Deputy Bacik.
Deputy Bacik said in a written constitution, nothing is symbolic, and every word and phrase is of more than symbolic importance and value.
'This is our fundamental legal text and the foundation text of the State. If we were to say, what would it matter to change the word 'he' in the presidential article to the word 'he or she' or even dare I say, just the word she, would that matter?
'It would matter. It would matter to judges who are called upon to interpret the constitution and it helps to shape what the Supreme Court has called the constitutional identity of the state.
'It helps to shape the way we as legislators in the Oireachtas frame our laws.
'It will help the President whether to refers bills to the Supreme Court.
'I think language matters and no language in the Constitution is purely symbolic,' said Deputy Bacik.
Attorney General Rossa Fanning SC he is not a politician and is on a 'controversy free diet' but he said every constitution is a product of the time and place of the people who drafted it.
He referred to the Third Amendment of the Federal Constitution of the United States which protects American citizens from being compelled to quarter soldiers in private residents.
'It is a provision that has not been subject of a single constitutional case, not a single decision of a Federal Court in 250 years and if you come to that in 2025, you would have no understanding as to why it is there at all.
'It looks like an anachronism.
'But off course you would have to go back to the timing of it immediately after the civil war to understand why it was through to be relevant at the time.
'When looking at a constitution, you might often find what is thought to be historical artefacts that do not have any current resonances but were important to drafters at the time,' said Mr Fanning.
Mr Fanning said as the people of Ireland remain sovereign, it is relevantly easy to amend the Irish Constitution and since 1937, it has been amended on more than 30 occasions.
'You can take a view on what Ivana said, and you might strongly agree with it. The people remain sovereign to the extent that there is a political wish to amend any element of the Irish Constitution, a bill to amend the Constitution can be passed by both houses of the Oireachtas, and put to the people by way of plebiscite and by way of simple majority vote, the Constitution can be amended.
'So, in that sense, our constitution is a more dynamic instrument than it is given credit too,' said Mr Fanning.
Prof David Kenny said there is a fairly robust amendment process in place to change the Irish Constitution and in Global terms, it is at a medium level of difficulty.
Professor Kenny said he believes the referendum process does limit what amendments are proposed.
'We do have a hurdle. We have to go out and we have to ask the people.
'As Rossa was saying, one of the principles of the constitution, as Éamon de Valera put it, is that people are the masters.
'So while it is definitely possible to amend the Constitution, the referendum process does limit what we propose in practice.
'Why? Because it is hard to explain constitutional changes. It is hard to discuss what we need to do when we amend the preamble.
'If we put in new symbolic language, we would have to have a broad national discussion and a vote on what that symbolism was going to be.
'And for reasons, I would struggle to fully explain, successive Irish governments have been wary of purely symbolic changes to the constitution.
'When we propose a change, as we did say last year with the family and carer amendments, people are very keen to say there might be important symbolism here but we are also making important legal changes that are going to have a concrete legal affects
'We very rarely say here is a constitutional change that is just about better vibes.
'We probably done that once in the 1970s when we removed the special position of the Catholic Church; one of those clauses that was particularly sectarian and had no legal effect and it was a symbolic removal of a symbolic provision.
'Other than that we have been reluctant to engage in changes in constitutional symbolism and we have been changing bits of the constitution in an accelerated way.
'30 of the 40 referendums we have had have taken place since 1991 and the pace of change has been accelerating but we have not said we need to rethink some of the structure and the symbolic language.
'Instead, we focus on discreet changes where we can say we need to change that power and add that right and legalise same sex marriage.
'These are all really important, but we have not been willing to embrace the symbolic question on the constitutional discourse,' said Professor Kenny.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Irish Sun
18 hours ago
- The Irish Sun
Putin's former classmate turned top judge Irina Podnosova dies at 71 in latest ‘mystery' death of senior Russian figure
RUSSIA'S top judge and Putin's former university pal has died today - just 15 months after taking the helm of the country's Supreme Court. Irina Podnosova, 71, died after battling cancer for over a year, sources say, but Ukrainian commentators say this is the latest in a string of 'mysterious' deaths in the Russian elite. 2 Chair of the Russian Supreme Court, Irina Podnosova, 71, has died Credit: East2West 2 Podnosova was Vladimir Putin's classmate at university Credit: East2West Podnosova, who was appointed as Chief Justice of Russia's Supreme Court in April 2024, died in Moscow, according to Russian media. It comes as Oil tycoon Andrey Badalov, 62, died after falling from the 17th floor of a luxury Moscow tower block, where he lived in a 10th floor penthouse. Putin's transport minister Roman Starovoit, 53, died this month from gunshot wounds on the day he was fired - a death officially seen as suicide but with widespread speculation that he was murdered. Podnosova's death is also a sign that 72-year-old Putin's habit of appointing his fellow septuagenarians to key posts has limitations for his repressive regime. Podnosova's predecessor Vyacheslav Lebedev died in April last year soon after he was 80. More to follow... For the latest news on this story, keep checking back at The U.S. Sun, your go-to destination for the best celebrity news, sports news, real-life stories, jaw-dropping pictures, and must-see videos . Like us on Facebook at
Irish Independent
20 hours ago
- Irish Independent
Donald Trump's officials accused of defying one in three judges who ruled against him
The findings, contained in a Washington Post analysis, suggest there is widespread non-compliance by the administration with America's legal system. Plaintiffs say Justice Department lawyers and the agencies they represent are snubbing rulings, providing false information, failing to turn over evidence, quietly working around court orders and inventing pretexts to carry out actions that have been blocked. Judges appointed by presidents of both parties have often agreed. None has taken punitive action to try to force compliance, however, allowing the administration's defiance of orders to go on for weeks or even months in some instances. Outside legal analysts say courts typically are slow to begin contempt proceedings for non-compliance, especially while their rulings are under appeal. Judges also are likely to be concerned, analysts say, that the US Marshals Service – whose director is appointed by the president – might not serve subpoenas or take recalcitrant government officials into custody if ordered to by the courts. The allegations against the administration are crystallised in a whistleblower complaint filed to Congress late last month that accused justice officials of ignoring court orders in immigration cases, presenting legal arguments with no basis in the law and misrepresenting facts. Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor also chided the administration, writing that Trump officials had 'openly flouted' a judge's order not to deport migrants to a country where they did not have citizenship. The Washington Post examined 337 lawsuits filed against the administration since Mr Trump returned to the White House and began a rapid-fire effort to reshape government programmes and policy. As of mid-July, courts had ruled against the administration in 165 of those lawsuits. The Washington Post found that the administration is accused of defying or frustrating court oversight in 57 of those cases – almost 35pc. Legal experts said the pattern of conduct is unprecedented for any presidential administration and threatens to undermine the judiciary's role as a check on an executive branch asserting vast powers that test the boundaries of the law and constitution. Immigration cases have emerged as the biggest flash point, but the administration has also been repeatedly accused of failing to comply in lawsuits involving cuts to federal funding and the workforce. Trump officials deny defying court orders, even as they accuse those who have issued them of 'judicial tyranny'. When the Supreme Court in June restricted the circumstances under which presidential policies could be halted nationwide while they are challenged in court, Mr Trump hailed the ruling as halting what he called a 'colossal abuse of power'. 'We've seen a handful of radical left judges try to overrule the rightful powers of the president,' Mr Trump said, falsely portraying the judges who have ruled against him as being solely Democrats. Retired federal judge and former Watergate special prosecutor Paul Michel compared the situation to the summer of 1974, when the Supreme Court ordered then president Richard Nixon to turn over Oval Office recordings as part of the Watergate investigation. Mr Nixon initially refused, prompting fears of a constitutional crisis, but ultimately complied. 'The current challenge is even bigger and more complicated because it involves hundreds of actions, not one subpoena for a set of tapes,' Mr Michel said. 'We're in new territory.' Questions about whether the administration is defying judges have bubbled since early in Mr Trump's second term, when the Supreme Court said he must allow billions of dollars in already allocated foreign aid to flow. Two months after a federal court had temporarily blocked Mr Trump's freeze on the congressionally approved foreign aid, an attorney for relief organisations said that the government had taken 'literally zero steps to allocate this money'. Judge Amir Ali, a Joe Biden appointee, has ordered the administration to explain what it is doing to comply with the order. (© Washington Post)
Irish Times
a day ago
- Irish Times
Judicial system is on the front line of the fight to avert climate catastrophe
Todayw seven judges of the Supreme Court will sit to hear an appeal from An Coimisiún Pleanála against a decision by Judge Richard Humphreys in the High Court last January. The case relates to the planning of a wind farm . It was the first judgment to consider in detail the nature and scope of the obligation imposed on public bodies under Section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015. The legislation was amended in 2021, in what the judge described as a 'step change' from a 'have regard to' to a 'comply with' obligation regarding our climate targets. The speed at which the appeal is being heard and the number and experience of judges on the bench are an indication of how important a case it may be. Our judicial system is increasingly in the front line in the fight to avert catastrophic climate change. Last year, in the so-called Swiss grannies' case , the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of a group of campaigning Swiss women in finding that Switzerland had violated their human rights by not taking sufficient action to mitigate climate change. Similarly, a German Court, while in the end not awarding damages to the Peruvian farmer taking a case against a large German energy company for its climate emissions, still established a precedent for holding major greenhouse gas emitters liable for climate-related risks under German civil law. Equally relevant was a decision by the Northern Ireland High Court in Belfast last month to quash permission for a proposed upgrade of the A5 road, between Derry and Aughnacloy, Co Tyrone. The judge said the authorities had failed to demonstrate how it fit into plans, strategies and policies that map out a realistic and achievable pathway to a net zero target by 2050. READ MORE The number of legal challenges in relation to transport projects suggests that it, along with energy, is likely to be one of the key legal battlegrounds. The A5 decision may lead to a rethink within Transport Infrastructure Ireland, because several of its major roads projects go against everything we need to do to meet our climate targets. [ Appeal for prevention of more A5 road deaths following court order quashing upgrade Opens in new window ] Even if we get all the electric vehicles aimed for under our climate plan, we will still need a 25 per cent reduction in daily car journeys in the next five years to get on the right path. To get there, we need easy access to alternative low-carbon options, so we are going to have to reallocate road space to improve walking, cycling and public transport. In a State which has promoted car dependency for decades, that change is going to be hotly contested. The fact that better low-carbon solutions are now at hand will help. I can understand the frustration for those fighting for the new A5 road on safety grounds. Yes, that road needs to be made safe. But there is also an opportunity to build the new rail line recommended by the recent Strategic Rail Review, running from Portadown to Dungannon, Omagh, Strabane, Letterkenny and Derry. It would take cars off the road, and be a game changer for the whole northwest. In energy, the political challenge for a non-fossil fuel producer such as Ireland is so much easier because the cleaner alternative is where all the innovation, investment and savings are already happening. It is also a new economy – something we are quite good at, although you rarely hear that perspective. In 2001, the average Irish person was responsible for 19 tonnes of CO2 being emitted. That figure is now down to 10. The next reduction to five tonnes per person is imminently achievable and will be good for us as well as the environment. Last month, we stopped burning coal in our power system. More wind and solar power will similarly allow us to switch away from expensive and polluting natural gas. In transport, every time we improve the sustainable alternatives, the Irish public responds with a large increase in patronage. Look at how rural bus use went up 165 per cent over the last five years, once we started to provide a proper service. Similarly, Irish farmers showed what is possible when they used 30 per cent less fertiliser in the first year of the Ukraine war and still maintained their productivity. Our carbon tax is an example internationally of how to effectively fund the retrofitting of hundreds of thousands of warmer homes and bring people out of energy poverty. [ Striving for net zero will cost less than we thought, but it will not be plain sailing Opens in new window ] The idea, popular among those invested in the status quo, that the low-carbon solutions do not work, or are going to cost us a fortune, is perhaps what is on trial, in the end, in so many of these cases. The courts will have to independently decide between those arguing that we should protect business as usual and those asking that we respect their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and stop the destruction of our natural world. This transition has been clearly mandated by the United Nations, by our European Union and by the Oireachtas through extensive legislative provision, and well considered policy direction. Recent decisions offer some hope that it may now also have increasing judicial support.
