Talk:Constitution of Ireland

message: We need to mention the remarkableness of a state with a constitution changing its status from being a kingdom to being a republic without amending its constitution!  Morwen 21:55, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
: Eh?
Ireland remained a member of the Commonwealth after it approves this new constitution. Ireland left the Commonwealth afetr declaring itself to be a republic as at the time a nation couldn't be a republic and a member of the Commonwealth at the same time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.147.166 (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your reply to my sixteen-year old comment, User:Frenchmalawi! Morwen (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Kingdom/Republic

message: I was just reading this section...
"National emergency Under Article 28, the constitution grants the state sweeping powers during a "time of war or armed rebellion", which may include an armed conflict in which the state is not a direct participant. In such circumstances a "national emergency" may be declared to exist by both houses of the Oireachtas (parliament). During such a period the Oireachtas may pass laws that would otherwise be unconstitutional and the actions of the executive cannot be found to be ultra vires or unconstitutional provided they at least "purport" to be in pursuance of such a law. However, the constitutional prohibition on the death penalty is absolute and it may not be introduced during a "time of war". Two national emergencies have existed since 1937: an emergency declared in 1940 to cover the threat to national security posed by World War II, and an emergency declared in 1976 to deal with the threat to the security of the state posed by the Provisional IRA."
And I remembered something my uncle (who knows allot about these things) once told me about this issue, if I remember correctly he said that when the government went to declare an emergency in 1976 they discovered that the previous Emergency (the WW2 one) had never been declared over. Thus from WW2 to 1976, Ireland was under a state of Emergency but no-one knew, meaning the state could have had all sorts of powers but never used them because no-one was aware of the fact. So in 76 they had to remove the first Emergency before they could bring in a new one. And they then put in a clause that said the all future Emergencies would have to be reviewed every 6 months (or something) so that the previous mistake wouldn't happen again. Now that's what my Uncle told me, do any of you know if this is true? And should it be in the article (or anywhere on wiki)?
--Hibernian 17:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read The Emergency that is indeed the case. Some background material and also the resolution of the Dail and Seanad. Djegan 19:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting fact about the "Emergency"

message: Should a more comprehensive discussion not be made about the importance that artice 40.3 has had in terms of affording uninumerated personal rights such as the right of the unmarried mother to custody and the right to marital privacy? Jivet 16:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimately the content should balance the importance of the constitutional article so if its reasonable to say that the constitutional article is very important (in daily or constitutional life) then go ahead. But remember that WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY (amongst other policies and guidlines) are important considerations when adding content. Djegan 17:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: References are not absolutely required (but if someone uses , for instance, then no forthcoming references could see removal of claims at a later stage) but simply good practice and user friendly. You can look thru' other articles, particularily topical or controversial issues, and they will give you an idea of the style and layout of references. Its not something to get overly worried about, unless you add controversial or outlandish claims. Djegan 23:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 40.3 

message: I would like to ask about The Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. 
I've read here: "While the changes shown above are those made to the English language version of the constitution, constitutionally it is the Irish text that has precedence."
Is it still true, do the changes are made only to the English version of the constitution or something was changed recently? Do you know something about that?
I'm thinking: if that is really true, the child born in Ireland in 2007 would be still entitled to irish citizenship by birth (automatically) in the case when both parents are non-nationals at the time of the child birth because: "The Irish text of the constitution takes precedence over the English text (Articles 25 and 63)"?
What do you think about that? Am I right?
I would be gratefull for any answers.
Mariusz pl 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that the Irish-language text takes precedence over the English-language one in times of lingual interpretational conflict. However, the Irish text was also amended along with the English one with the completion of the twenty-seventh amendment. If I understand you correctly, I get the impression that you believe the Irish text was not amended - just the English text. This is incorrect. A constitutional amendment has always encompassed the amendment of the two separate texts as they are to conform to one another's respective meaning as much as is possible. The English text is never amended independently of the Irish text, nor vice-versa. Danny InvincibleTalk|Edits 11:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, 2004. 

message: It seems there is conflict between Article 2 and new Article 9.2. of the Constitution of Ireland. The first one gives citizenship to everyone born in the island of Ireland, the second limits that entitlement only to born to at least one parent who is, or is entitled to be, an Irish citizen. The conflict is evident. In this situation which of these articles take precedence? The text of the Constitution doesn't give clear answer, because phrase contained in Article 9.2: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution ..." doesn't alter the meaning of article 2, which states that everyone born in the island of Ireland is Irish citizen. The amendment should firstly repeal the text of article 2 and then add text of new article 9.2., because in the current version first provision gives the right whereas second provision deprives of the same right.
I'm thinking if the new article 9.2 is lawful and constitutional because is inconsistent with the rest of the text of the Constitution. Is there any opinion in this matter given by The Supreme Court?
Mariusz pl 03:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  conflict between Article 2 and new Article 9.2. 

message: What does the author mean saying: "While the changes shown above are those made to the English language version of the constitution, constitutionally it is the Irish text that has precedence." (Text - " Twenty seventh amendment of The Constitution...")Mariusz pl 01:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article 25.5.4° states that "In case of conflict between the texts of any copy of this Constitution enrolled under this section, the text in the national language shall prevail." So one may have to refer to the Irish Gaelic  ( the national language) version of the Constitution if one wants to be sure about its real meaning!Eog1916 (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  question to the author 

message: :"Sometimes a normal act of parliament would contain within it a blanket provision stating that, if it were found to be incompatible with the constitution, the act should be interpreted as an implicit amendment to it."
I'm pretty this only happened once and not sometimes. What did happen was that the courts applied the doctrine of implied repeal to the 1922 Constitution as if it were a normal act of parliament. 
Can anyone shed more light on this? Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The doctrine of implied repeal 

message: This is the opening para:
The Constitution of Ireland (Irish: Bunreacht na hÉireann)[1] is the founding legal document of Ireland. The constitution falls broadly within the liberal democratic tradition. It establishes an independent state based on a system of representative democracy and guarantees certain fundamental rights. The constitution was adopted in 1937 by plebiscite and may only be amended by referendum.[2] The document initially laid claim to the entire island of Ireland, however the claim over Northern Ireland, which is a constituent of the United Kingdom, was dropped in 1998 by referendum[3].
Why is the last sentence (clumsily put as it is) in the opening para any way? Its well covered in the article. If its included one could include so many other things like:
The document initially prohibited divorce...;
The document initially gave the RC Church a special position and recognised other religions...
The document initially permitted capital punishment...
Presumably adding the odd sentence is a POV point but it looks amateurish. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 1st, don't edit war.  Bold, revert discuss.  Not bold, revert, revert.  Second, it is not POV nor amateurish to include notable facts in the lead, it is desirable.  I don't disagree that the ban on divorce, contraception and the reverse of separation of church and state were in the original document, but the claim on Northern Ireland is at least equally notable.  The lead as it is is totally devoid of anything interesting.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

text: You may have inadvertently hit on something. Articles this size normally have two or three paragraph leads and it certainly would make sense to note the Constitution's most notable aspects there. Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So perhaps we could revert Redkings edit and try to build on the lead.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying this but it appears almost impossible to make changes to this article with running the gauntlet of an army of patrollers. Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: @BHL, I've reverted your additions to the lede.  Please discuss here first why these additions need to be in the lede.  Your argument that the lede should summarize the article is fine, but I don't agree with the decision highlight amendments over and above any other types of summary - it gives undue weight to particular amendments.  --HighKing (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell you what, why don't YOU articulate what you wish to see in the lead rather than edit warring?  Or is that a naive suggestion?Traditional unionist (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)Sure - it pretty OK the way it currently stands, although taking a leaf from other "Constitution of ..." articles, it would also be appropriate to state something like "The constitution has been amended X times, most recently on Y" sort of thing. --HighKing (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

text: The addition was intended to highlight some of the more distinctive aspects - certainly from a comparative law point of view - of the Constitution as originally enacted. As it happens they have been removed so they were referred to in terms of repeals. I suppose we could also mention abortion and Europe as issues which have arisen post-enactment. Some constructive editing would be nice. Placing the paragraph elsewhere in the article makes very little sense, and it would be better if it was deleted completely. (Btw a revision of this kind isn't a minor edit and shouldn't be flagged as one. Please try to pay attention to process, particularly when you're preaching to everybody else about it.) Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mark it as minor - I restored to an earlier version (since I also reverted a vandalistic edit) and WP marked it as minor automatically.  I also agree that constructive editting would be desirable. --HighKing (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Checking out other "Constitution of ..." articles seems to suggest that the current lede is perfectly fine. --HighKing (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets go with policy rather that your observations of other articles in breech of policy.Traditional unionist (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LEAD is a guideline.  But take a read of it yourself.  It's pretty easy to selectively chose a line or two and use it to justify a difference of opinion one way or the other.  For example, I could quote In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.  Using the other "Constitution of..." articles is just another guideline, but at least they're specifically about constitutions rather than reading a general set of guidelines for all articles.  --HighKing (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So your proposal is that the lead should be bare and uninteresting is it?Traditional unionist (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Mostly as a result of extremely bad formatting, and it's an awful read.  --HighKing (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But when it was promoted in 2004 it only had 2 paras and would likely not be promoted in that state today. ww2censor (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't really saying that the lead should have that many paragraphs, but it could certainly have a few. Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It already has two.  Don't change the lede again unless consensus is agreed - pushing changes through, especially changes that have been specifically discussed and objected to in Talk, just gets peoples backs up.  --HighKing (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: May I respectfully ask what the "lede" is? I have noticed this odd spelling being used on Wiki - what does it mean? Mooretwin (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mooretwin, lede was an alternative spelling of lead used by printers to avoid confusion with the metal. It's not used much on wikipedia any more. Blue-Haired Lawyer 09:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. Mooretwin (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure I don't need HighKing's permission to edit articles. No decent argument has be put forward to explain whatever paragraph restrictions apply here. That other Constitution articles don't have that many is not a valid argument and ignores the guidelines. Blue-Haired Lawyer 09:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the current opening paragraph as it stands today (at a few lines) is just fine. Perfect. Longer opening paras would just lead to repetition further down in the article. Besides, think of how short the official "description" of the Constitution on the current sleeve of the document in the bookshops is - just a few lines. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead - odd opening para 

message: At present the IPA transcription used in this article for "Bunreacht" is "[ˈbunraxt]".  I'm not an Irish speaker, but this looks wrong to me, both on its own merits and when compared with the information at Irish orthography.
Firstly, is "u" really [u] rather than [ʊ]?
Secondly, isn't the "r" slender?
Thirdly, the standard Wikipedia transcription for Irish "r" appears to be [ɾ] (or if slender: [ɾʲ]).
Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of "Bunreacht" 

message: I read in a recent book (2015) that the Puerto Rican Nationalist Pedro Albizu Campos helped De Valera draft the Irish constitution.  Can anyone verify this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.137.65 (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drafting 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Constitution of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726184747/http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/Voting/Referenda/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad%2C1894%2Cen.pdf to http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/Voting/Referenda/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad%2C1894%2Cen.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.constitution.ie/constitutional-reviews/crg.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.constitution.ie/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040606073716/http://www.johnpghall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ to http://www.johnpghall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Constitution of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728104103/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0064/D.0064.193612120003.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0064/D.0064.193612120003.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607112100/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0067/D.0067.193705250014.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0067/D.0067.193705250014.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Asserts the sovereignty of the Irish people" should be changed as the article Irish people explicitly refers to the people living on the island of Ireland.CumannachEireannach (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi CumannachEireannach/Apollo/Saor Uladh/whatever-you-call-yourself-today. Thanks for your note. Your note confuses me however. What relevance is the article Irish people to this article? It is not currently linked anywhere in this article? And, if the contents of that article was a concern, then why not delink it (as I have)? Rather than engaging in yet further edit-warring and multi-account-abuse? Guliolopez (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia states the the Irish people are those from the island of Ireland, not the 26 county state. Now you may assert otherwise but that is just your biased partitionist opinion.CumannachEireannach (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignoring the laughably inaccurate ad hominem, I would simply note that it is YOU and (as far as I can see) ONLY YOU who is assuming that "Irish people" is a term which precludes people from Northern Ireland. Guliolopez (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The 26 county constitution no longer has the claim that all 32 counties of Ireland are a part of the territory of Ireland. The people in the 6 counties are ignored in the constitution so it is inaccurate. I pointed this out to you and you didn't care so I logically assumed you were going by a partitionist definition of "the Irish people". You also removed the link to the Irish people" and acted like it was the problem solved when it wasn't. So clearly I am not the only one presuming that.CumannachEireannach (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jan 18 

message: We were not fully independent in 1922, hence the civil war in which Michael Collins was killed by the RA. Full independence did not come until the new constitution in December 1937, or even the handover of the Treaty ports in 1938 which ensured our neutrality in World War II. (109.145.27.89 (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  We were not independent in 1922 

message: Is that correct? Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taoiseach Micheal Martin claims “it was the first constitution in the world adopted in a free vote of the people”. 

message: In #Third committee the citation(?) reference to the full text of the '10th Progress Report: The Family, 2006' seems to be copy-pasted from 9th Progress Report: Private Property, 2004 and being incompletely adapted to the new source.
This happened most probably
adding (see diff) the section Constitution_of_Ireland#Constitutional_Reviews
 - could you please take up on this as you found + cited the other sources?
(edit: shortened, used more wikimedia features)
--F4all (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for spotting that.  I have fixed the ref, in this edit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Constitution of Ireland#Third_committee]] correct reference for ''10th Progress Report''? 

message: Features of constitution of Ireland 2405:201:9005:B034:A15A:FE6F:6D67:30A (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gk 

message: Didn’t Pedro Albizu Campos aid in the drafting of the constitution? 98.183.27.92 (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consultants