Talk:Constitution of Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ireland (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Law (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warrants from UK courts[edit]

the name of the case in the supreme court was Ellis v O'Dea [1989] I.R. 530

Could someone redirect this page to Bunreacht na hÉireann as there is a full page on the Irish constitution there. I can't do a redirect as I cannot type in one of the key commands needed. JTD Jan 17, 2003

This information may be of some use to people seeking to understand Irish government and politics. JTD 27 Nov 2002


Moved from main text: "Modern pluralist concepts of religious neutrality only date from the second half of the twentieth century." The US constitution is among the earlier (notably Enlightenment) documents that reflect this concept.

More generally, this article needs NPOV'ing, but I'd like someone who knows more about Irish history to attempt it. Vicki Rosenzweig November 28, 2002

What the above sentence meant was that many of Europe's constitutions enshrined the religious supremacy of one faith (Norway and Britain among others still have established state churches!, while even the Italian Republic's constitution recognised Roman Catholicism has having a special role, until a recent change). In the 1920s, with the fall of many ancient states after World War One, a new style of populist democratic constitution appeared (Austria, Weimar Germany, Irish Free State) which left religious issues to one side, arguing that the state should be neutral on matters of faith. By the 1930s, a backlash occured, with new constitutions abandoning what was seen as the 'trendy liberalism' of the 1920s and returning to what could be called 'faith and fatherland', old cultural symbols such as religion and national symbols.
The United States constitution is a special case that in reality is of no relevance to the Irish debate. Its religious neutrality was a product of its period, its underlying principles and also its need to deal with an American society that was made up of many religious groupings, none of which had a history of dominance that occured in Europe (hence the appearance of so many religious migrants who found that, whatever their faith, they were in a discriminated against minority because of their beliefs in their home country.)
I probably could have expressed it better, but Vicki is as so often happens looking at the world from an American perspective, without understanding the relevant context. What I wrote was correct in an Irish context. The Catholicism in the Irish constitution pretty much matched the religious nature of European constitutions, not of the enlightenment but of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which is the context from which de Valera's Bunreacht na hÉireann must be judged. Had it been written in the era of 1920s liberalism it would have been different. Had it appeared in the post-World War II era, again it probably would have been different. But in that time it fitted into a standard pattern, and can only be judged in that context. The US constitution and the burst of enlightenment is irrelevant to all of that. I stand by my comment and will be editing my page to express this is a different manner. JTD December 8, 2002

Re the reference to 'far right' catholics like Maria Duce, it may look POV but it isn't. 100% of people in Ireland, including members of Maria Duce, saw the group as far right (many of them had links with anti-semitic groups and pro-Franco organisations). Even conservative Catholic Bishops saw MD as far right. So it isn't POV. It is the same as calling the nazis 'anti-semitic', calling communists 'extreme left', fascists 'extreme right' etc. It is a univerally accepted label which members of Maria Duce wore with pride. Even conservative catholics found the organisation extremist and distasteful. It isn't a definition that has is POV but universally accepted as accurate. ÉÍREman 23:33 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

I will defer to your expertise -º¡º


http: //

FIRST QUERY This article states “NB: It should be noted that this page has been the subject of many revisions, most of which concern the interpretation of the Constitution of Ireland as a pro-Catholic document reflecting the idea of a 'Catholic Ireland for a Catholic People'. The revision history has been deleted, and the current page contents reflect the contended view that the Irish Constitution has little or no Catholic bias. The reader is encouraged to view the original document.”

Where can we see that revision history which has been deleted?

SECOND QUERY This article also states that : "The controversial Articles 2 and 3 asserted that there was an all-island "Irish nation" or national territory. Such an idea had been widely accepted, even by the Dublin-born Irish unionist leader Edward Carson."

I have heard this idea of a 'natural' all-island national territory being put forward many times, but never any arguments foridentities and against it. This puzzles me as Ireland contains two ethnic groups with very different national identities and aspirations. Could the author(s) provide me with the arguments for and against, or refer me to some authoritative sources. Additionally, I was aware that initially at least Edward Carson wanted to maintain the union with Britain for the whole island of Ireland, but that he espoused the idea of an all island "Irish nation" is new to me. Perhaps the author(s) would provide the authoritative source(s) for this assertion too.

The Myth section is simply not NPOV either in style of content. The style is of an apologetic: the "Republic of Ireland" is not a myth, just a natural error (it is difficult to imagine changing the head of state from a heriditary one to an elected one without changing the constitution). The Catholicism myth is dubious and the whole island myth is factually wrong. Carson's order of preference was (a) Ireland in the UK, (b) Ulster in the UK, (c) an independent island of Ireland; de Valera's was the reverse; both were prepared to fight for their beliefs which is why the end result was (b), but neither changed their views.


I replaced most uses of Bunreacht in the running text with Constitution, as that's the English name, both commonly used by the vast majority of English speakers and used in the official English version of the Irish Constitution as available from the attorney general's website. Fairly similar to how we don't talk about the Syntagma in running text throughout the Constitution of Greece, since Syntagma isn't a word used in English. --Delirium 19:55, May 22, 2004 (UTC)


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)


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 (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ne Temere[edit]

Could somebody give me a source for the claim that a legal consequence of recognising the status of the RC church meant that Ne Temere judgements were regarded as legally enforcable? I remember reading on a work on the Irish constitution that there was some doubt if this clause had any practical effect, one poliltician suggested that it could mean that the privacy of the confessional was legally guaranteed, but this was never tested in the courts. This is the sort of thing where I get a hunch that if true then I would have heard about it before now. The courts may have regarded some aspects of Ne temere as legally enforcable, but this could have been for more complicated reasons e.g. the law of contract. I will look into this myself, but if nobody responds in a reasonable time I will change. PatGallacher 12:47, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Interesting fact about the "Emergency"[edit]

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)

If you read The Emergency that is indeed the case. Some background material[1] and also the resolution of the Dail[2] and Seanad[3]. Djegan 19:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so it is true, good to know, I'll never doubt my uncle again lol.--Hibernian 08:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Article 40.3[edit]

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)

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)

I added in a small paragraph on this issue. Do i need to reference the judgments with court citations?Jivet 13:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

References are not absolutely required (but if someone uses {{fact}}, 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)

The Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, 2004.[edit]

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)

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)

conflict between Article 2 and new Article 9.2.[edit]

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)

question to the author[edit]

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)

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)


The opening sentence needs to be changed to make clear that the constitution applies only to the Republic of Ireland. It is not an all-Ireland constitution. It is important to be clear about this.Mooretwin (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The name of the country is "Ireland" not "Republic of Ireland" but because the article Ireland refers to the whole country and Republic of Ireland is used for the country article, the WP:IMOS says to use the piped version [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] so that the proper name is used within text but links properly to the article about the country. Please don't revert again. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It says using "Ireland" is "misleading as it creates the impression that the island of Ireland is one state". The advice about using the piping is not relevant here, because it relates to geography. A town in Kerry is in Ireland as well as the Republic of Ireland. The constitution, however, relates only to the Republic of Ireland.Mooretwin (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Did you ever read the constitution? Well do, because it does not even mention Republic of Ireland, only Ireland. However you can't link to Ireland when referring to the state, only to the island as whole, so you have to use the piped link where the constitutional name is used in the text but the link brings you to the wiki article about the state. ww2censor (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Just because the constitution doesn't mention it doesn't mean it doesn't need clarified. I'm guessing the constitution of North Korea doesn't say it's a family dynasty for crackpots.......Traditional unionist (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see you get away with adding that Korean articles...obviously you've lost the plot. Djegan (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Obviously you're not good with literary devices. From memory the full name of the state is "The Democratic Republic of Korea". One assumes, without checking, that WP points out both that the state does not cover the entire Korean peninsula, and that it ain't democratic. Same kind of thing here.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Well the name is in the constitution and surprise, surprise it is "Ireland" or in the Irish language Éire but as there is already an article called "Ireland" for the island, we use the piped version Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] per the WP:IMOS. Read the constitution and be enlightened. ww2censor (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Should I read the North Korean constitution and be enlightened as to their democratic system of government?Traditional unionist (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Traditional unionist - the fact that you keep referring to North Korea in a Republic of Ireland article does not help you case. If you want to live back in the 1950's fair enough - but the rest of us will move on. Your approval is not needed. Thanks. Djegan (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is required. I'm not trying to say the Republic is undemocratic, I'm simply saying that constitutions quite often are written either in a way the writers want people to think things are, or in a way the authors wish things are. This is the latter. Just because the constitution doesn't call it the Republic of Ireland doesn't mean WP shouldn't, and doesn't mean this article shouldn't point out the ambiguity about the state. Infact it is misleading to leave the article as it is.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm on the record for continuously supporting "Republic of Ireland" terminology - but comparing that part of Ireland with North Korea sure don't help you case. Quit living in the past. Djegan (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Well Traditional unionist, reading the constitution of Korea will not help you here so please don't taint this discussion with red herrings, but when you do get to read the Irish constitution, yes you will be enlightened. The name is clearly stated in the constitution and that is what you should use, nothing else. The lead is currently quite clear what is being talked about and what it encompasses. Where is the need to add "republic"? There is none. ww2censor (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Neither of you are actually engaging with the discussion. So I'll repeat myself. "I'm simply saying that constitutions quite often are written either in a way the writers want people to think things are, or in a way the authors wish things are. This is the latter. Just because the constitution doesn't call it the Republic of Ireland doesn't mean WP shouldn't, and doesn't mean this article shouldn't point out the ambiguity about the state. Infact it is misleading to leave the article as it is."Traditional unionist (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
You guys don't seem to be able to understand Traditional unionist's point. We know that the "official name" of the Republic is "Ireland", but we also know that this is misleading, since it only covers part of the island. We also know, of course, that the "official description" is "Republic of Ireland", and that the WP article on the state is entitled "Republic of Ireland". It is important, in the introduction - especially given that the title of the article is "Constitution of Ireland" - to make it clear that the constitution relates only to the Republic.Mooretwin (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Folks at no point did I say that Republic of Ireland should be removed and replaced with Ireland (therefore only one person has supported "Ireland" over "Republic of Ireland"). What had (greatly) annoyed me was one editors persistence in comparing the issue with North Korea, as indicated above. I have consistently supported the use of Republic of Ireland terminology - much to the criticism of other Irish editors - but bad comparisons don't help win support. Djegan (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It's annoying you because you're taking something from the camparison that isn't intended. The comparison can be extended to Taiwan, for example.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is the inaccuracy and unsupported statement the founding legal document of the Republic of Ireland. You cannot prove that statement from any source, ever. Let's find a constructive solution, so if you have such concerns about naming clarity, then don't be inaccurate, instead why not point readers properly to the naming issue that you yourself have by adding an explanatory phrase that links readers to Names of the Irish state where there is complete naming clarity. What you are doing, Mooretwin and Traditional unionist, besides being highly annoying, POV, inaccurate and unsourced, is adding something that is just plain wrong. ww2censor (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Except it's not inaccurate. And it's not POV. On the contrary, it is entirely accurate, and NPOV, to say that it is the constitution of the Republic of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, sorry, I see what you're getting at re. the inaccuracy, but I still think it's OK. Although the Republic was established until 1949, the constitution was little-changed as a consequence - we're effectively saying it's the "founding document" of the state now known as ROI. But on further reflection, "founding document" doesn't work even with "Ireland", since the current state was effectively founded in 1922. 1937 and 1949 are developmental milestones rather than foundations.Mooretwin (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Founding legal document is not my phrase, and you're right, is inaccurate. Piping a link assumes that readers will follow that link to find out what the truth is. That is not an assumption that is safe to make. For the article to be accurate and authoritative it should spell out what this document has jurisdiction over in the opening paragraph.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I suppose pipelinking Republic of China to [Republic of China|China] would be a headache aswell. Though in that case, it would be confusing two countries. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify the point raised above. The name of the country is "Ireland" not "Republic of Ireland" but because the article Ireland refers to the whole country and Republic of Ireland is used for the country article, the WP:IMOS says to use the piped version [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] so that the proper name is used within text but links properly to the article about the country. The article is not about the island so WP:IMOS remains intact.Pureditor 13:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
"The article is not about the island." ... Exactly, hence the need for clarity in the introduction, as per discussion above.Mooretwin (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not about the island so no explanation is necessary! Ireland is the name of the state and the island is not mentioned so no ambigiuty exists. Your point contradicts itself.Pureditor 15:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we know "Ireland" is the name of the state, but it is also the name of the island. This article is about the state, aka ROI, not the island. Hence the need to distinguish. Where's the contradiction? Mooretwin (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The title of the article says "Ireland", so all the more reason to clarify in the introduction.Mooretwin (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Mooretwin, so you are still pushing the same old nonsense! The piped link is all that is needed for clarity if you don't know the difference between the island and the state. As previously stated the name of the the state is Ireland. Please stop edit warring. If readers can't be bothered to click on the piped link that is their problem and there is not need to confuse by saying this is the constitution of the Republic of Ireland; it is not and never will be. ww2censor (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok so we agree the name of the state is Ireland. (thanks god!) The article is about the state, so by basic logic the name of the state should be used. The article has absolutely nothing to do with the island whatsoever so no distinguation is necessary. The link is there if someone wants to click on it. The WP:IMOS says that the link Ireland should be used. If you have a problem with that raise the point over there.Pureditor 15:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The "official" name of the state is a misnomer, hence the need for clarification in the intro, especially given the title of the article. It is important that readers understand that the constitution does not relate to Ireland as a whole. Please stop editing against the consensus view. Mooretwin (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
That is your opinion, it is not a WP:NPOV, so there is no need to place inaccuracies into the article. Please stop. ww2censor (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not an opinion: it's fact. The state known as "Ireland" only has jurisdiction over part of Ireland. There are no inaccuracies: it is accurate - and unambiguous - to say that the constitution relates to the Republic. To say it relates to "Ireland", however, is ambiguous, given the double-meaning of the name. Please do not tell me to "stop" reverting the text to the consensus position. Mooretwin (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Ireland is not ambiguous unless you cannot read and if you need any more clarity than is given in the last sentence of the lead: "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", then indeed I pity your false interpretation, but I am sure you have more common sense and education than that. What you are saying is that the constitution is the founding legal document of the Republic of Ireland. That is untrue, false and inaccurate; it is the founding legal document of the state Ireland, nothing more, nothing less. Please don't falsify the verifiable truth. Please stop edit warring. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Editors should be much more careful in this discussion. There is a large dose of biting a newbie going on here. Censor, I think that you have perhaps highlighted something of Mooretwins argument. This article uses in its lead Ireland as both a political and a geographic term. The two are not co-terminus. This is surely confusing when there is a very simple way of avoiding that.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, quite. If you read Ireland, without clicking, then it is ambiguous! That's the whole point. Given the title of the article, it needs to be clear at the outset that the constitution only relates to the Republic. As for it being "untrue, false and inaccurate" to say that the constitution is the founding legal document of the Republic of Ireland - well, that is rather an exaggeration, to say the least. It is not untrue to say that it is the founding document of the country that is universally recognised (including by Wikipedia) (and officially "described") as the Republic of Ireland. On the contrary: it is true. You may argue pedantically that it is not entirely accurate because the "official" name is "Ireland", but that is not the same as something being untrue. Your accusation that I am "falsifying the verifiable truth" is ludicrous hyperbole. In the interests of clarity, and in avoiding ambiguity, the opening line has to say "Republic of Ireland". Nothing is lost, and much is gained by this construction.Mooretwin (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) OK, so maybe the fangs started to come out a bit but nearly 1000 edits is hardly a newbie. If there is a consensus that there needs to be some clarity, perhaps because there are some idiot readers out there (and there may well be some), then it should not be by introducing false statements into the text. If that is your simple way of avoiding it, you are equally at fault for creating another falsehood. It should be by the use of an additional phrase or clause that clarity is created, not by muddying the waters with an inaccuracy. ww2censor (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Now saying "In the interests of clarity, and in avoiding ambiguity, the opening line has to say "Republic of Ireland"" is definitely POV pushing indeed and the fangs will come out again with that sort of intractable attitude. Digging your heels in and making statements like that will not help us form any sort of consensus. Really we need to get other people involved in this unless there is to be a constant edit war here and I am sure you don't want that. Let's find a suitable clear way for all of us to be satisfied but clear. GTG ww2censor (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
No "false statements" have been introduced into the text. No waters are muddied. The term "Republic of Ireland" is unambiguous. There is no POV involved. If you want a civil discussion, perhaps you can begin by telling us what is wrong with saying that the constitution relates to the Republic of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Mooretwin, your language and intransigent attitude will not get us anywhere. I made some positive suggestions regarding a possible way forward but your insistence that: the term "Republic of Ireland" is unambiguous and that the opening line has to say "Republic of Ireland" are not conducive to any form of solution or consensus. Would you not like to find an acceptable solution or consensus? If you would then let's find a suitable solution. Any insistence that the text you want must prevail is unhelpful and negative. ww2censor (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
It is your language and attitude, which are unhelpful, viz. ludicrous hyperbole and accusations that I am dishonest: not mine. It is a factual statement to say that "Republic of Ireland" is unambiguous. I note your failure to explain what is wrong with the term and any ambiguities which you feel arise from the term. Where is the ambiguity? Mooretwin (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday I asked Mooretwin: Would you not like to find an acceptable solution or consensus? If you would then let's find a suitable solution but you did not answer the question, so I don't know if you are really looking for a consensus solution or not. ww2censor (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Then you should reacquaint yourself with WP:AGFTraditional unionist (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. We reached a consensus here, which was changed by Pureeditor, hence the recent discussion. Instead of making personal accusations and insinuations about other editors, perhaps you could address the topic and tell us what is wrong with the term "Republic of Ireland" - what is ambiguous about it? Unfortunately, this is the third time of asking. But I remain patient, despite your attitude. Please lay off the personal, and let's discuss the article. Mooretwin (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) There was no consensus for change. 'Ireland' was the stable edit for a long period of time and according to the IMOS was the right thing to put down. A compromise that should be acceptable to you if you are really interested in avoiding confusion is that if the intro says ...of the state of Ireland. Pureditor 13:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The official description of that state being Republic of Ireland. What exactly is the problem with that? Linguistically it sits much much better.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not the official description. It's not in the constitution. It's just a description of the state as said in an act in order to clarify that it's not a constitutional monarchy. It's not something for Wikipedia to be promoting as its not the name of the country in any way shape or form. Also looking back on old discussions, I believe the Irish government discourage its usage aswell. Everything suggests that it shouldn't be used. WP:IMOS, WP:COMMON and WP:VERIFY also indicate that Ireland should be used. It's pretty balack and white in my eyes and in the eyes of Wikipedia.Pureditor 13:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. It is the official description per the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. That is an act of the Irish parliament.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Being in an act of parliament makes it official, since when was the interpretation of law devolved to you? We can have only one article at Ireland.
The introduction needs to make it clear that the Constitution of Ireland applies to the Republic of Ireland. Piped links are confusing in this case. Djegan (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The suggested introduction of ....the state of Ireland is not confusing. If you have a problem with the piped link please raise it at the WP:IMOS. The precedent has already been established there.Pureditor 13:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about verifiability. It does not say the word official anywhere. So you're argument is void. Also you have ignored the numerous other points I raised. If you want to find a consensus, please acknowledge them.Pureditor 13:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. Your entire argument was seemingly based on your assumption that Republic of Ireland was an invention of convenience to disambiguate. Infact it is a legislative name for the Republic passed by the Republic's legislature.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Er, it was you who made the bogus point about the word being "official"! Djegan is spot on - please address the point - where is the ambiguity in "Republic of Ireland"? It seems you are pursuing a political agenda here. Mooretwin (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"It's not the name of the country in any way shape or form" ... clearly it is, as it is the "official description"(!), so this statement is simply not true. "Everything suggests that it shouldn't be used" - yet Wikipedia itself uses the name, and a quick Google will bring up thousands of returns. Mooretwin (talk)
Just to clarify description does not equal name. They are very different things. A google search will bring up pages about the football team and british websites which historically refuse to acknowledge the name Ireland so I understand.Pureditor 13:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Pureditor, neither the constitution or law use the word "official" - but still the constitution and law are for all intents official. Djegan (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

By Pureditor's own argument, the name isn't "official" either! Mooretwin (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a very big difference between an act and the constitution of a country.Pureditor 13:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Their is nothing in WP:IMOS that would over-ride a consensus here, see the banner at the top of the IMOS -- exceptions are allowed! Strict adherence here is only been used as an excuse to over-ride consensus that Republic of Ireland should be used. Djegan (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There is also a discussion on the talk page of IMOS that needs restarting. Comments there welcome.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)#Significant_misinterpratation_of_this_guideline. Djegan (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
3 editors wanting a change is not a consensus. If you want a compromise/consensus, then what do you find wrong with ....of the state of Ireland?Pureditor 13:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
People may not understand what "state of Ireland" means. Mooretwin (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"State of Ireland" - now thats just pure invention. Get out of it. Get back to reality. Djegan (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys - all of you need to step back here and sort this out on the talk page. One editor's been blocked already. Please - try to iron out this mess here, with less of the personalized comments - Alison 14:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Note A discussion over at the Irish Manual of Style talk page may determine the outcome of this edit war, so please contribute your constructive ideas and thoughts there for now and please hold off on any edit to this article until that is resolved. ww2censor (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The doctrine of implied repeal[edit]

"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)

Lead - odd opening para[edit]

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) Regards. Redking7 (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)
So perhaps we could revert Redkings edit and try to build on the lead.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)

(outdent) Perhaps people should actually read what the lead is supposed to be. An extract from WP:LEAD says: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article." As the article is now it certainly does not do this at all and for an article of this length it should really have 3 or 4 paragraphs, so decent expansion is definitely on the cards. Maybe we can work on that instead of being in conflict about the lead. It does not have to contain everything and certainly not conflicted data. ww2censor (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Checking out other "Constitution of ..." articles seems to suggest that the current lede is perfectly fine. --HighKing (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Lets go with policy rather that your observations of other articles in breech of policy.Traditional unionist (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
So your proposal is that the lead should be bare and uninteresting is it?Traditional unionist (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The United States Constitution article has a nine paragraphed lead. It's a featured article. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Mostly as a result of extremely bad formatting, and it's an awful read. --HighKing (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for the explanation. Mooretwin (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)

Name of the State[edit]

This is an article on the Constitution. 'Alternative' names, whether Irish Republic, 26 Counties or 'Down Yonder' have no place.Also, could someone more familiar with the mechanics involved change the title over the Presidential Shield to reflect the name of the state per the Constitution?RashersTierney (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You're beat me a my own game but the name issue is listed as an issue of controversy. Where's the controversy? As it stands we should delete the entire section. Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I really don't want to get into games. Life's too short and Wikipedia would be the lesser for it. The name question was/is controversial even within the confines of the article, and I'd have no poblem if it was expanded (within reasonable limits).RashersTierney (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I not sure if you really understood me but never mimd. Now that I think of it the reason the name of the state is in the controversy section is that the Constitution gave the British, in particular, a word, Eire, which they used to describe the 26 counties, to the exclusion of Northern Ireland. The original draft of the Constitution just gave Eire as the official name without reference to Ireland. The Republic of Ireland Act was, in part, passed to cleanup the mess. This is why official usage vis-à-vis Republic of Ireland v. Ireland is relevant. Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
If you mean by 'original draft', the one which was written in Irish, then you are factually incorrect on two counts. Firstly, the 1937 constitution was initially drafted in English and translated into Irish. The use of the word Éire as the Irish name of the state is acceptable in the Irish language, but not as an alternative to the constitutionally correct name in English, which as you are aware is 'Ireland'.RashersTierney (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
First, as this article is at pains to point out the Constitution was drafted simultaneously in Irish and English. Second, the original draft I was talking about was the one presented to Dail Eireann. The English text of which didn't contain the word "Ireland" but instead "Eire": hence "President of Eire" etc... The English was amended in committee.
I am of course aware of the correct usage of Eire vis-a-vis Ireland. In the English language there are however plenty of dictionaries which define "Eire" as meaning the "Republic of Ireland" and this meaning of the word is still very common. Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The constitution was drafted as a single document. The Irish translation was produced simultaneously, but in reference to the English text. On the other point, a dictionary that 'translates' Éire (even sans accent) as Republic of Ireland, is a poor dictionary, and as a minimum would have its reliability questioned.RashersTierney (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Interesting - do you have a reference for a dictionary that translates in this way? Also, I've changed the template to use the term "Ireland", as it is officially in reference to the state. It probably needs some disambiguation though... --HighKing (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Title over shield is still appearing as 'Republic of Ireland'.RashersTierney (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This one for a start. It may not be PC these days but when you look up "Eire" on Google News almost all the of the articles use Eire to mean the Republic of Ireland. As ugly as it might be this reflects English as it is. This is off topic as it doesn't relate to the article, so I plan to leave it there. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Djegan reverted your edits to the RoI template. You will have to get consensus for the move over at Talk:Republic of Ireland before you can start renaming everything else. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Bunreacht"[edit]

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).