![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 29, 2006, December 29, 2007, December 29, 2011, December 29, 2012, December 29, 2014, and December 29, 2015. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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)
http: //www.wikipedia.org/wikki/constitution_of_ireland
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.
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 86.46.147.166 ( talk) 22:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Morwen - Ireland didn’t “become a republic” in 1949. Ireland was already a republic outside the Commonwealth many years before it supposedly “left it”. That’s the position under the laws of Ireland. United Kingdom law does not accord with that. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 00:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
Ah, so it is true, good to know, I'll never doubt my uncle again lol.-- Hibernian 08:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
The United States Constitution article has a nine paragraphed lead. It's a featured article. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
Title over shield is still appearing as 'Republic of Ireland'. RashersTierney ( talk) 11:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
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).
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)
Author and signatory are not appropriate for the Irish constitution. "Author" was Dail Eireann if you want to call that body the author. There was no signatory as such, it was enacted by being approved in a plebiscite. Zymurgy ( talk) 18:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
"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)
:::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)
:::::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)
Struck comments by sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
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))
Is that correct? Frenchmalawi ( talk) 00:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
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
@ BrownHairedGirl: - 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)
Features of constitution of Ireland 2405:201:9005:B034:A15A:FE6F:6D67:30A ( talk) 14:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Didn’t Pedro Albizu Campos aid in the drafting of the constitution? 98.183.27.92 ( talk) 04:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 29, 2006, December 29, 2007, December 29, 2011, December 29, 2012, December 29, 2014, and December 29, 2015. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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)
http: //www.wikipedia.org/wikki/constitution_of_ireland
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.
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 86.46.147.166 ( talk) 22:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Morwen - Ireland didn’t “become a republic” in 1949. Ireland was already a republic outside the Commonwealth many years before it supposedly “left it”. That’s the position under the laws of Ireland. United Kingdom law does not accord with that. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 00:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
Ah, so it is true, good to know, I'll never doubt my uncle again lol.-- Hibernian 08:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
The United States Constitution article has a nine paragraphed lead. It's a featured article. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
Title over shield is still appearing as 'Republic of Ireland'. RashersTierney ( talk) 11:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
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).
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)
Author and signatory are not appropriate for the Irish constitution. "Author" was Dail Eireann if you want to call that body the author. There was no signatory as such, it was enacted by being approved in a plebiscite. Zymurgy ( talk) 18:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
"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)
:::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)
:::::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)
Struck comments by sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
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))
Is that correct? Frenchmalawi ( talk) 00:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
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
@ BrownHairedGirl: - 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)
Features of constitution of Ireland 2405:201:9005:B034:A15A:FE6F:6D67:30A ( talk) 14:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Didn’t Pedro Albizu Campos aid in the drafting of the constitution? 98.183.27.92 ( talk) 04:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)