![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
constitutionality
So after having a conversation with someone at the weekend about the Irish Constitution, I went doing a little research. The original (for the purposes of the Irish State relinquished by the UK at the start of the last century) constitution was established in 1922, signed by various folks on English and Irish delegations, and brought into force. Subsequently there was a wee scrap in Ireland resulting in the death of at least one of the signatories. This is understandable in the light of the text of the 1922 constitution: among other things, members of the Irish Parliament are required to swear allegiance to the English monarch. Which some of the more, eh, militant seperatists most likely objected to rather strenuously.
Anyway. The main focus of my investigation was whether or not the current constitution, established in 1937, was actually valid or not. Once upon a time, I learned that the original constitution required a quorum for amendments; that is to say, a certain percentage of those eligible to do so had to vote before a vote was even deemed valid; and I also learned that the 1937 constitution disregarded that quorum. By learned I most likely mean that someone told me in the course of a conversation, probably in a pub.
The presence of a quorum in a constitutional referendum makes sense; it prevents frivolous modifications to the constitution that are of no interest to the majority. Here's the relevant article:
Roll forward to 1937:
Anyway. The main focus of my investigation was whether or not the current constitution, established in 1937, was actually valid or not. Once upon a time, I learned that the original constitution required a quorum for amendments; that is to say, a certain percentage of those eligible to do so had to vote before a vote was even deemed valid; and I also learned that the 1937 constitution disregarded that quorum. By learned I most likely mean that someone told me in the course of a conversation, probably in a pub.
The presence of a quorum in a constitutional referendum makes sense; it prevents frivolous modifications to the constitution that are of no interest to the majority. Here's the relevant article:
Amendments of this Constitution within the terms of the Scheduled Treaty may be made by the Oireachtas, but no such amendment, passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, after the expiration of eight years from the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution, shall become law, unless the same shall, after it has been passed or deemed to have passed by the said two Houses of the Oireachtas, have been submitted to a Referendum of the people, and unless a majority of the voters on the register shall have recorded their votes on such Referendum, and either the votes of a majority of the voters on the register, or two-thirds of the votes recorded, shall have been cast in favour of such amendment. Any such amendment may be made within the said period of eight years by way of ordinary legislation and as such be subject to the provisions of Article 47 hereof.Now, I'm not a lawyer, but this appears to me to require a quorum of "a majority of the voters on the register".
Roll forward to 1937:
In 1932, De Valera became prime minister, and under his administration a new constitution was promulgated (1937), establishing the sovereign nation of Ireland, or Eire, within the Commonwealth of Nations. De Valera's policies aimed at the political and economic independence and union of all of Ireland. The loyalty oath to the crown was abolished, and certain economic provisions of the 1921 treaty with England were repudiated, leading to an "economic war" (1932-38) with Britain. (from The Columbia Encyclopedia)Now, De Valera was on the anti-treaty side in the civil war mentioned above. So it's understandable that given the chance, he'd've ripped the Constitution to shreds. But, er, you can't do that. You have to follow the rules. Dev submitted his shiny new Constitution to a plebiscite under the PLEBISCITE (DRAFT CONSTITUTION) ACT, 1937 which, from the wording of CONSTITUTION (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1937, was "enacted by the people". Here's what the people said: 75% of the electorate voted, so the majority requirement was satisfied. Of the 75%, 56.52% voted in favour, 43.48% against, and 9.97% spoiled votes (which leaves a tiny fraction unaccounted for, which I guess is "rounding error"). Thus it appears that the Constitution was implemented on the first part of the quorum-related requirement above, that a majority of the voters on register be in favour of the amendment. Certainly it didn't get even remotely close to the 2/3s of the recorded votes in favour. I suspect this was the origin of the original "fact" I had been given.
no subject
This geekily reminds me of nomic (google it yourself, i'm lazy), in which if necessary you can post-fix the terms under which later rules are created, as long as you draft an appropriate rule for it.