A chara, – Colum Kenny writes (Letters, April 4th) that the judgment of the Supreme Court signals a need to replace “the complete outmoded text”.
That would be a mistake. If there were anything destined to lead to years of endless committees, it would be a review of each provision of the Constitution, anticipating both what might meet the approval of a majority and how it should be adapted to meet the needs of a coming generation. Any proposed text could face opposition from different directions, and would risk the fate of the proposed new Chilean constitution put to a vote in September 2022, and rejected by a vote of 62 per cent to 38 per cent.
Our Constitution adopted in 1937 has served the State well, subject to careful amendment in response to changes in political culture or to judicial interpretation. One exception was the Seventh Amendment at issue in this case, described by the Mr Justice Gerard Hogan last week as “the equivalent of the attempted cleaning of an old master by a careless restoration artist who then proceeded to leave an ink-stain on a Rembrandt”.
Such hapless drafting allowed successive governments to ignore its requirement for a reform of the Seanad franchise, a lack of clarity evident in a three-judge High Court finding for the Government’s interpretation. – Is mise,
‘I want to be alone’: Greta Garbo, sure. Daniel Day-Lewis, maybe not so much after all
Pat Leahy: Trouble at the top? Relations between Simon Harris and Micheál Martin are frayed
‘I crossed the river for both my wife and my chips’: End of an era for Lennox’s chipper in Cork
TV guide: the best new shows to watch this week, beginning tonight
WILLIAM QUILL,
Dublin 8.