Sir, - Mr O'Hanlon must congratulated on his letter. It is not the first time that he has injected a bit of horse sensical realism into debates which some would have us conduct on the basis of a notionally pragmatic recognition of modern but spurious realities, instead of a careful consideration of right and wrong.
I am uneasy about one point in his letter, however; namely, his reference to the intentions of the framers of the Constitution. I assume he means those who drafted the text that was put before the people.
I would hope that the overriding test is the intention of the people themselves, and what the words meant to them when they adopted them. Surely, the Constitution's significance is that it, places ultimate control in the hands of the people, by imposing a constraint of their choosing within which all organs of the State must operate and abide.
I feel, however, that the Constitution has one significant flaw, in that it gives too much control to those whom it is meant to control - it appoints the potential poachers as its gamekeepers. Thus its amendment can be initiated only by the legislators, who also choose the words in which it is expressed, and only the courts can interpret what those words mean.
I believe that the true will of the people has been frustrated at times by both those means. I wish that there could be some mechanism whereby the people themselves could not only decide whether, when and what new their Constitution, but also determine what those words mean. How ludicrous to cast the people as mere spectators of arcane procedures, concocted to ascertain the will of the people, when the people are there to be asked!
The language of our Constitution, while maintaining precision, should be the ordinary vernacular, Gaeilge no Bearla. It must never be made into a cabbalistic technical code formulated and requiring interpretation by expert, potentially self serving elites. - Yours, etc.
Lakelands Close,
Stillorgan, Co Dublin.