Interpreting Article 45 as irrelevant to the Constitution and not recognised by courts when in law 'cognisable' means "within the jurisdiction of a court" would make the principles irrelevant whereas those principles are enshrined in other Articles particularly the right to equality of treatment by government in the Constitution and therefore the true interpretation is that no court can make those principles irrelevant or 'unconstitutional' in the sense they don't have to be considered by the Oireachtas at all. In other words Article 45 is set in stone and the principles are entirely relevant and the basis of the other 44 Articles, i.e. they are not merely an option and can only be if the attorney general, all TDs including the Ceann Comhairle become dishonest, unchristian, and intend not to treat all citizens equally. Making them irrelevant for instance to Article 40.3.2. where the State must protect as best it may "the life and person" of every citizen from unjust attack would make medical treatment and shelter an option not a requirement and any law professor that would claim that the State does not have "where necessary, to contribute to the support of the infirm, the widow, the orphan, and the aged" would lack credibility especially when the whole constitution must conform to the Christian principles expressed in the Preamble and to the duty of the Oireachtas to subject its laws to morality. When everyone has the Constitutional right to be treated equally and many don't receive this, TDs that refuse equality to anyone must have lawful reasons for excluding them from this fundamental right. When how they treat themselves however is considered, and they take a lot more taxes for themselves than they give to others and don't seem to believe that the law restricts them in any way from doing so, the reason is nothing to do with doubts about the constitution and everything to do with character and immoral personality traits. In fact, anyone relieving the Oireachtas of its duty to comply with Article 45 principles is as close to treason as one can get because there's numerous ways from that of "overthrowing the organs of government established by this Constitution" and when the health-services at present are complicit in denying medical care to those who can't pay more than their lawful taxes for it and are leaving the sick to suffer and even die regardless of the State's duty to protect as best it may the life and person of every citizen, one can maybe understand why Article 45 is a problem to those in authority responsible who have no moral principles or decency at all. As the Supreme Court in Ryan v. Attorney general ruled: “everyone has the right to life, bodily integrity, the means necessary and suitable for the proper development of life; “primarily food, clothing, SHELTER, rest, MEDICAL CARE, and finally the NECESSARY SOCIAL SERVICES." *, when only some citizens get all of those from government and many don't, those responsible are hiding behind misinterpreted law to justify their dishonest unconstitutionality and unlawfulness. *(Supreme Court, Grant v. Attorney General). In the Supreme Court case of: East Donegal Co-op Livestock Mart Ltd & Others v. Attorney General, the ruling included that the Constitution “does not allow for the arbitrary preference of one citizen to another" and if that's not enough for TDs to know that they can't provide 'shelter', 'medical care' and 'the necessary social services' for themselves without having to provide it for all other citizens too, again they in selfish immorality, are denying others their Constitutional rights. Mr Fennelly, in deciding that some 'unenumerated' rights are not constitutional entitlements because a Supreme Court ruled them not specifically expressed in the Constitution, yet the Oireachtas provides them for TDs, Senators, and those employed by the State, and for the judiciary too, his legal argument fails and Article 40 on all citizens being treated equally before the law, must provide them for every citizen. That same entitlement also requires that the average pay and benefits for politicians and public sector workers has to be the same as that in the private sector. When the Supreme Court has no problems interpreting the Constitution to give what Christianity regards as necessary rights to every citizen anyone else deciding that Article 45 can be ignored in Constitutional law is seriously compromised.
Thank you for taking the time to give the true spirit of the constitution and not this purposeful misrepresentation of the responsibility of the governments. Let them away with this long enough and the accepted definition with change.
Thank you so very much for explaining it to me
Interpreting Article 45 as irrelevant to the Constitution and not recognised by courts when in law 'cognisable' means "within the jurisdiction of a court" would make the principles irrelevant whereas those principles are enshrined in other Articles particularly the right to equality of treatment by government in the Constitution and therefore the true interpretation is that no court can make those principles irrelevant or 'unconstitutional' in the sense they don't have to be considered by the Oireachtas at all. In other words Article 45 is set in stone and the principles are entirely relevant and the basis of the other 44 Articles, i.e. they are not merely an option and can only be if the attorney general, all TDs including the Ceann Comhairle become dishonest, unchristian, and intend not to treat all citizens equally.
Making them irrelevant for instance to Article 40.3.2. where the State must protect as best it may "the life and person" of every citizen from unjust attack would make medical treatment and shelter an option not a requirement and any law professor that would claim that the State does not have "where necessary, to contribute to the support of the infirm, the widow, the orphan, and the aged" would lack credibility especially when the whole constitution must conform to the Christian principles expressed in the Preamble and to the duty of the Oireachtas to subject its laws to morality.
When everyone has the Constitutional right to be treated equally and many don't receive this, TDs that refuse equality to anyone must have lawful reasons for excluding them from this fundamental right. When how they treat themselves however is considered, and they take a lot more taxes for themselves than they give to others and don't seem to believe that the law restricts them in any way from doing so, the reason is nothing to do with doubts about the constitution and everything to do with character and immoral personality traits.
In fact, anyone relieving the Oireachtas of its duty to comply with Article 45 principles is as close to treason as one can get because there's numerous ways from that of "overthrowing the organs of government established by this Constitution" and when the health-services at present are complicit in denying medical care to those who can't pay more than their lawful taxes for it and are leaving the sick to suffer and even die regardless of the State's duty to protect as best it may the life and person of every citizen, one can maybe understand why Article 45 is a problem to those in authority responsible who have no moral principles or decency at all.
As the Supreme Court in Ryan v. Attorney general ruled: “everyone has the right to life, bodily integrity, the means necessary and suitable for the proper development of life; “primarily food, clothing, SHELTER, rest, MEDICAL CARE, and finally the NECESSARY SOCIAL SERVICES." *, when only some citizens get all of those from government and many don't, those responsible are hiding behind misinterpreted law to justify their dishonest unconstitutionality and unlawfulness.
*(Supreme Court, Grant v. Attorney General).
In the Supreme Court case of: East Donegal Co-op Livestock Mart Ltd & Others v. Attorney General, the ruling included that the Constitution “does not allow for the arbitrary preference of one citizen to another" and if that's not enough for TDs to know that they can't provide 'shelter', 'medical care' and 'the necessary social services' for themselves without having to provide it for all other citizens too, again they in selfish immorality, are denying others their Constitutional rights.
Mr Fennelly, in deciding that some 'unenumerated' rights are not constitutional entitlements because a Supreme Court ruled them not specifically expressed in the Constitution, yet the Oireachtas provides them for TDs, Senators, and those employed by the State, and for the judiciary too, his legal argument fails and Article 40 on all citizens being treated equally before the law, must provide them for every citizen. That same entitlement also requires that the average pay and benefits for politicians and public sector workers has to be the same as that in the private sector.
When the Supreme Court has no problems interpreting the Constitution to give what Christianity regards as necessary rights to every citizen anyone else deciding that Article 45 can be ignored in Constitutional law is seriously compromised.
Thank you for taking the time to give the true spirit of the constitution and not this purposeful misrepresentation of the responsibility of the governments.
Let them away with this long enough and the accepted definition with change.
Long time back but anyway, the colour background and lack of true sovereign seal says it all
Inspirational lecture..thank you