Yes, which is why I had thought repeal rather than change of the 8th amendment would be better, far better to deal with it all in legislation without any fallback to the constitution. I didn’t hear their arguments in detail (a solicitor friend of mine was trying to explain the details to me as it was all happening via tweets she was reading), but I believe the assembly advocated for amendment because they thought other parts of the constitution could still have been used to block legislation, even if the 8th was repealed?
1 Like
But this law is necessary in the sense that it was required. That is the extent of its usefulness.
The pre existing condition which made it be necessary should have been deleted. But, join the queue behind important shit.
Our constitution is verbose and where amendments have caused trouble in my lifetime it has been because they have gone on too long.
Unfortunately I believe several clauses need deletion before we can reform many of the individual elements that are no longer fit for purpose. Some of these are archaic such as the preamble which courts don’t want to hear about but which nonetheless technically is to be considered when interpreting all other sections. But over all I think, as I think you do, deletion will make a more robust and uselful constitution allowing legislature to respond to and lead public positions.
The convention is, i think, right to seek certainty. This does not in any way, ever, give any fig leaf to those that allowed situations such as the killing of Savita Halvapannor happen due to “uncertainty”.
1 Like
Why yes, God can create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it. He wears it in a pinkie ring.
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
