Constitutional Questions

Constitutional Questions
Professor John Morison MRIA School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast
How should we live together? Is there any ethical question more fundamental than this?
Is a constitution only about who does what in government or is it about what is to be done? Does a constitution provide the ground rules for deciding this or is it part of the answer itself? Is it the repository of fundamental values about how to live? What is the good life anyway? Is it about the preservation of life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or something more? What about preserving (or radically reordering) the distribution of property? Or ensuring that everyone has the same chances? Is it the job of the constitution to simply promise dignity, equality and freedom, or to deliver these values?
If the constitution is the place where the state undertakes “to promote the welfare of the whole people”, what does this actually mean in practical terms? And who pays for it? Should a constitution give us an entitlement to at least a basic minimum by way of a lifestyle? Or is it the job only of the political process to decide issues about the allocation of resources? What do we do if we feel that we cannot trust our politicians? Are there basic rules that should govern the operation of politics and are there fundamental values that should not be overridden? Are these “sacred and undeniable”? Or to be interpreted in line with modern conditions and within a “margin of appreciation”? Who decides on this in individual cases?
Who is entitled to any of this, and on what basis? Is everyone equal? Is the constitution about making it clear that no-one is better than you, and that in turn, you are better than no-one? Is a constitution about ensuring that you will always be an end in yourself and never simply a means to anyone else’s end? Or does it simply reinforce the existing distribution of power and wealth?
Are citizens to be given more than those who are not citizens? Is more to be expected from them, and what might that be? Can the constitution tell us how we should treat those from outside who now live with us?
What is the relationship between a constitution and a nation? Who is in the nation anyway? Should we talk about “we the people” or “we the peoples”? Should a constitution confirm a nationality or facilitate diversity? Is the constitution the place to declare aspirations for a national territory? Or to confirm support for the idea of consent? What about all our neighbours – on the island of Ireland and in Great Britain? Or in Europe? And beyond?
What is the relationship between a constitution and democracy? Is a constitution simply the rules by which the powerful govern the powerless? In what sense does a constitution belong to everyone, across past, present and future generations? Is it the place where we state common values? Are there any? Do they change across time? Should the people be asked about changes they may want? How often should this be done? Should the constitution address the past and its problems? How might this be done? What do we owe future generations?
Finally, if we can agree that the constitution is about respecting human rights, striving for social justice and building a fair and democratic Ireland – North and South – how do we make it happen in practice?

Labour and the free churches 1918-1939: radicalism, righteousness and religion

It is a commonplace that the labour movement was somehow nurtured within the witness for liberty of the Free Churches. Exploring this at a range of levels - including organisation, rhetoric, policies, electoral politics and people - this book demonstrates the extent to which this remained a reality into the inter-war years. The distinctive religious setting in which it emerged indeed helps to explain the differences between Labour and more Marxist counterparts on the Continent. It is shown here that this setting continued to influence Labour approaches towards welfare, nationalisation and industrial relations between the wars. In the process Labour also adopted some of the righteousness of tone of the Free Churches. This setting was, however, changing. Dropping their traditional suspicion of the State, Nonconformists instead increasingly invested it with religious values, turning it through its growing welfare functions into the provider of practical Christianity. This nationalisation of religion continues to shape British attitudes to the welfare state as well as imposing narrowly utilitarian and material tests of relevance upon the churches and other social institutions. The elevation of the State was not, however, intended as an end in itself. What mattered were the social and individual outcomes. Socialism, for those Free Churchmen and women who helped to shape Labour in the early twentieth century, was about improving society as much as systems.

Gestão documental na logística

Dissertação apresentada ao Instituto Politécnico do Porto para obtenção do Grau de Mestre em Logística Orientada por: Professor Doutor José António Baptista da Costa Coorientada por: Dr. Lourenço Fernando Gomes Pinheiro

Análise da sinistralidade rodoviária no concelho de Loures em meio interurbano

Dissertação para obtenção do grau de Mestre em Engenharia na Área de Especialização em Vias de Comunicação e Transporte

Satisfação profissional e bem-estar subjetivo dos professores em pré-reforma

Dissertação de Mestrado, Psicologia da Educação, especialidade em Contextos Educativos, 4 de Março de 2016, Universidade dos Açores.

A importância da partilha do poder na implementação de regras e na regulação do grupo

Relatório da Prática Profissional Supervisionada Mestrado em Educação Pré-escolar

Cessão de créditos - uma opção de financiamento

Dissertação de Mestrado em Solicitaria

Climate Change, Neutrality and the Harm Principle

This paper aims at evaluating the compatibility of coercive climate policies with liberal neutrality. More precisely, it focuses on the doctrine of state neutrality as associated with the "harm principle". It argues that given the difficulty of attributing causal responsibilities for climate harms to individuals, the harm principle doesn't work in this case, at least if one endorses a liberal atomistic ontology. Furthermore, the definition of what constitutes climate harms implies making moral assumptions, which makes it impossible to justify climate policies in a neutral way. Finally, the paper shows another consequence of applying neutrality to the case of climate change, that is the risk of a shift from political forms of decision-making to technocracy. Focusing too much on liberty of choice may (paradoxically) be to the detriment of political freedom. The paper concludes that climate change is an intrinsically moral issue and that it should be the occasion of a political debate about our current values and lifestyles. It should not be reduced to a mere question of carbon metric.

Letter from David Todd to Colonel Proctor, Commanding Officer of the 41st Regiment- 9 Feb 1812

Transcript (spelling and grammar retained): “Col Proctor Sir I hope your goodness will excuse the Liberty I have taken of Enclosing a Letter for my nephew Mr. Hailes to your care, and begging the favor of you to forward it to him, - not knowing myself at what Post he is – With Great Respect I am Sir Your Most Obed Serv David Todd”

William Hamilton Merritt Welland Canal circular, July 12, 1823

William Hamilton Merritt (1793-1862) was a soldier, merchant, and politician who was instrumental in the promotion and development of the Welland Canal. After serving with the Lincoln militia during the War of 1812, Merritt became a merchant in St. Catharines, and purchased some land on Twelve Mile Creek on which he ran a sawmill and constructed a grist mill. He initially envisioned a canal between the Welland River and Twelve Mile Creek, which evolved into a plan to link Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. This would enable goods from western Canada to be conveniently shipped to Montreal and Great Britain through the St. Lawrence, while bypassing the Niagara portage. His plan met with opposition for financial and political reasons, as well as from those along the Niagara portage whose businesses would suffer if the canal were built. Despite this opposition, the Welland Canal Company was chartered by the Upper Canadian assembly in January, 1824. Construction on the canal began later that year, and was completed in 1829.

William Hamilton Merritt Welland Canal circular, July 12, 1823

William Hamilton Merritt (1793-1862) was a soldier, merchant, and politician who was instrumental in the promotion and development of the Welland Canal. After serving with the Lincoln militia during the War of 1812, Merritt became a merchant in St. Catharines, and purchased some land on Twelve Mile Creek on which he ran a sawmill and constructed a grist mill. He initially envisioned a canal between the Welland River and Twelve Mile Creek, which evolved into a plan to link Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. This would enable goods from western Canada to be conveniently shipped to Montreal and Great Britain through the St. Lawrence, while bypassing the Niagara portage. His plan met with opposition for financial and political reasons, as well as from those along the Niagara portage whose businesses would suffer if the canal were built. Despite this opposition, the Welland Canal Company was chartered by the Upper Canadian assembly in January, 1824. Construction on the canal began later that year, and was completed in 1829

Indignation Meeting

A handout that reads: "Indignation Meeting. A Meeting will be held in the Orange Hall tomorrow evening Tuesday, July 17th at 8 o'clock, p.m. To protest against the late mean and despicable action taken by the Police in subpoenaing respectable and worthy Citizens to give evidence as whiskey-sneaks, thus interfering with the liberty of free-born subjects, and as likely to intimidate good citizens from entering an hotel. Everyone should attend and protest against such a resurrected tombstone ironheeled law, to bear which is to suffer worse than the slaves in Siberia. Arouse ye all!" Moosomin, Saskatchewan, 16 July 1888.

Rights in Asylum Sharing and Other Human Transfer Agreements

The article sets out the concept of a State-to-State human transfer agreement of which extradition and deportation are specialised forms. Asylum sharing agreements are other variations which the article explores in more detail. Human transfer agreements always affect at least the right to liberty and the freedom of movement, but other rights will also be at issue to some extent. The article shows how human rights obligations limit State discretion in asylum sharing agreements and considers how past and present asylum sharing arrangements in Europe and North America deal with these limits, if at all. The article suggests changes in the way asylum sharing agreements are drafted: for example, providing for a treaty committee would allow existing agreements to better conform to international human rights instruments and would facilitate State compliance to their human rights obligations.