Article 43 - Private Property

Private Property

Article 43


1° the state acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods.

2° the state accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property.


1° the state recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice.

2° the state, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.

1 Like

If you can have a Compulsory Purchase Order can you have a Compulsory Rental Order?

With the Offences Against the State, NAMA and Covid Acts really anything is achievable.

Anyone hear any similar stories yet?

I can see ‘CROs’ within the fair deal scheme perhaps but on a wider scale with holiday homes, it is very, very unlikely. Plus Mehole (3/4 gaff man) as much staying same re not looking ‘right now’ at cap - realising that although really difficult to say no room at the inn, they’re going to have to and very soon. They tried God bless them - that should be enough to have him canonised later.

See now in Indo up to €400 per month for hosting.

Related in a BIG WAY - Article 40

Provision 1 is solid.

Provision 2, is not a free pass for any Government to do whatever they please.

An example of social justice and common good informing administrative moves and use of this power, might have looked like this in a historical context.

It’s 2011 and the Irish Government announce on a 5 year moratorium on any new buy to let mortgages being written by bailed out Irish banks and moratorium also on any sales of residential properties to landlords, individual corporate or otherwise within the entire State.

Jusitifed becasue:

a) An acute housing shortage due to the collapse of building sector, meant existing stock needed to be secured to ensure housing needs could be met and right to own property was not infringed in the aggregate for the purpose of a nation.

b) to ensure household formation of young Irish couples was not put in jeopardy and their right to own a home was not impinged by having to compete with market players who can outbid them on one or multiple properties anytime anywhere

c) the moral hazard of the people bailing out criminal banks who then write new BTL mortgage undermining, pushing up prices for residential ownership and diminishing if not extinguishing their effective ability to exercise the right to own a home, to won a residential property.

Form an individual rights point of view, to own a primary residence even a holiday home are not infringed, it is only subsequent acquisition of more, and this is a very erasable delimitation of the right to own property, because it is careful measured and contextualised with all the terms that inform the powers of reference, and very much could be bracketed in the context of dealing with the fallout from the exigency of the Global Financial Crash and bailout of the banks.

An emergency being declared is totally false and spurious when in 2022:

A) A government with no due regard to the actual “common good” and generally stability and security of the nation, and it’s people, the state and the constitution by dropping the borders for a defined foreign body of people, whom are allowed enter teh state and solicited by the state, un-policed, and which in reality equates to allowing anyone in from anywhere to enter the state unchecked at cost to the Irish people.

B) Give them rights, comfort and enjoyment of passage beyond that which the actual citizens are afforded here or anywhere else.

C) Extend the benefit of the constitution beyond the citizens own the border of the physical nation to “rest of world”

D) Undermine the rule of law in all it’s actions

E) Use deceptive propaganda to justify it without recourse to normal due process

1 Like

To Form & Formulaic

Your property doesn’t need to be vacant for the State to take it from you as UCD’s Dr Rachael Walsh explained today: “Our constitution very clearly states that the State is empowered to restrict property rights to secure the common good.”

Full clip:


Also covered over on

Tune your ear not to the face, but to the “one voice”, don’t get caught up in how dopey or incompetent the talking head is. They like to pin the utter insane statement on the side pins.

Going for everything now, full agenda, full steam ahead!

Her part starts at around 17 minutes.

Ultimately you reap what you sow.

If you create an entire generation that are stuck living like teenagers in rented properties or with their parents into their 30s and 40s, that same generation will have little desire to defend property rights.

In fact, with little or no stake in society, they have little desire to defend any aspect of it.


Separately, if CPOs are seriously ramped up - will add to house price inflation.

1 Like

If they won’t defend their child in the womb… carry on, the plan is working.

Property Before Profit

1 Like

No surpise. Fintan Warfield posted a picture of the constitution on twitter a few years ago asking when do we get a new one. Young shinners basically think the constitution is theirs to do with as they please.

1 Like

It has been argued that the papers from drafters of the Constitution, Éamon deValera and
John Hearne in particular, indicate that the provision did not intend to either confine women
to the home or to limit the rights of women.9 Also in Sinnott v Ireland, Ms Justice Denham
(as she then was), observed, in a dissenting judgment, that:

Article 41.2 does not assign women to a domestic role. Article 41.2 recognises the
significant role played by wives and mothers in the home. This recognition and
acknowledgement does not exclude women and mothers from other roles and

Good luck trying to explain these finer details to the ideologically possessed.