# Article 41.2.2 of Bunracht na hEireann **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 1, 2009, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/article-41-2-2-of-bunracht-na-heireann/508469 "2009-09-01T12:05:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Laudenum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Laudenum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laudenum)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/article-41-2-2-of-bunracht-na-heireann/508469/1 "2009-09-01T12:05:06Z")
\*Article 41.2.1: In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. Article 41.2.2: The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.\* Link to the [Constitution](http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.htm). This is in the Irish Constitution, but its generally ignored by most people. However when I was discussing this with an American relative (who is a feminist), she thought it was a great idea, as in America single mothers, and married mothers are forced to abandon their children in daycare, in order to go to work. Now, I’m unfamiliar with any caselaw based on the article, and most people view it as a charming anachronism in Ireland, but I’ve always thought that it should be removed some day. Do you think it matters? Should we have a referendum on principle to get rid of this section, or should we just continue ignoring it? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/article-41-2-2-of-bunracht-na-heireann/508469/2 "2009-09-01T13:37:41Z")
Maybe you should stop ignoring it. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/article-41-2-2-of-bunracht-na-heireann/508469/3 "2009-09-01T16:44:38Z")
> [@Laudenum](#): > > Now, I’m unfamiliar with any caselaw based on the article There really isn’t much. It’s been cited in a few cases that were decided on other points, but I’m not sure it’s ever been decisive. And in those few cases it hasn’t necessarily been used in the way your friend imagines it, e.g. in _de Búrca v Attorney General_ O’Higgins CJ stated that it justified the exclusion of women from juries; in another case whose name escapes me at the moment it was stated, basically, that issues of women’s equality had to be balanced against their constitutional role as housewives. It really serves no purpose but to reinforce the idea of the woman’s traditional role. There’s not a chance the courts are ever going to use it to force the state to enable mothers who want to stay home with their kids to do so. So, of course it should be got rid of. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/article-41-2-2-of-bunracht-na-heireann/508469/4 "2009-09-01T18:24:12Z")
What a sexist statement; what about house-husbands? ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/article-41-2-2-of-bunracht-na-heireann/508469/5 "2009-09-01T19:36:40Z")
> [@ruadh](#): > > There really isn’t much. It’s been cited in a few cases that were decided on other points, but I’m not sure it’s ever been decisive. I know nothing of Irish law, but my reading of it tells me it’s a legally meaningless statement. It creates no requirement or obligation. Insdtead, it supports an ideal. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/article-41-2-2-of-bunracht-na-heireann/508469/6 "2009-09-01T22:40:16Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > I know nothing of Irish law, but my reading of it tells me it’s a legally meaningless statement. It creates no requirement or obligation. Insdtead, it supports an ideal. The problem with that theory is that there is already an article in the Irish Constitution which _expressly_ creates no requirement or obligations but merely supports an ideal. Article 45 on “Directive Principles of Social Policy”. The framers could have easily included the texts of 41.2.1 and 41.2.2 there if they didn’t intend for them to be enforceable in the courts - the fact that they didn’t strongly suggests that they _did_ mean them to be enforceable. BTW, the second case I referred to in my previous post was _Hyland v Minister for Social Welfare_. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/article-41-2-2-of-bunracht-na-heireann/508469/7 "2009-09-02T17:57:20Z")
Arguably it would conflict with EU laws on equality, in which case it would be nullified anyway.