So when Michael D was campaigning for president and said it would be a one off term he was lying?
Many voted for him because he was only going for one term and wasn't trying to hog the job for 14 years.
Stats on that please: I seriously doubt people en masse voted purely on his decision to run a single term, versus the broadly mediocre to suspect crowd of other candidates. That Sean Gallagher was a serious contender before his gaff about 'brown envelopes' said a lot about the overall standard.
The status of President has barely any executive power, it's a purely diplomatic, aspirational & ambassadorial role - so in that respect Higgins has done Ireland proud and would be happy for him to continue.
I never said people voted for him en masse and I never said anything about executive power. He said one term, now he's going again, therefore he lied or is there another word for it?
He said he would only go one term, but that was not central to his campaign but was incidental to it.
He should be allowed to alter his intentions - maybe he has been inundated with requests to go a second term.
He had an overwhelming vote when he was elected and will get another overwhelming mandate to retain his office.
The wannabe candidates are trying to grandstand to raise the non-existent profiles in the hope of getting a nomination.
You literally said:
The inference seemed clear enough, you're imply he somehow deceived voters who only voted for him because of a promise to serve a single term. And if you don't think people en-masse voted, then why even bring it up as a rod to beat him with?
Beyond his age being a negative - to which I'd be a little reluctant myself - do you feel he has done a bad job as president?
The bill was constitutional so he signed it into law. What else could he do?
Constitutional experts can confirm or deny this, but our President has no executive powers to block or refuse to sign a bill. He can only refer it to lawyers if he suspects its unconstitutional. This isn't America.
It's all well and good going "rhubarb rhubarb, bloody politicians", and god knows there's enough reason to hold elected officials to account - but it helps to at least understand the limits and ceilings of those in power.
In fact if I recall , Higgins made this point abundantly clear in the TV debates - having to correct about 2 or 3 pie-in-the-sky candidates who thought they could stand on the soapbox and waffle on about performing all sorts of populist things. So to the OP what I'd say persuaded people was a candidate who understood the Constitution (again, correct me if I'm wrong)
I’m going file this into the I ‘don’t give a damn’ cabinet. He’s acted statesmanlike in what is largely a ceremonial role. If people really don’t want him, vote for somebody else.. not like he defacto gets it. I do think he should have a big party and invite everyone if he wins 2nd term though.. except people from Cavan.
Mod: No more ranting please. This is a forum for serious discussion.
I'm glad. He's the best president we've had IMO. There is generally an element of ego and novelty for many running, however he's proved himself to be a great ambassador.
You are obviously not au fait with the Constitution either... letter asked the President to invoke Article 26, which allows the President – after consulting the Council of State – to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality.
'Liar' ? Not if that was his intention at the time. People are allowed to change their point of view. We will see if voters who supported Higgins the first time around will change their mind or not. I expect him to win easily against any possible candidate.
So you're saying that the president should refer a bill which is clearly constitutional to the Supreme Court, the SC proclaims it constitutional and then the president is obliged to sign it into law
Apart from wasting everyone's time and money, what exactly has that achieved? (apart from wasting everyone's time and money being some sort of populist leftist objective in itself...)