Mr. Gormely calls for children's rights referendum, who opposes it and why?

goldenbrown

what are the arguments against it? who is opposing it and why?


Gormley seeks vote on children's rights

Minister for Environment and Green Party leader John Gormley has made a fresh call for a referendum on children’s rights.

Speaking during the Dáil debate on the Ryan report, Mr Gormley described said the abuse in Religious-run institutions in Ireland was “without precedent in 20th Century western democracies”.

He said: “We managed to not just institutionalise but to industrialise child abuse and neglect. It became systemic and systematic. Children’s homes became factories that produced broken people.”

Mr Gormley said the “greatest monument” that the current generation could leave was to enshrine children’s rights in the Constitution through a referendum and constitutional amendment.

“We have been talking about and debating this issue for more than four years in this House. The time for debate I believe is now over,” he said.

The previous government recommended a change to the Constitution to strengthen the rights of children over three years ago.

The Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, which is due to report in September, is understood to be still considering the terms of the proposed change.

The Dáil is holding a special sitting today to conclude its debate on the report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse.

The debate is expected to finish this evening.

Yesterday, Taoiseach Brian Cowen said the report “has shone a powerful light into probably the darkest corner of the history of the State”.

Mr Cowen said the report “radically changed” the public’s perception of what went on in the institutions and has “vindicated once and for all” former residents.

He said: “What it has revealed must be a source of the deepest shame to all of us.

Mr Cowen said a plan to implement the commission’s two specific recommendations - to alleviate the effects of the abuse on the people who suffered and to protect children in care from abuse - would come before the Government by the end of next month.

Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny told the Dáil the “State itself was responsible for the destruction of life - it was responsible for the destruction of that most precious formative gift which is childhood.”

“We are as a country haunted by the great famine we wonder at the inhumanity shown to the starving a century and a half ago, we should all be haunted by what Ryan has disclosed because he has revealed a great famine of compassion, a plague of deliberate, relentless cruelty.”

Labour leader Eamon Gilmore said the report revealed for the first time the full extent of the abuses.

He said: “This sordid saga, this systematic abuse and neglect of children who were handed over by the State into the custody of religious institutions shocked Irish society to its core.

“This is not something that we can dismiss as something as simply an unfortunate relic of earlier decades.”

ronkmonster

what rights are they proposing?
Off hand I can't see any reason for opposing it but I'd need to see what exactly is proposed

turgon

Some are no doubt opposing it because they think that having a dig at the FF Green government is more important than the rights of children. Ill let you be the judge of these people.

P. Breathnach

It seems to me that the main problem with children's rights is the affirmation of family rights in the constitution (and how those rights have been interpreted by the courts).

Article 41 provides

1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State...

and is boosted by Article 42, which refers to education:

1. The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children...

These have been interpreted so as to block the state operating as a potential vindicator of children's rights as people. Parental rights, no matter how badly exercised, seem generally to have been given primacy.

Yet there seem to have been cases where parental rights have been set aside by the courts: the example that comes to mind is where children were taken from a lone parent and committed to residential institutions.

The primacy given to the family reflects Catholic social teaching, particularly the lines that were strong in the 1930s.

Excuse my cynicism but isnt this just some bullcrap to try and claw back some popularity for the Greens after being slaughtered in the locals?

seamus

Depends on the wording and what's proposed.

The rights of all children are already protected by virtue of them qualifying as members of the human species.

I have big problems with laws or constitutional amendments which raise the rights of children above the rights of adults, which from the draft stuff that was released a year or two back, seems to be the agenda here.

gcgirl

systematic abuse and neglect of children By todays government
Is this Man Gormless taking the piss He refused to sign our petition to save our special needs class that F**ker!!

solice

I might be wrong in this but didnt the Govt. drop this before because they ran into a number of problems. One of which being if an 18 year old has sex with a 16 year old, that will be considered mandatory rape and the 18 year old will be a convicted sex offender. This is regardless of whether it was consensual or not?

The situation at the moment is that the suspect is assumed innocent and the victim has to effectively prove their guilt. That is, the suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

If they bring in this, the law will have to change and the suspect will have to prove innocence as opposed to the victim proving that they are guilty.

The given scenario is that 2 people meet in a pub. They have a few drinks, he brings her back to his place and they have consensual sex. He is 17/18, but it turns out that she is 16. His argument is that they met in a pub, she was drinking, there was a bouncer on the door. Why can he not assume that she is over the legal age?

P. Breathnach

seamus wrote: »

Depends on the wording and what's proposed.

Of course.

The rights of all children are already protected by virtue of them qualifying as members of the human species.

That was the point in my posting the excerpts from the constitution. The primacy given to the family has been used to place parental "rights" beyond the reach of law, even where the exercise of those rights abrogates whatever rights children might have.

I have big problems with laws or constitutional amendments which raise the rights of children above the rights of adults, which from the draft stuff that was released a year or two back, seems to be the agenda here.

I agree that is a wrong approach. Fundamental rights -- and they are the only rights that a constitutional document should deal with -- are the same for everybody. There might be differences in how one sets out to vindicate those rights because a young child does not know how to invoke procedures.

dvpower

Bit difficult to debate this in the absense of any wording.

Do we have any suggested wordings e.g. from any of the lobby groups?

turgon

turgon wrote: »

Some are no doubt opposing it because they think that having a dig at the FF Green government is more important than the rights of children. Ill let you be the judge of these people.

This is completely unhelpful and rather pointless really.

solice wrote: »

I might be wrong in this but...

You are wrong I'm afraid.

There is no law, no matter how it is worded*, that will reverse the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense. Even a constitutional amendment will always be interpreted as being harmonious with the rest of the constitution and as such, barring a complete flight of fancy by the Govt., the provisions for "trial in due course of law" (Art 38.1)


As for the issue at hand:

Children's rights are vested in their parents or guardians to exercise them as family rights for the best interests of the family as a whole.

Perhaps the threshold for the State intervening in family affairs is a touch high but I feel that is far better than the State having an open hand at interfering in family affairs as it stands guardian of the rights of children over their families.


*Obviously with the exception of raising the defense of insanity and only in those peculiar circumstances within the knowledge of the defense.

brianthebard

Are the rights of the unborn child part of this?

Simi

brianthebard wrote: »

Are the rights of the unborn child part of this?

No.

The_Minister

solice wrote: »

One of which being if an 18 year old has sex with a 16 year old, that will be considered mandatory rape and the 18 year old will be a convicted sex offender.

Stautory.

Hopefully.




And Kayroo, the Constitution can be changed to reverse the burden of proof by referendum.

gcgirl

brianthebard wrote: »

Are the rights of the unborn child part of this?

Lets not open that can of worms!

tech77

Deleted User wrote: »

Excuse my cynicism but isnt this just some bullcrap to try and claw back some popularity for the Greens after being slaughtered in the locals?

Of course.
What else could it be.

The_Minister

Deleted User wrote: »

Excuse my cynicism but isnt this just some bullcrap to try and claw back some popularity for the Greens after being slaughtered in the locals?

It's been coming for a while so not entirely.

The_Minister

The_Minister wrote: »

And Kayroo, the Constitution can be changed to reverse the burden of proof by referendum.

That's why I said "barring a complete flight of fancy by the Government". They would probably have to completely lose control of their collective minds for that to happen. With at least one barrister in the Govt I don't see that happening thankfully.

brianthebard

brianthebard wrote: »

Are the rights of the unborn child part of this?

Unborn child only has 1 right.

EDIT: Although no, this won't affect that whatsoever.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

donegalfella

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Excellent post.

I agree that politicians seem to be positioning this as a referendum to absolve us of our national guilt at allowing this to happen in the first place.

Joyce was right, we are a horrible priest-ridden nation. To paraphrase the great man once more, the history of our cowardice is a nightmare from which we are trying to awake and having a referendum on what is, essentially, a non-issue is not the way to come through it.

Sand

The childrens rights thing sounds like hippy feel good crap to me. Who the **** exactly is going to vote against childrens rights? Regardless of what those rights are?

No one.

So its just hippy bull****.The hard part is actually avoiding talking about rights and actually working to improve practical, actual standards.

dvpower

Sand wrote: »

The childrens rights thing sounds like hippy feel good crap to me. Who the **** exactly is going to vote against childrens rights? Regardless of what those rights are?

No one.

So its just hippy bull****.The hard part is actually avoiding talking about rights and actually working to improve practical, actual standards.

I'm inclined to agree with this but we don't have a wording for the constitutional change. You can be quite sure that once it is published there will be lots of people against it.

I'd be concerned if there wasn't; that would be an indication of it being a meaningless change that may have little or no effect on downstream legislation.

AlekSmart

Why does "alleviating the effects of the abuse" require a constitutional amendment? And don't we already have statutory mechanisms to prevent children from being abused?

A hugely valid point which cuts directly to the core of how this entire State is run.
There can hardly be a sector of Irish society that has not benefited from leglislative overload in the past two decades.

However,in what is fast becoming classically "Irish" fashion,very little of the actual written and enacted Legislation is ever ENFORCED.

Whether it be Drunk Driving,Public Order or Child Abuse/Neglect the "Authorities" appear content to draft and enact wide ranging leglislation only to then watch as it is repeatedly challenged,ignored and often reduced to a worthless smoking pile of ashes by a coalition of "activist" types ably supported by a coterie of Legal figures each keener than the next to secure a favourable judgement.

In the case of this "Childrens Rights" business,I`m reasonably confident that MOST reasonable people are able to combine the issue of "Rights" with the parallell issue of "responsibilities".
This is why MOST folks manage to look after their children and do so at no little cost to themselves with Zero involvement or support from the so-called "Child Centred" State.

However,when we come across often blatent cases of downright neglect,cruelety or just plain ignorance being practiced openly in and around the Capital City`s main thoroughfare then the entire flimsy Child Centred Constitution ediface collapses.

Whether it be a little Traveller toddler left to repeatedly wander out on to a main road whilst it`s disinterested parents sit and watch,or a screaming infant thrashing about as it`s substance abusing parents scream abuse and thump each other outside the Custom House,we are now all-too- regularly seeing the concept of "Childrens Rights" being dragged through the mire in the absence of any real will to ACT rather than waffle sanctimoniously about "supporting family values" blah blah blah.... :mad:

MORE leglislation is just about the LAST thing this topic needs right now.

The_Minister

Sand wrote: »

The childrens rights thing sounds like hippy feel good crap to me. Who the **** exactly is going to vote against childrens rights? Regardless of what those rights are?

I will, if they try to ban the defence of reasonable mistake, which is what FG have suggested.

tallaght01

I don't know much about law. But how will this change things, insofar as we're currently signatories to the UN convention on the rights of the child, on top of the bog standard convention on human rights?

tallaght01

tallaght01 wrote: »

I don't know much about law. But how will this change things, insofar as we're currently signatories to the UN convention on the rights of the child, on top of the bog standard convention on human rights?

Ireland is a dualist legal system.

International treaties to which we are signatories are not domestically enforceable unless we incorporate them into Irish law through an Act of the Oireachtas.

The_Minister

The_Minister wrote: »

And Kayroo, the Constitution can be changed to reverse the burden of proof by referendum.

I have been thinking about this all day and it scares me to be honest. I would immediately leave the country if this ever happened.

goldenbrown

and highly respected Family law specialist Geoffrey Shannon wish this constitutional amend ment to take place,

We saw in the Roscommon incest case where a parent (a the mother) was jailed that the position of children and their rights needs to be strengthened

HSE employees and the Gardai took pressure calls from extreme Catholic activists (Maire Bean Ui Cribin) to stay out of that investigation

Children have moved from being possessions to young citizens in most other E.U. states - perhaps we need to make that journey too

The Ryan report once again emphasises why this needs to take place

it appears that Mary O'Rourke and David Andrews appear to be resisting this referendum - but are not spelling out their position....

there appears to be some misguided ideological view in this matter -

it is welcome that Mr. Gormely made this call,

it is time to have this referendum

Goldenbrown, are they your posts or quoting newspaper articles?

I'd like to see a link to where Shannon and Justice McGuinness say they want this referendum.

I fail to see what a call made by an extreme religious activist has to do with the constitutional amendment proposed. Especially considering the Gardai obviously ignored her call.

Ireland has chosen to put the family rather than the individual at the centre of our society. That is an ideological choice rather than a misguided ideological position.

Irlandese

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It seems to me that the main problem with children's rights is the affirmation of family rights in the constitution (and how those rights have been interpreted by the courts).

Article 41 provides

and is boosted by Article 42, which refers to education:


These have been interpreted so as to block the state operating as a potential vindicator of children's rights as people. Parental rights, no matter how badly exercised, seem generally to have been given primacy.

Yet there seem to have been cases where parental rights have been set aside by the courts: the example that comes to mind is where children were taken from a lone parent and committed to residential institutions.

The primacy given to the family reflects Catholic social teaching, particularly the lines that were strong in the 1930s.

Ah, that would be the Irish Constitution? The one deValera gave to Arch-Bishop Mc Quaid to edit and correct? The same Mc Quaid that Dr. Noel Browne, former Minister for Health is said to have accused of sexually assaulting his young patients when he was a junior GP?
Maybe we need to look very carefully at that constitution after all?

Irlandese

Deleted User wrote: »

Excellent post.

I agree that politicians seem to be positioning this as a referendum to absolve us of our national guilt at allowing this to happen in the first place.

Joyce was right, we are a horrible priest-ridden nation. To paraphrase the great man once more, the history of our cowardice is a nightmare from which we are trying to awake and having a referendum on what is, essentially, a non-issue is not the way to come through it.

Actually, it is more of a red herring to stop anyone trying to actually get Michael Woods dirty deal rescinded, via our Supreme Court, the European Court or the UN's International Court of Human Rights.
I will not repeat my earlier more detailed posts in this regard unless someone asks.

seamus

goldenbrown wrote: »

We saw in the Roscommon incest case where a parent (a the mother) was jailed that the position of children and their rights needs to be strengthened

HSE employees and the Gardai took pressure calls from extreme Catholic activists (Maire Bean Ui Cribin) to stay out of that investigation

The fact that other organisations "put pressure" on Gardai has absolutely nothing to do with "rights" and absolutely everything to do with having Government employees follow their procedures and ignore "pressure" from anyone, be it the local priest, TD, businessman or hobo.

This is basically what we're talking about here - people want the state to be able to walk into a home and seize children, "for their own good", based on rumour and suspicion. I'm sorry, that's not good enough. Yes, there are one or two horrific cases, but we've also heard cases of constant harrasment against parents - neighbours or family spreading rumours and accusations in an attempt to have their children removed or otherwise make their life hell.

There has to be a middle ground - a way to assess cases without the obvious flaws in the current system of home visits by social workers, but without the human-rights-stompingly extreme system of seizing children first and asking questions later.

Children have moved from being possessions to young citizens in most other E.U. states - perhaps we need to make that journey too

Again, middle ground. They can be "young citizens", but they can't be empowered with the full rights of an adult because they are not mature enough to exercise those rights correctly (though you could say the same about many adults). No, they aren't "possessions", but at the same time we need to protect the ultimate right of the parent to control their child and decide what is best for their child. I'm not willing to piss all over the rights of millions of parents in the interests of protecting a handful of children.

Irlandese

Irlandese wrote: »

Ah, that would be the Irish Constitution? The one deValera gave to Arch-Bishop Mc Quaid to edit and correct? The same Mc Quaid that Dr. Noel Browne, former Minister for Health is said to have accused of sexually assaulting his young patients when he was a junior GP?
Maybe we need to look very carefully at that constitution after all?

This is so so wrong. Read Dermot Keogh's book and educate yourself please.

Irlandese

Deleted User wrote: »

This is so so wrong. Read Dermot Keogh's book and educate yourself please.

Noel Browne's widow confirmed all this for the record some time ago.
These, unfortunately, are the facts.
There is much debate whether DeValera's illegitimacy and lack of knowledge of who his father actually was, pushed him over a sort of psychological edge and drove him into a dark place, morally, where he strove to give all power he could to the Roman Catholic Church, in an unconscious attempt to "gain" or "buy" some kind of sad "social legitimacy".

Irlandese

seamus wrote: »

The fact that other organisations "put pressure" on Gardai has absolutely nothing to do with "rights" and absolutely everything to do with having Government employees follow their procedures and ignore "pressure" from anyone, be it the local priest, TD, businessman or hobo.

This is basically what we're talking about here - people want the state to be able to walk into a home and seize children, "for their own good", based on rumour and suspicion. I'm sorry, that's not good enough. Yes, there are one or two horrific cases, but we've also heard cases of constant harrasment against parents - neighbours or family spreading rumours and accusations in an attempt to have their children removed or otherwise make their life hell.

There has to be a middle ground - a way to assess cases without the obvious flaws in the current system of home visits by social workers, but without the human-rights-stompingly extreme system of seizing children first and asking questions later.
Again, middle ground. They can be "young citizens", but they can't be empowered with the full rights of an adult because they are not mature enough to exercise those rights correctly (though you could say the same about many adults). No, they aren't "possessions", but at the same time we need to protect the ultimate right of the parent to control their child and decide what is best for their child. I'm not willing to piss all over the rights of millions of parents in the interests of protecting a handful of children.

That last sentence was so " Fr. Michael Cleary".

We need real state protection for children, but with no involvement from strange creatures like predominantly celibate, largely homosexual and all too frequently paedophilic Roman Catholic priests. Now, that is offensive, but, unfortunately, all too true, as we are learning.

The Woods deal with the church to protect the vast wealth of the abusers host organisation, the RC Church, is very easy to block, if the will was there. As a starter, the President should be shamed into referring it to the Supreme Court.

P. Breathnach

seamus wrote: »

... we need to protect the ultimate right of the parent to control their child and decide what is best for their child...

I'm not persuaded that it is an ultimate right, because a parent might make choices that are bad for the child. It must be a right balanced with an agreed social view about what is good for children.

Irlandese

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm not persuaded that it is an ultimate right, because a parent might make choices that are bad for the child. It must be a right balanced with an agreed social view about what is good for children.

Of course. Having sex and creating children is no guarantee of sanity or fitness to parent.
Just because some deficient abusive thug can father a child, we should not be pushed into abrogating societal responsibility to protect all children, by giving him or his wife all rights to treat them as they wish.

seamus

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm not persuaded that it is an ultimate right, because a parent might make choices that are bad for the child. It must be a right balanced with an agreed social view about what is good for children.

That's one step away from, "Do as we say or we're taking your children from you". The fact that we can't agree on a relatively simple items such as immigration shows that there's no such thing as an "agreed social view" about what's right for children and whatever "we" decide is best for the child doesn't necessarily make it best just because we say so.

I'm not for a second saying that parents can treat children as they wish, but this is such a dangerous area to be legislating in that no decision can be taken lightly. One badly-phrased word and before we know it, we're in a communist state.

Irlandese

Irlandese wrote: »

Noel Browne's widow confirmed all this for the record some time ago.
These, unfortunately, are the facts.
There is much debate whether DeValera's illegitimacy and lack of knowledge of who his father actually was, pushed him over a sort of psychological edge and drove him into a dark place, morally, where he strove to give all power he could to the Roman Catholic Church, in an unconscious attempt to "gain" or "buy" some kind of sad "social legitimacy".

Ok, first off it was not the Noel Browne issue that I was referring to although the 2nd hand confirmation from a person intimately connected to a man who was riven with bitterness over how he was treated by the Church (and it was a total disgrace what happened) is hardly conclusive proof.

Secondly; you are wrong about De Valera and McQuaid. Keogh has shown that De Valera resisted huge pressure from the religious orders and the Church to place certain elements into the Constitution. The 1937 Constitution, taken in the context of its time, is remarkably progressive.

Lastly; I am NOT getting into a historical debate on the Constitution so I won't respond again.

Irlandese

Irlandese wrote: »

The Woods deal with the church to protect the vast wealth of the abusers host organisation, the RC Church, is very easy to block, if the will was there. As a starter, the President should be shamed into referring it to the Supreme Court.

The President cannot refer a Bill under Art 26 that has already been made law.

P. Breathnach

seamus wrote: »

That's one step away from, "Do as we say or we're taking your children from you". The fact that we can't agree on a relatively simple items such as immigration shows that there's no such thing as an "agreed social view" about what's right for children and whatever "we" decide is best for the child doesn't necessarily make it best just because we say so.

I think we need to find agreed social views. That's what a constitution is based on. I'm not saying it is easy.

I'm not for a second saying that parents can treat children as they wish, but this is such a dangerous area to be legislating in that no decision can be taken lightly. One badly-phrased word and before we know it, we're in a communist state.

I'd start by looking into giving children the same rights as adults. How those rights might be vindicated is a difficult area, but not one for a constitution.

Irlandese

Deleted User wrote: »

The President cannot refer a Bill under Art 26 that has already been made law.

The President MUST refer any law to the Supreme Court that may be repugnant to the constitution.
The "deal" worked out by Woods with the bishops, while he was, in his own words, acting as a "strong catholic" is clearly sectarian and repugnant to a constitution that purports to treat all citizens equally. Woods excluded the Attorney General and his staff from all involvement, because they had specified the RC Church should pay at least 50% of all claims and that the payments to be made by the church could not retrospectively include previous transfers made for other purposes.
The grounds? You should not be able to make all future citizens of all denominations, including agnostics, pay for the awful sexual and violent crimes of the agents of one religion, which incidentally is the wealthiest legal and financial body in the state.
My comments and recommendations?:
There is a very well funded and cleverly thought-out PR job on the go, at the moment.
It has many facets and many actors.
It is designed to get the Irish People to move on quickly and to forget the real issues behind the Ryan report on Abuse of Children in Care by the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland.
Above all, this clever PR campaign is about stopping any attempt to over-turn the dirty deal done by Michael Woods, to protect the enormous wealth of the RC Church in Ireland. It has the support of many senior members of both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, but not of all of them!
Some facts confirmed by the records that should be borne in mind:
1. Michael Woods excluded the Attorney General and his staff from any access to the details, and signed off on it in his LAST day in office, to avoid any chance that it would be blocked.
2. He did so, while aware that the Attorney General, the Irish Government’s Legal Officer, had told him in person and in writing that much more stringent and financially onerous terms than the appallingly lax ones he later applied should be imposed on the Roman Catholic Church, in any binding agreement.
3. Michael Woods signed off on behalf of the future poor taxpayers of Ireland, while describing himself in the media as a “strong Catholic”, not as someone who should uphold the equal rights of all citizens under our constitution, for whom he was being paid as a Government Minister, at the time.
4. This self-declaration that he acted as a “strong catholic” in forcing the taxpayers of all creeds to pay for the sins of one church, is enough to justify requests for legal action to overturn the deal by Irish citizens to our own constitutional courts, the EU Courts and the UN Courts on Human Rights.
5. We do not need proof of the membership of Opus Dei, Knights of Columbanus or of Crosseo, of Michael Woods, Bertie Ahearne, Dermot Ahearne or Brian Lenihan, to take this action. These should be investigated, by a legal tribunal, but the legal actions to over-turn the dirty deal should start now, with letters from interested parties and groups direct to the various legal groups mentioned above.
6. This is a time for popular action, by citizens, not waiting for further dirty deals between Church and State. We owe it to our children and their children’s children, to protect the economic viability of their future, more so because we did not protect the past of thousands of sexually and emotionally abused young children, given to the Roman Catholic Church as little more than animals to use and abuse at their perverse pleasure.
7. I call on all of you who can, to act. Start writing to anyone who will listen, to get these legal actions underway. If we have learned anything from all this, it is that We cannot trust the RC Church or our Politicians to act as they should. They are guilty of disgraceful collusion in all of this.

Irlandese

Irlandese wrote: »

The President MUST refer any law to the Supreme Court that may be repugnant to the constitution.

I'm sorry but you clearly don't understand the Art 26 procedure. The President can only refer Bills and not Acts. Therefore once she signs it into law she cannot refer it subsequently for constitutional examination by the Supreme Court.

Also, Art 26.1.1 specifically states that the President MAY refer bills, not MUST refer bills as you say.

Irlandese

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sorry but you clearly don't understand the Art 26 procedure. The President can only refer Bills and not Acts. Therefore once she signs it into law she cannot refer it subsequently for constitutional examination by the Supreme Court.

Also, Art 26.1.1 specifically states that the President MAY refer bills, not MUST refer bills as you say.

First, she "may" is a choice. My use of "must" is a moral imperative, stating that she must employ her "may" if she is to enjoy moral support for her performance.
Secondly, you are limited in your appreciation of the power of the President to refer any law or statutory instrument or government proposal to the state's highest legal body, when and if he or she finds or believes that such are likely to be repugnant to the constitution.

Irlandese

Irlandese wrote: »

First, she "may" is a choice. My use of "must" is a moral imperative, stating that she must employ her "may" if she is to enjoy moral support for her performance.

Morals have nothing to do with it. Once it is a law she cannot refer it. There is no legal mechanism to do so.

Irlandese wrote: »

Secondly, you are limited in your appreciation of the power of the President to refer any law or statutory instrument or government proposal to the state's highest legal body, when and if he or she finds or believes that such are likely to be repugnant to the constitution.

Actually I am very much aware of the Presidents powers. Alas I think you are somewhat deluded as to them.

Irlandese

Deleted User wrote: »

Morals have nothing to do with it. Once it is a law she cannot refer it. There is no legal mechanism to do so.




Actually I am very much aware of the Presidents powers. Alas I think you are somewhat deluded as to them.

Morality has everything to do with it.
That there is no easy legal mechanism is unclear, given that whatever the President or the Dail do or do not do, we are all subject, thankfully, to EU law, which, incidentally, is 95% responsible for all of the progressive social legislation that we now enjoy, beyonf the dark days of almost total church control over our lives, as seen in Mc Quaides letter to the then taoiseach over the mother and child scheme proposals.

Irlandese

Irlandese wrote: »

Morality has everything to do with it.

No, it doesn't.

Irlandese wrote: »

That there is no easy legal mechanism is unclear, given that whatever the President or the Dail do or do not do, we are all subject, thankfully, to EU law, which, incidentally, is 95% responsible for all of the progressive social legislation that we now enjoy, beyonf the dark days of almost total church control over our lives, as seen in Mc Quaides letter to the then taoiseach over the mother and child scheme proposals.

Let me just put this nice and clearly.

There is NO legal mechanism WHATSOEVER for the President to refer an Act to the Supreme Court. Once it is made law the President has NOTHING to do with it anymore.

EU law has nothing to do with it. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Irlandese

Deleted User wrote: »

No, it doesn't.



Let me just put this nice and clearly.

There is NO legal mechanism WHATSOEVER for the President to refer an Act to the Supreme Court. Once it is made law the President has NOTHING to do with it anymore.

EU law has nothing to do with it. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

nice and clear, perhaps? but totally wrong, my dear.
have a look at some of the case law against Irish Gov. decisions, emanating from the EU courts.
It shows your circular arguaments to be quite erroneous and, dare i say, naive?

Have to go, work calls !

Irlandese

Irlandese wrote: »

nice and clear, perhaps? but totally wrong, my dear.
have a look at some of the case law against Irish Gov. decisions, emanating from the EU courts.
It shows your circular arguaments to be quite erroneous and, dare i say, naive?

Have to go, work calls !

My circular arguments? What?

Are you being purposefully obtuse?

EU law has NOTHING to do with the Art 26 procedure. Nothing whatsoever. Not a jot. It is a domestic procedure.

The EU cannot pronounce on Irish Constitutional matters as it has no competence to do so. It only pronounces judgment on the treaties. Equally the ECtHR can only pronounce judgment on the European Convention on Human Rights.

Hillel

Deleted User wrote: »

The EU cannot pronounce on Irish Constitutional matters as it has no competence to do so. It only pronounces judgment on the treaties.

Have you any references to support this position? I thought that EU Law overruled Irish Law and the Irish Constitution. (Not my area, though. )
See also:

johnKarma wrote: »

Nope. The short answer is that European Law is superior both to Irish law and the Irish Constitution. This superiority can be explained with reference to three cases of the European Court of Justice: Costa, Van Gend en Loos, and Internationale Handelsgesellschaft (it's easy to look them up.) Their combined effect is that the European treaties have created "their own legal system which…became an integral part of the legal systems of the Member States and which their courts are bound to apply". Accordingly, laws "stemming from the Treaty…cannot…be overridden by rules of national law" even if they run "counter to either fundamental rights [in]…the constitution of the State or the principles of a national constitutional structure." Pretty definitive.