President Challenges New Legislations

My name is URL

President Mary McAleese has challenged two controversial new laws dealing with gangland criminals and blasphemy.

In an unusual move, the president called a meeting of the Council of State to discuss the legality of the legislation rather than simply signing them into law.

The Council of State is a 22-member team made up of the most senior serving and former office-holders in the country which advises the president on whether a law is constitutional. But the president alone will make the decision on whether to refer the legislation to the Supreme Court after the meeting next Wednesday at Aras an Uachtarain.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090717/tuk-president-challenges-laws-e1cd776.html

Good on her! I knew she was a daycent skin

Hope she makes the right decision in the end

is_that_so

No she hasn't challenged it. It's not uncommon for the Council of State to look at legislation. Just because they do meet doesn't mean a challenge, although the thread title might be right next Wednesday.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0717/crime.html

President Mary McAleese has decided to convene a meeting of the Council of State for consultation on the Criminal Justice Bill.
...
The meeting of the Council will be held at Áras an Uachtaráin on Wednesday 22 July at 6.30pm.

Pyr0

Heard it on the radio earlier today, good move by her !

philologos

I don't think it will have much effect. I mean it is to check how constitutional the law is. Blasphemy is explicitly mentioned in the constitution as being punishable by law. As such a constitutional check would merely affirm rather than deny the legislation.

My name is URL

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think it will have much effect. I mean it is to check how constitutional the law is. Blasphemy is explicitly mentioned in the constitution as being punishable by law. As such a constitutional check would merely affirm rather than deny the legislation.

It may have been unconstitutional 100 years ago, but is it really applicable in today's society?

It seems like a very medieval law to me

thelordofcheese

My name is URL wrote: »

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090717/tuk-president-challenges-laws-e1cd776.html

Good on her! I knew she was a daycent skin

Hope she makes the right decision in the end

If this works, i will personally campaign for Mary McAleese to be made president for life....


for at least a week.

philologos

My name is URL wrote: »

It may have been unconstitutional 100 years ago, but is it really applicable in today's society?

It seems like a very medieval law to me

The current interpretation of the constitution that was given to Dermot Aherne is either that there must be a referendum, or a change in the law. You cannot alter the constitution without a referendum. The last changes to the constitution through the Dáil took place in the 1940's. Now it has to be done through peoples vote.

Irrespective of what people think about the Constitution it's still the highest law in the land currently.

TwoShedsJackson

My name is URL wrote: »

It may have been unconstitutional 100 years ago, but is it really applicable in today's society?

It seems like a very medieval law to me

Applicable in today's society - not really. Still in the Constitution - yes.

Dave!

My name is URL wrote: »

It may have been unconstitutional 100 years ago, but is it really applicable in today's society?

It seems like a very medieval law to me

Whether it's relevant today or not has no bearing on its constitutionality tbh. That's why we're given the right to change it by referendum.

My name is URL

Jakkass wrote: »

The current interpretation of the constitution that was given to Dermot Aherne is either that there must be a referendum, or a change in the law. You cannot alter the constitution without a referendum. The last changes to the constitution through the Dáil took place in the 1940's. Now it has to be done through peoples vote.

Irrespective of what people think about the Constitution it's still the highest law in the land currently.

Well then why are they only pushing this law through now, and without a referendum? It doesn't make sense as far as I can see..

let sleeping dogs lie and all that

pablomakaveli

The blasphemy law should be challenged. Its the type of law that belongs in the middle ages.

The gangland one sould be put through though.

philologos

My name is URL wrote: »

Well then why are they only pushing this law through now, and without a referendum? It doesn't make sense as far as I can see..

let sleeping dogs lie and all that

There is currently a law on blasphemy there. This isn't new. Dermot Aherne is merely liberalising the penalty from imprisonment to a fine, and allowing for circumstances whereby it would be very difficult for someone to be prosecuted. It must cause gross offence, and it must be intended to cause gross offence. Those are very subjective terms.

I personally don't support a blasphemy law. However blasphemy has been illegal in Ireland for years already, it just hasn't been taken seriously for decades.

wobzilla

We only have a refererdum if the constitution has to be changed. As long as the legislation is constitutional, it just has to be put through the dáil and seanad.

Prof.Badass

There doesn't seem to be anything unconstitutional about the blasphemy bill.

The "jury-less trial" bill however is another story.

An Fear Aniar

I don't think calling a referendum on the blasphemy issue would be a good idea. Every nutjob in the country would have a field day. Not at all edifying, better to sweep it under the carpet like this.


.

topper75

Maybe driving around in a big armour-plated black car could arouse fear in one of being swept away with the gangster broom.

I mean fair enough, she's doing her job examining them (God knows there is little else to it).

However, if she boots out the Crim Law one out, what is the alternative? Status quo? Great. :rolleyes:

ScumLord

Oh ya, the president does stuff.

Definitely think the blasphemy thing has to go, that kind of thing is covered by other general laws.

shenanigans1982

Nothing more than a blatant attempt to make her legacy be " the president who challanged the stupid blasphemy law" rather than "the president who called to Proddie's Nazi's.".

For 12 years she has done nothing...why start now?:rolleyes:

Dartz

The President.

Not just a not-so-pretty pretty face.

(I wonder if the president is on boards?)

IvyTheTerrible

Dartz wrote: »

The President.

Not just a not-so-pretty pretty face.

(I wonder if the president is on boards?)

Hmm. I wonder what would happen if she got caught on boards at work?

dsmythy

topper75 wrote: »

Maybe driving around in a big armour-plated black car could arouse fear in one of being swept away with the gangster broom.

I mean fair enough, she's doing her job examining them (God knows there is little else to it).

However, if she boots out the Crim Law one out, what is the alternative? Status quo? Great. :rolleyes:

Aye, i don't think Mary has much trouble with local gangsters...

My name is URL

dsmythy wrote: »

Aye, i don't think Mary has much trouble with local gangsters...

Well she's a professor of criminal law so I'm sure shes not ignorant to the situation

dsmythy

My name is URL wrote: »

Well she's a professor of criminal law so I'm sure shes not ignorant to the situation

True, but i wonder how much she, along with lawyers and civil rights people, can really empathise with the real life situation on the ground that people live through day in day out. Perhaps it will prove unconstitutional but a referendum on the issue will pass with flying colours in my opinion.

ShooterSF

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

I don't think calling a referendum on the blasphemy issue would be a good idea. Every nutjob in the country would have a field day. Not at all edifying, better to sweep it under the carpet like this.


.

While I agree that it's hard to have faith in the general public it should at least have been tried. Run it the same day as lisbon and the cost would be minimal. Hell if both failed we could run the two again a week later with "guarantees" from Europe and the United league of gods.

Prof.Badass

dsmythy wrote: »

True, but i wonder how much she, along with lawyers and civil rights people, can really empathise with the real life situation on the ground that people live through day in day out. Perhaps it will prove unconstitutional but a referendum on the issue will pass with flying colours in my opinion.

No less i'd imagine.

Although, I wonder how much the hot-heads on the ground can really consider the implications of such a drastic step in a rational unbiased manner?

ScumLord

dsmythy wrote: »

True, but i wonder how much she, along with lawyers and civil rights people, can really empathise with the real life situation on the ground that people live through day in day out. Perhaps it will prove unconstitutional but a referendum on the issue will pass with flying colours in my opinion.

I'd say they'd be just as worried about the erosion of personal freedoms in the face of mob justice coming from a legal background.

Jim236

Well makes a change from just giving rosey-worded speeches. She should take it easy though, she won't want the Irish people getting used to a President that actually does stuff!

topper75

ScumLord wrote: »

I'd say they'd be just as worried about the erosion of personal freedoms in the face of mob justice coming from a legal background.

I'd say they wouldn't - but there you go.

Jim236 wrote: »

Well makes a change from just giving rosey-worded speeches. She should take it easy though, she won't want the Irish people getting used to a President that actually does stuff!

She does this check with all bills once they have been through the two houses of the Oireachtas but they are all carefully drafted in the first place so the occasion of her claiming the bill contravenes the Bunracht is rare.

OPENROAD

Pyr0 wrote: »

Heard it on the radio earlier today, good move by her !

Does she personally challenge it, or is she advised to?

Thirdfox

Not a good move - I'd prefer if she didn't challenge (of course she hasn't decided yet).

(Law student here)

Under an Art. 26 challenge the supreme court is given very short time to consider the hypothetical problems with a piece of legislation...and here's the kicker - if the judges find the legislation constitutional then the law cannot ever be challenged as to its constitutionality again (no matter what happens).

Compared to if she signed it into law and relevant organisations challenge it:
1. The justices have more time to consider the issue at hand.
2. There may be real cases of problems, not merely hypotheticals
3. Later courts can review this court's decision if it was found to be constitutional and decide that it was unconstitutional after all.

In fact, I don't see much use of an Art. 26 challenge (unless the law is blatantly unconstitutional) Otherwise we risk having bad law being unchallengable.

Openroad: the president takes advice from the council but is under no obligation to follow the advice.

irish_bob

My name is URL wrote: »

Well she's a professor of criminal law so I'm sure shes not ignorant to the situation

so is ivana bacik a proffessor of law and she hasnt an ounce when it comes to whats happening on the ground , academics are often out of touch with practical issues

Jim236

topper75 wrote: »

She does this check with all bills once they have been through the two houses of the Oireachtas but they are all carefully drafted in the first place so the occasion of her claiming the bill contravenes the Bunracht is rare.

It was more a jibe at the presidency in general, its a pointless and useless office. Come 2011, people won't know what they're voting for because you can't promise anything as President, you're just a ceremonial figure that has absolutely no influence on the running of the country. The fact that local councillors have more power than our President proves just how useless it is, and unless more powers are gonna be given to the President it should be scrapped because its a complete waste of money. Even in this case where the President has the power to intervene, one of the members of the council she has convened is the Taoiseach, the very person overseeing the introduction of this legislation!

TwoShedsJackson

Jim236 wrote: »

Come 2011, people won't know what they're voting for because you can't promise anything as President, you're just a ceremonial figure that has absolutely no influence on the running of the country.

Like that matters in Ireland, half the voters are still voting based on who their grandfather/great-grandfather was shooting in the Civil War, and another quarter vote based on who fixed a few potholes in the local roads or did some other miniscule favour for them.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

There is currently a law on blasphemy there. This isn't new. Dermot Aherne is merely liberalising the penalty from imprisonment to a fine, and allowing for circumstances whereby it would be very difficult for someone to be prosecuted. It must cause gross offence, and it must be intended to cause gross offence. Those are very subjective terms.

I personally don't support a blasphemy law. However blasphemy has been illegal in Ireland for years already, it just hasn't been taken seriously for decades.

That is not correct. The problem was that the constitution says that blasphemy is punishable in accordance with law but there was no law so Dermot Ahern was advised that he either had to make a law or change the constitution. If there was already an old blasphemy law that was never used there would have been no problem

topper75

Done and done.

Suck it up scumbag gangbangers, and I have a bags of stones for sale in case anyone says the 'j' word.:pac:

thelordofcheese

I guess the president really is useless after all.

Sully

A vote for Mary is a vote for Finna Fail.

(Does that come under the new law? )

philologos

Meh, there wasn't really anything she could have done. The law is entirely constitutional.

Sam Vimes:

Under the Defamation Act 1961, any person who composes, prints or publishes any blasphemous or obscene libel is liable to a fine and up to seven years in jail.

However the new Defamation Bill replaces the threat of a prison sentence with a €100,000 fine.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0520/breaking59.html

The legal situation is actually slightly better than what it was, although the law was not enforced. It probably won't be now either. Not much is different than before really except there is absolutely no possibility of you being put in jail for blasphemy there was before.

My name is URL

Thats the treacherous whore!

Coriolanus

No, a law on blasphemy is required, but this one could be ruled unconstitutional on several grounds, not least because it moves the burden of proof onto the defendant rather than on the DPP.

The first test case is going to be interesting.

As for the Criminal Justice Bill, the problems there are massive, especially since Europe is already pressuring us to dismantle the Special Criminal Courts that were in use for dissident republicans, and instead of that we're expanding them?

Again, the test cases will be interesting, except in this case the defendants are going to have millions in drug proceeds to blow on prolonging the court process.