so why do we need a president again?

Elevator

I'm at a complete loss as to why we need to waste the monies needed for what is fast lookin like a farcicle grand national of multiple campaigns

really, do we have the cash for it?

president - schmredisent!!

imme

Yes, we do need a President. Look back over the last few pages of Politics and you'll see similar threads with arguments to and fro.

Lenny Lovett

Well the next one will have a relatively quiet time given that there'll be no new schools or other public buildings to cut the ribbon for.

imme

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Well the next one will have a relatively quiet time given that there'll be no new schools or other public buildings to cut the ribbon for.

maybe they'll be able to reopen already opened ones:P

mikemac

Do a search, we've had this debate a few times recently

Lots of points to read over

Red Alert

The way I see it the ceremonial functions could be handed over to the Taoiseach, and the legal functions could be given to the supreme court.

evenmicheal

Waste of time, what is wrong with the Queen!!!!!!

The Raven.

evenmicheal wrote: »

Waste of time, what is wrong with the Queen!!!!!!

Too far to commute.

View

The President appoints the Government. We might have a bit of a problem there if we just abolished the Presidency. :-)

deise go deo

evenmicheal wrote: »

Waste of time, what is wrong with the Queen!!!!!!

I think that the head of our state should at least be a citizen of it.

So who would be head of state if not the President?

Lockstep

Red Alert wrote: »

The way I see it the ceremonial functions could be handed over to the Taoiseach

Well, that was one reason why a ceremonial head of state is created; so the head of government can focus on things like the economy and crime whereas the head of state can do all the ceremonial stuff which is necessary but often of little importance.
It's a criticism I've often heard of the US Presidency; they spend too much time shaking hands and opening supermarkets rather than leading the country. Interesting that the inverse is also thought.:)

Red Alert wrote: »

and the legal functions could be given to the supreme court.

It's a good idea in theory but the Supreme Court already have the power to interpret the Constitution. They can only do this when a statute or article is brought before them by the President or by a citizen who is determined to have a sufficient legal interest in the case. This way, the country is prevented from being taken over by a "Black robed junta", giving them independence without tipping the separation of powers too much.

Otherwise we end up with a judiciary who can randomly bring up any laws they dislike and then choose how to interpret them. Runs the risk of the courts taking on legislative powers.

Cookie_Monster

In the grand scheme of things the money isn't that big. we could cut out 66 TDs and save much more IMO.

Answer: Because every other nation has a figurehead that doesn't do much legislating but is nominally the country's leader.

[/DEBATE]

Pat D. Almighty

Does the president have the power to call a general election?

Sulmac

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

Does the president have the power to call a general election?

Not by themselves, no. The Taoiseach asks the President to dissolve the Dáil and call an election.

Interestingly, if a Taoiseach has lost the support of the Dáil (i.e. loses a vote), and goes to the President to get the Dáil dissolved, it is entirely up to the President whether or not they want to dissolve it. It was alleged that in 1994 when the Fianna Fáil-Labour coalition collapsed that Mary Robinson would refuse a request from the Taoiseach (who had lost support of the Dáil) to dissolve the chamber and call an election. This never happened as the Rainbow coalition was formed in the interim.

Cookie_Monster

Griffinjeff wrote: »

Nowadays, we all know that our current president is really good and he has great vision in our country. No doubt he makes a good president but we are own leaders we don't need the government running are lives and even running his.. i think people don't question this enough y do we run on money when were constantly in dept paying back money that don't exists. i know the sneaky bastards keep all there **** in computers now a days its just made up money from were? 2% real 98% invisible.

the current president is a woman you know...

SC024

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

In the grand scheme of things the money isn't that big. we could cut out 66 TDs and save much more IMO.

Why not chop 66 tds & the useless figurehead we call a president?