can elections be suspended with bail out

4gun

after watching the primetime broadcast a little thought poped into my head that if the IMF intervene in our economy can the upcoming general elections next year be suspended in order to stay with FF's four year plan
Just a thought

loike

did all parties not agree on the plan?

jimmycrackcorm

The rumour-mill is going the same way as the property bubble...

skelliser

no

Wolfe Tone

The Dail can extend its life up to the constitutional limit of 7 years Simpy by passing legislation.... tin foil hats people.

CoalBucket

4gun wrote: »

after watching the primetime broadcast a little thought poped into my head that if the IMF intervene in our economy can the upcoming general elections next year be suspended in order to stay with FF's four year plan
Just a thought

Cmon Cowen give us a break:)

4gun

All I'm thinking is that if there is an intervention would these guys want to start dealing with a possible new government some time in the new year
Cowen & co are not doing their best to stay in power for the good of the Irish economy, they're in to to save their necks
In the case of an Emergency does the president not have the power to suspend elections
Is this not a national emercency if there is an economic bail out

sceptre

4gun wrote: »

In the case of an Emergency does the president not have the power to suspend elections

No, the president has no such power.

declanx

You know I bet there is a law still on the books from the 1800's saying they can suspend the elections....stranger things have happened.

Dec.

4gun

sceptre wrote: »

No, the president has no such power.

Good but can elections be suspended if the majority of the dail vote on it citing the economic as a national crisis as opposed to war..the way was it FDR stayed on for a third term during WWII in America

JUst trying to ease my mind that we will not be stuck with FF for any longer that we have to
not that any opposition coalition will be any better only that a change is as good as a rest

Scofflaw

4gun wrote: »

Good but can elections be suspended if the majority of the dail vote on it citing the economic as a national crisis as opposed to war..the way was it FDR stayed on for a third term during WWII in America

JUst trying to ease my mind that we will not be stuck with FF for any longer that we have to
not that any opposition coalition will be any better only that a change is as good as a rest

No, it would require suspension of the Constitution, and there's no provision for suspension of the Constitution - or indeed any part of it, except in time of war or armed rebellion. The "war or armed rebellion" part is specifically stated, so there's no "times of national crisis" wiggle room.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gandalf

The Government have a mandate until 2012 so there is no election guaranteed for next year anyway. There is a strong possibility of a General Election if the Government parties lose the Donegal SW by election and if the budget is defeated.

If a bailout occurs I believe the government will disintegrate and a General Election will occur anyway.

I believe at this stage a bailout is going to be forced upon Ireland. I just hope that all the brinkmanship going on at the moment is with the aim of securing our low corporation tax because without that I do believe we will be in a whole new world of pain.

SkepticOne

I think the current government would like to be out of it but they have to hang on at least till next year so that it does not look like they are being forced out of it mid-term. Their policies - to the extent that they have them - seem to have been to do with putting off the crisis for as long as possible with the hope that it comes to a head with the opposition in power.

Sticky_Fingers

gandalf wrote: »

The Government have a mandate until 2012 so there is no election guaranteed for next year anyway. There is a strong possibility of a General Election if the Government parties lose the Donegal SW by election and if the budget is defeated.

If a bailout occurs I believe the government will disintegrate and a General Election will occur anyway.

I believe at this stage a bailout is going to be forced upon Ireland. I just hope that all the brinkmanship going on at the moment is with the aim of securing our low corporation tax because without that I do believe we will be in a whole new world of pain.

They may be able to force the bailout but there will be carnage on the streets if they try their hand at upping the CT rate, it would be akin to giving a death row inmate a new kidney so he could be healthy enough to execute.

I for one would not stand for it, I would be on the streets looking for the blood of anyone who signed this country and its childrens future away for the sake of the yuppie scumbag traders and bondholders. If we lose our low CT tax status we might as well burn this motherfooker down because there will be absolutely no coming back from it and we might as well get used to once again living in relative poverty while raising our children for export.

If anything we need to think about lowering CT rate with further tax incentives given to companies that create jobs here.

sceptre

4gun wrote: »

Good but can elections be suspended if the majority of the dail vote on it citing the economic as a national crisis as opposed to war..the way was it FDR stayed on for a third term during WWII in America

FDR got elected a third time. And a fourth time. There was no suspension of elections at any point. The 22nd amendment (which restricted US presidents to two terms of office) wasn't ratified until 1951, the first time there was a legal restriction on more than two terms of office for a US President.

4gun

According to Brian Cowen, the government didn't requset the bail out ..could this possible bailout be mandated from Brussels ...Its pretty obvious to Eu economics where Irish banking is going in the next year ..the thinking might be act now to prevent total collapse rather than try to fix the problem after
Our Government have a history of denying the gravity of our economic situation until is becomes too late
I dont think Brussels have any confidence in the government any more

LK_Dave

If the IMF come in it does not really matter who is in power - you can have all the elections you want - for they (the IMF) will be holding of the cheque/bank book and our national government will only be a figure head.

Wolfe Tone

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, it would require suspension of the Constitution, and there's no provision for suspension of the Constitution - or indeed any part of it, except in time of war or armed rebellion. The "war or armed rebellion" part is specifically stated, so there's no "times of national crisis" wiggle room.

cordially,
Scofflaw

They could pass legislation bringing the Dail term up to seven years however. The constitution says something to this effect:

The same Dáil Éireann shall not continue for a longer period than seven years from the date of its first meeting: a shorter period may be fixed by law.

Currently it is fixed at 5 years. ELECTORAL ACT 1992, s33 states:

33.—The same Dáil shall not continue for a longer period than five years from the date of its first meeting.

In theory all they would need to do would be to amend this section up to the maximum allowed by the constitution. Thus such legislation would be perfectly constitutional.

I doubt they would have that much nerve however.

Scofflaw

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

They could pass legislation bringing the Dail term up to seven years however. The constitution says something to this effect:


Currently it is fixed at 5 years. ELECTORAL ACT 1992, s33 states:


In theory all they would need to do would be to amend this section up to the maximum allowed by the constitution. Thus such legislation would be perfectly constitutional.

I doubt they would have that much nerve however.

Or that many votes, either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or that many votes, either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

In theory though it is possible, and would extend the governments life enough to see out its four year plan..... Which is what the OP was worried about.

Scofflaw

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

In theory though it is possible, and would extend the governments life enough to see out its four year plan..... Which is what the OP was worried about.

In theory it is possible, but in practice it's irrelevant. After all, the government majority that the 2007 election produced has been eroded progressively without any general election, and the Constitution is quite clear about what happens in the case of a minority Taoiseach. If the government used this mechanism to try to prolong their life, they would generate an enormous amount of bad feeling for nothing - at this stage, we're not even sure the government will last out its current mandate, never mind an extended one. By-elections, it turns out, cannot be put off for too long.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

Scofflaw wrote: »

In theory it is possible, but in practice it's irrelevant. After all, the government majority that the 2007 election produced has been eroded progressively without any general election, and the Constitution is quite clear about what happens in the case of a minority Taoiseach. If the government used this mechanism to try to prolong their life, they would generate an enormous amount of bad feeling for nothing - at this stage, we're not even sure the government will last out its current mandate, never mind an extended one. By-elections, it turns out, cannot be put off for too long.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I beg to differ... they SHOULDT be put off for too long... but there is no way in which they can be made occur. The Judge said further steps could be taken but I am at a loss as to what these steps could be.

I agree, it probably wont happen, but it could, and as this thread is dealing with a hypothetical situation where the government may attempt to increase its life span by two years; there is a perfectly legal and relatively simple(well getting it passed would be difficult) way to do so, without taking such drastic measures as to suspend the constitution. In fact if we want to go down this road said amendment may in fact cause a situation to arise where the constitution may be suspended.... All hail "Dear Leader" Cowen?

So, to definitively answer the OPs question, elections cannot be suspended as such, but the Dail term can be extended by two years through the method I outlined, enough to see out the four year plan.

Scofflaw

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I beg to differ... they SHOULDT be put off for too long... but there is no way in which they can be made occur. The Judge said further steps could be taken but I am at a loss as to what these steps could be.

The government cannot act unconstitutionally. If the Supreme Court determines that the government have acted unconstitutionally, they must either rectify the fault, or no longer be the government.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I agree, it probably wont happen, but it could, and as this thread is dealing with a hypothetical situation where the government may attempt to increase its life span by two years; there is a perfectly legal and relatively simple(well getting it passed would be difficult) way to do so, without taking such drastic measures as to suspend the constitution. In fact if we want to go down this road said amendment may in fact cause a situation to arise where the constitution may be suspended.... All hail "Dear Leader" Cowen?

So, to definitively answer the OPs question, elections cannot be suspended as such, but the Dail term can be extended by two years through the method I outlined, enough to see out the four year plan.

Agreed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

Scofflaw wrote: »

The government cannot act unconstitutionally. If the Supreme Court determines that the government have acted unconstitutionally, they must either rectify the fault, or no longer be the government.



Agreed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Where did you get this from?

To paraphrase the Judge(too tired to dig up the judgement again) he said something to the effect that he hopes the pressure resulting from his declaration(not legally binding or anything) would make the govt move the writ, it has done so. However, he also threatened further legal action.. I cannot see what this could be, short of telling Dail members how to vote... which is a clear breach of the separation of powers.

So, if the govt had have ignored the declaration(it is my understanding that they could have done so in perfect(legal) safety) they would have been acting unconstitutionally(or maybe not! I have a feeling the declaration itself was in breach of the separation of powers). I fail to see how the govt would have ceased being such.... legally.

Or maybe I am horribly wrong, interesting topic though.

Scofflaw

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Where did you get this from?

From the Constitution. The government of Ireland has powers only under the Constitution - if you like, the Constitution is the contract between the people and the government, but it's actually more than that. It is, although it sounds dramatic to state it, the foundation stone of the State. It cannot be suspended, ignored, or torn up without a coup d'etat - and a government that is in breach of the Constitution has no legal powers. It cannot pass bills, it cannot pass budgets, it cannot order the army or the civil service. It has no right to use tax money, cannot enter into any international agreement. It becomes no more than fifteen ordinary citizens, and anyone who follows its orders in operating the machinery of government is acting as illegally as they would be if they followed the orders of a private citizen.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

To paraphrase the Judge(too tired to dig up the judgement again) he said something to the effect that he hopes the pressure resulting from his declaration(not legally binding or anything) would make the govt move the writ, it has done so. However, he also threatened further legal action.. I cannot see what this could be, short of telling Dail members how to vote... which is a clear breach of the separation of powers.

So, if the govt had have ignored the declaration(it is my understanding that they could have done so in perfect(legal) safety) they would have been acting unconstitutionally(or maybe not! I have a feeling the declaration itself was in breach of the separation of powers). I fail to see how the govt would have ceased being such.... legally.

Or maybe I am horribly wrong, interesting topic though.

The declaration was, as you say, not legally binding - therefore the government can act in defiance of it without acting unconstitutionally. The judge's "further steps" would be to turn that into a judgement that the government was acting unconstitutionally. You'll note that the government didn't wait for those further steps - it acted immediately to rectify the fault, even though no judgement had been passed against it.

If a judgement had been passed, the government has the choice of either complying, issuing a reason acceptable to the Court for not immediately complying, or effecting a coup d'etat by declaring the Constitution irrelevant. It cannot take any other course without ceasing to be the government.

As to the "separation of powers" argument - the interpretation of the Constitution is in the hands of the judiciary and courts, not the government. This was, without question, a proper call for the courts to make.

cordially,
Scofflaw