Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Role of the Presidency in Ireland

  • 17-11-2010 5:08pm
    #1
    shaunsweb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 57 ✭✭


    Had a discussion with a few friends the other day and one of them raised a point which I would like to share here.

    There has been a lot of public debate as to why the government has been slow to call the by-elections for the 4 constituencies where there are vacancies. As we all know, in the case of the Donegal constituency, this has gone to court and the government is currently resisting calling the others.

    One of my friends then commented on what exactly was the President doing about this? Is she not the 'oversee-er' of the the constitution and should she not have flagged to the government it's in-ordinate delay in some constituencies was in fact unconstitutional. I'm not 100% sure about this and I do know that the Attorney General would have to have had some input in this but I thought I would throw it out for comment.

    I do know that a few years ago, she did consult the Attorney General in relation to (I think Child Protection Legislation-forgive me if i'm wrong on this), prior to signing it into law. So surely she would have the authority to raise questions in relation to the constitutional position with regards the vacant seats.



    Thoughts please


Comments

  • #2
    coylemj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,626 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    shaunsweb wrote: »
    Is she not the 'oversee-er' of the the constitution and should she not have flagged to the government it's in-ordinate delay in some constituencies was in fact unconstitutional. I'm not 100% sure about this and I do know that the Attorney General would have to have had some input in this but I thought I would throw it out for comment.

    In practice she is not the 'overseer' of the Constitution, that function is reserved by the High Court and Supreme Court who can declare any action by the state or piece of legislation to be in contravention of the Constitution. Allowing the President to get involved would make it a political office which was never intended.
    shaunsweb wrote: »
    I do know that a few years ago, she did consult the Attorney General in relation to (I think Child Protection Legislation-forgive me if i'm wrong on this), prior to signing it into law. So surely she would have the authority to raise questions in relation to the constitutional position with regards the vacant seats.

    She might have called a meeting of the Council of State (of which the AG is an ex-offico member) to solicit their views as to the constitutionality of the bill that was sitting on her desk awaiting her signature, after such a meeting she can deicide to refer a bill to the Supreme Court or just go ahead and sign it (Article 26.1.1). There is no provision for her to consult directly with the AG because he is legal adviser to the Government, not to the President and since Government bills are put together by parliamentary draughtsmen who work in the office of the AG, it follows that asking the the AG if a Government bill is constitutional is like asking the Pope if he's a Catholic.


Advertisement