What good is the presidency ?

Liam Byrne

Having sat through the Late Late and still being pushed to view Higgins as the best of a bad lot, I started wondering......

.....people are saying that the role should be scrapped, but in theory it's there to prevent bad laws being passed.

Which begs the question - if McAleese was such a good president, how come she didn't block the disastrous and ill-advised bank guarantee 3 years ago ?

Does this cast a shadow over her stint in the job, or was it just not possible for her to block the worst piece of legislation in history ?

musings

Liam Byrne wrote: »

but in theory it's there to prevent bad laws being passed.

And that is supposed to be the job of the Attorney General.

Abolish the office

Cannibal Ox

Government's won't pass a bill if they don't think it'll get past the presidency (/constitution). Most of the time.

Remove either the Senate or the Presidency, or both, and, as crappy as they are, you've nothing to deter the government.

Liam Byrne

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Government's won't pass a bill if they don't think it'll get past the presidency (/constitution). Most of the time.

Remove either the Senate or the Presidency, or both, and, as crappy as they are, you've nothing to deter the government.

So McAleese is at fault for the bank guarantee getting through ?

musings

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Having sat through the Late Late and still being pushed to view Higgins as the best of a bad lot, I started wondering......

.....people are saying that the role should be scrapped, but in theory it's there to prevent bad laws being passed.

Which begs the question - if McAleese was such a good president, how come she didn't block the disastrous and ill-advised bank guarantee 3 years ago ?

Does this cast a shadow over her stint in the job, or was it just not possible for her to block the worst piece of legislation in history ?

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Government's won't pass a bill if they don't think it'll get past the presidency (/constitution). Most of the time.

Remove either the Senate or the Presidency, or both, and, as crappy as they are, you've nothing to deter the government.

You've still got the courts

mikemac

The President could not block anything, just refer them to the Supreme Court.
And the Attorney General will draft them in such a way they will get past and the bills will be constitutional. It's a huge exception if something goes to the Supreme Court

Even leaving aside all that, the President cannot block a finance bill, and I suppose NAMA may fall under that

You're blaming the President for what they cannot do

themont85

Our executive and legislative are already far too intertwined in my opinion. The AG is a Government and in effect legislator appointee and is not independent. Getting rid of the President just to save half a peanut in the State's expenditure isn't the sign of a republic.

I'd like to see an expanded role for our President though.

Liam Byrne

mikemac wrote: »

You're blaming the President for what they cannot do

Wasn't blaming - just asking.

Overheal

themont85 wrote: »

I'd like to see an expanded role for our President though.

And now you're thinking with portals. The Irish President is barely much more than a figurehead for the state.it needs to have a bit more function than just social functions.

Eliot Rosewater

The president can refer a bill to the Supreme Court, but that does mean the bill will be stopped. And the big problem is: if it is not stopped it can never be challenged again, even if the practise of the bill raises unforeseen issues that can be unconstitutional:

Article 35, section 3, sub-section3 wrote:

No Court whatever shall have jurisdiction to question the validity of a law, or any provision of a law, the Bill for which shall have been referred to the Supreme Court by the President under Article 26 of this Constitution, or to question the validity of a provision of a law where the corresponding provision in the Bill for such law shall have been referred to the Supreme Court by the President under the said Article 26.

In the 1990s a Dáil constitutional committee recommended the power be removed. It is very problematic in practise, and seems to me to be just a token power given to the President to avoid having to give them more meaningful powers. It has been exercised 15 times since 1937; 7 times the bill or some part was deemed unconstitutional.

FreudianSlippers

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The president can refer a bill to the Supreme Court, but that does mean the bill will be stopped. And the big problem is: if it is not stopped it can never be challenged again, even if the practise of the bill raises unforeseen issues that can be unconstitutional:



In the 1990s a Dáil constitutional committee recommended the power be removed. It is very problematic in practise, and seems to me to be just a token power given to the President to avoid having to give them more meaningful powers. It has been exercised 15 times since 1937; 7 times the bill or some part was deemed unconstitutional.

How else would you suggest that bills get referred to the Supreme Court for testing constitutionality?

Nodin

Liam Byrne wrote: »

.............

Which begs the question - if McAleese was such a good president, how come she didn't block the disastrous and ill-advised bank guarantee 3 years ago ?

Does this cast a shadow over her stint in the job, or was it just not possible for her to block the worst piece of legislation in history ?

You seem to be confusing a political judgement with a legal one.

Eliot Rosewater

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

How else would you suggest that bills get referred to the Supreme Court for testing constitutionality?

In the regular fashion whereby members of the public take a case against the government in the Supreme Court?

FreudianSlippers

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In the regular fashion whereby members of the public take a case against the government in the Supreme Court?

That's totally impractical and would clog up the courts like crazy.

Eliot Rosewater

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's totally impractical and would clog up the courts like crazy.

But doesn't that happen already?

I could probably do with reading more about the legal system of this country; my knowledge is based solely on books describing the political system.

Jowls

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Government's won't pass a bill if they don't think it'll get past the presidency (/constitution). Most of the time.

Remove either the Senate or the Presidency, or both, and, as crappy as they are, you've nothing to deter the government.

Is right. Article 27 is how the bank bill could potentially have been stopped (or at least given more than minimal scrutiny). It lets the Seanad and President refer a Bill of national importance to the People.

But you need both the Seanad and Presidency to be able to act independently of the government for that to work.

Its another argument in favour of reforming the method of electing people to the Seanad rather than abolishing it. If we had a few more experts or independent thinkers in there, would there not have been a good chance some of them would have yelled stop.

Instead, the government seem intent on concentrating even more power in themselves (see Abbeylara vote, the abolition of the Seanad, even the way the judges pay thing is being structured). And this in a country that already has a system where the cabinet has most of the power?

Only in Ireland could the politicians say that the way to deal with an economic collapse caused by politicians is to give them even more power.

FreudianSlippers

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

But doesn't that happen already?

I could probably do with reading more about the legal system of this country; my knowledge is based solely on books describing the political system.

Not really.

People can Judicially Review decisions (to the High Court) but they have to show that it personally affects you in a real way and that you have arguable grounds.

It would be impractical for blatantly unconstitutional pieces of legislation to be passed and then wait for it to be reviewed by JR. At least in my opinion.

I think the President should have expanded powers as a branch of government overseeing the Legislative branch... and I think more bills ought to be sent to the Supreme Court via Art 26.

Coillte_Bhoy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Having sat through the Late Late and still being pushed to view Higgins as the best of a bad lot, I started wondering......

.....people are saying that the role should be scrapped, but in theory it's there to prevent bad laws being passed.

Which begs the question - if McAleese was such a good president, how come she didn't block the disastrous and ill-advised bank guarantee 3 years ago ?

Does this cast a shadow over her stint in the job, or was it just not possible for her to block the worst piece of legislation in history ?

Your asking whether the presidency is any good yet you dont seem to have the slightest idea about the it's role? Maybe you should inform yourself first.

themont85

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Not really.

People can Judicially Review decisions (to the High Court) but they have to show that it personally affects you in a real way and that you have arguable grounds.

It would be impractical for blatantly unconstitutional pieces of legislation to be passed and then wait for it to be reviewed by JR. At least in my opinion.

Exactly

Why scrap this power, one of the few they have and one which is a simple and efficient way of protecting the Constitution. Why wait for a problem to emerge? We see whenever there is Constitutional challenges the havoc that they can cause if struck down (A v Arbour Hill case anyone?).

.

Batsy

Electing a president, who is nothing more than ceremonial, every few years is bonkers.

Thank God we have our monarchy (Europe's oldest surviving political institution). It's as symbolic as the Irish Head of State but be don't go through the pointlessness of electing our Head of State.

FreudianSlippers

Batsy wrote: »

Electing a president, who is nothing more than ceremonial, every few years is bonkers.

Thank God we have our monarchy (Europe's oldest surviving political institution). It's as symbolic as the Irish Head of State but be don't go through the pointlessness of electing our Head of State.

I take it you missed the part where it's not only a ceremonial position then?

puppetmaster

Batsy wrote: »

Electing a president, who is nothing more than ceremonial, every few years is bonkers.

Thank God we have our monarchy (Europe's oldest surviving political institution). It's as symbolic as the Irish Head of State but be don't go through the pointlessness of electing our Head of State.

you spout on about unelected undemocratic people in Europe yet you come out with this. :rolleyes:

FreudianSlippers

puppetmaster wrote: »

you spout on about unelected undemocratic people in Europe yet you come out with this. :rolleyes:

I know... GOD and QUEEN in the same sentence. Oh, the ironing! :eek:

vellocet

Batsy wrote: »

Electing a president, who is nothing more than ceremonial, every few years is bonkers.

Thank God we have our monarchy (Europe's oldest surviving political institution). It's as symbolic as the Irish Head of State but be don't go through the pointlessness of electing our Head of State.

Well it would be embarrassing to tell Catholics., Jews, Muslims and Shiks they couldn't run I suppose.

The President cannot refer economic bills, so the discussion is moot. There was nothing unconstitutional about the bail out anyway

thebman

Batsy wrote: »

Electing a president, who is nothing more than ceremonial, every few years is bonkers.

Thank God we have our monarchy (Europe's oldest surviving political institution). It's as symbolic as the Irish Head of State but be don't go through the pointlessness of electing our Head of State.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/few

I'll refer you to the first definition. Now I don't think 7 qualifies as a few. I generally though most people considered the acceptable number to be in the region of 2-4 but most likely 3.

mistermouse

The President is really a waste of Money and considering they are well fed and watered, they are over paid and waste resources

McAleese visited Donegal by helicopter recently and her state car was driven down to ferry her 300 yards from one part of the Letterkenny Institute campus to another at great expense, before she was flown home again I gather.

Unbelievable!

MFarrell86

hmmmm yet more proof that we really need to improve the way we teach civics in our schools.

These sort of attacks on the institutions of our liberal democracy clearly carry echoes from the dying days of the Weimar Republic. And we all know what happened next.

What are the alternatives so? When people rail against the current system of checks and balances what are they proposing we replace them with ?A new Constitution? A constitutional monarchy? A Presidential democracy with Enda having the power to grant himself permission to dissolve the Dáil, decide for himself whether a bill needs to be referred to the Supreme Court and to be both our head of government and head of state?

I wish people would think things through and read up on the various duties assigned by our constitution. For example, the President cannot block legislation, they can only refer it to the Supreme Court to ensure it ties in with the constitution. The majority of the people elect a government to govern and the President cannot interfere with that. The President merely grants permission to dissolve the Dáil, gives new ministers their seals of office and refers bills that may be unconstitutional to the Supreme Court. Those advocating that the President should be able to block certain bills are just a step away from proposing we have a dictator who can flout the will of the majority of the parliament we elect to make our laws! What if a government, elected by a majority of the people, passes a law on abortion but we have a President with the power to block it because it doesn't tally with their own personnel viewpoint? Would that be democratic?

The system that has allowed us become one of the oldest surviving parliamentary democracies in Europe ain't all that bad.

MFarrell86

mistermouse wrote: »

The President is really a waste of Money and considering they are well fed and watered, they are over paid and waste resources

McAleese visited Donegal by helicopter recently and her state car was driven down to ferry her 300 yards from one part of the Letterkenny Institute campus to another at great expense, before she was flown home again I gather.

Unbelievable!

Yes and we can reform our system and make it more efficient and cost effective. Lets see what the new government does to reform our political system (lower pay already enacted, proposing to abolish the Seanad) but lets not have any knee jerk, populist reactions. The President is not a waste of space but an integral part of our Republic.

Liam Byrne

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Your asking whether the presidency is any good yet you dont seem to have the slightest idea about the it's role? Maybe you should inform yourself first.

What ?

The President can stop a bill that's unconstitutional, and I have seen few things over the past while as unconstitutional as forcing decent people to take on the debt of irresponsible gamblers.

FreudianSlippers

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What ?

The President can stop a bill that's unconstitutional, and I have seen few things over the past while as unconstitutional as forcing decent people to take on the debt of irresponsible gamblers.

No, the president can't stop a bill that's unconstitutional - they can only refer it to the Supreme Court.

Babooshka

Hi

Reading through the fallout of the election debate from last night, most people seem to not want to vote for any of the presidential candidates. I can't say I was ever excited about presidents but this time my feelings are extremely apathetic. Whats more, most of my colleagues at work felt exactly the same when I discussed it with them today. I don't really care about a president, currently, as a president is a figurehead and a decoration mostly there to welcome other figureheads, politicians and visiting dignitaries. It costs us money to have them parade around declaring they're acting on our behalf, when we could really just do with getting our act together and conserving a lot in the next few years.

I am not one for rabbles much, marches and protests all seem to amount to the same thing here, twelve people turn up who are earnestly protesting, 500 who drink beer and get in trouble by throwing stuff...and no one pays any attention. Would the entire country abstaining from voting for a president be a whopper of a silent but strong protest and a mesage to a government that, we don't need the side show, thanks very much. We can do without the president in a private jet, and all that goes with it, An Taoiseach can act as a receiver of visitors or send out some senior civil servants to visit sick people in hospitals and earn their pay, and basically call a time out on all the bullsh*t that is going on in this god foresaken flea pit. Would it not be the biggest collective voice of a country that has had enough saying that we don't want to play it this way any more, and until the promises that cronyism and all that went with it in the last twenty years starts to right itself, we just won't play along to a script any more.

Or is that complete and naieve utter load of sheee-ite? I know there's a little matter of getting everyone to comply, but it's a hypothetical question. It just seems so unimportant right now in the face of all the crap the working Joe is being put through. What would happen if everyone refused to vote in an act of indignation at the state of this bleedin place?

Batsy

puppetmaster wrote: »

you spout on about unelected undemocratic people in Europe yet you come out with this. :rolleyes:

The British monarch isn't a politician and, like the Irish President, is only ceremonial.

Therefore we rightly feel, unlike the Irish, that we don't need to elect our Head of State. Because what's the point? Electing a ceremonial Head of State is a complete waste of time and resources. That's something you Irish can learn from the British.

Batsy

vellocet wrote: »

Well it would be embarrassing to tell Catholics., Jews, Muslims and Shiks they couldn't run I suppose.

It'd only be as "embarassing" as telling Protestants, Jews, Muslims and Sikhs that they couldn't run for Pope. What's the difference? You wouldn't want a Protestant as Head of the Catholic Church so why should we have to tolerate a Catholic as Head of the Church of England?

FreudianSlippers

Batsy wrote: »

The British monarch isn't a politician and, like the Irish President, is only ceremonial.

Therefore we rightly feel, unlike the Irish, that we don't need to elect our Head of State. Because what's the point? Electing a ceremonial Head of State is a complete waste of time and resources. That's something you Irish can learn from the British.

A) You don't have a constitution.
Your Queen has no powers under your non-existent constitution.

So the President and the Queen are nothing alike.

Batsy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

A) You don't have a constitution.

Yes, we do. Except that we are clever enough to not have an actual bit of paper entitled "CONSTITUTION."

Instead, the British constitution is embodied in written documents, within statutes, court judgments, treaties etc which go back centuries.

Amongst the documents which make up the British constitution are the Magna Carta, the 1689 Bill of Rights and the 1701 Act of Settlement.

Your Queen has no powers under your non-existent constitution.

Yes, she does.

The British monarch has several powers in domestic and foreign affairs.

They are:


Domestic Affairs

The appointment and dismissal of ministers;
The summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament;
Royal assent to bills;
The appointment and regulation of the civil service;
The commissioning of officers in the armed forces;
Directing the disposition of the armed forces in the UK;
Appointment of Queen's Counsel;
Issue and withdrawal of passports;
Prerogative of mercy. (Used to apply in capital punishment cases. Still used, eg to remedy errors in sentence calculation)
Granting honours;
Creation of corporations by Charter;

Foreign Affairs

The making of treaties;
Declaration of war;
Deployment of armed forces overseas;
Recognition of foreign states;
Accreditation and reception of diplomats.

FreudianSlippers

Batsy wrote: »

Yes, we do. Except that we are clever enough to not have an actual bit of paper entitled "CONSTITUTION."

Instead, the British constitution is embodied in written documents, within statutes, court judgments, treaties etc which go back centuries.

Amongst the documents which make up the British constitution are the Magna Carta, the 1689 Bill of Rights and the 1701 Act of Settlement.




Yes, she does.

The British monarch has several powers in domestic and foreign affairs.

They are:


Domestic Affairs

The appointment and dismissal of ministers;
The summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament;
Royal assent to bills;
The appointment and regulation of the civil service;
The commissioning of officers in the armed forces;
Directing the disposition of the armed forces in the UK;
Appointment of Queen's Counsel;
Issue and withdrawal of passports;
Prerogative of mercy. (Used to apply in capital punishment cases. Still used, eg to remedy errors in sentence calculation)
Granting honours;
Creation of corporations by Charter;

Foreign Affairs

The making of treaties;
Declaration of war;
Deployment of armed forces overseas;
Recognition of foreign states;
Accreditation and reception of diplomats.

No written constitution anyway.

The Queen is a useless position... ceremonial. Not sure why you even bother giving that German family all that lavish lifestyle.

Batsy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The Queen is a useless position... ceremonial.

Just like your President.

And I'd rather have a politically-neutral monarch as Head of State than a stinking politician.

There's nothing more pointless in electing a ceremonial Head of State. The British don't do it so why do the Irish?

FreudianSlippers

Batsy wrote: »

Just like your President.

And I'd rather have a politically-neutral monarch as Head of State than a stinking politician.

There's nothing more pointless in electing a ceremonial Head of State. The British don't do it so why do the Irish?

Art 26 is a useful function. It's very important that someone can refer bills to the Supreme Court.

Clearly it's something you know nothing about, so I'll just wait for the next comeback :rolleyes:

paddyandy

We exist in the Shadows of Great Britain without a high profile person such as a President.Pop singers footballers and the like don't give us the sort of dignity a president can give.On the other side of the globe we are probably confused with britain.A president attends very important occasions abroad we should'nt feel excluded.Only a President can fill certain Roles internationally.

FreudianSlippers

paddyandy wrote: »

We exist in the Shadows of Great Britain without high profile person such as a President.Pop singers footballers and the like don't give us the sort of dignity a president can give.On the other side of the globe we are probably confused with britain.A president attends very important occasions abroad we should'nt feel excluded.Only a President can fill certain Roles internationally.

I trust you're not being sarcastic, as our president also is vital in bridging connections with Irish-Americans around the world.

snafuk35

What good is the Presidency?
Well it's a cosy well paid job with lots of foreign travel and plenty of limelight.
Sure what's bad about that? I'd like to do it myself.

dunnariogh

dumb question but what would happen if nobody voted,ie a boycott?

FreudianSlippers

dunnariogh wrote: »

dumb question but what would happen if nobody voted,ie a boycott?

Someone would vote.

dunnariogh

agreed,but maybe we shouldnt,looking at the candidates

paddyandy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I trust you're not being sarcastic, as our president also is vital in bridging connections with Irish-Americans around the world.

There are plenty of other things for the irish abroad the ballyhoo attends to that function very well.

FreudianSlippers

They're pretty shockingly awful, I'll give you that... but even if you got 99.99999% of the country not to vote, I'd probably just walk down and write my own name in

paddyandy

When foreigners on the other side of the world ask you 'Where are you from'? You tell them and then they ask 'Where is ILAND '? Then you realise the need for a President.Many people outside Europe never heard of us.We think we're famous but only in Europe.We need a President or we vanish into the folds of Britannia's Skirts.

Babooshka

paddyandy wrote: »

When foreigners on the other side of the world ask you 'Where are you from'? You tell them and then they ask 'Where is ILAND '? Then you realise the need for a President.Many people outside Europe never heard of us.We think we're famous but only in Europe.We need a President or we vanish into the folds of Britannia's Skirts.

Why is that bad though? We need to become self sufficient again, not worry about whether an eskimo or an Islamic sheep herder knows who we are. Personally I don't mind whether other countries have heard of us or not. I just want the country run well, and with a limit to the gravy train our top people are on, that's all that concerns me, right now. Pride can come when we have something to be proud of.

mike65

Couldn't a (already existing) Council of State could do the same job?

paddyandy

Babooshka wrote: »

Why is that bad though? We need to become self sufficient again, not worry about whether an eskimo or an Islamic sheep herder knows who we are. Personally I don't mind whether other countries have heard of us or not. I just want the country run well, and with a limit to the gravy train our top people are on, that's all that concerns me, right now. Pride can come when we have something to be proud of.

We were never self sufficient...What people think is very important we suffered stereotypes for long enough like others have.We will never get a well run country we just don't do that sort of thing well and never have. We have plenty to be proud of but living in the shadow of Britain is'nt good for our self esteem.Now bubbleh.

Babooshka

paddyandy wrote: »

We were never self sufficient...What people think is very important we suffered stereotypes for long enough like others have.We will never get a well run country we just don't do that sort of thing well and never have. We have plenty to be proud of but living in the shadow of Britain is'nt good for our self esteem.Now bubbleh.

You're right, which is why I think we're better off concentrating on turning the country inside out from within and shaking it upside down until it is run better, we don't need the sanctimonious pomp and ceremony that comes with a president and his/her entourage or creating a spunout public image, as much as we need the foundations shaken and reformed.

I don't think we have a lot to be proud of currently, unless you're into sport. Economically and socially we desire a lot. I don't know what your last two words meant.