Presidential Candidates and Theresa Treacey????

CDfm

Teresa Treacey is the Offally Landowner currently in jail for contempt of court over a dispute over her land.

She is now on day 17 in Mountjoy.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0913/1224304028246.html

Have any of the Candidates who are going for the job of protecting our Constitutional Rights made any comment on the case ?

oscarBravo

CDfm wrote: »

Teresa Treacey is the Offally Landowner currently in jail for contempt of court over a dispute over her land.

She is now on day 17 in Mountjoy.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0913/1224304028246.html

Have any of the Candidates who are going for the job of protecting our Constitutional Rights made any comment on the case ?

Why would they?

What do you think the current President - who has the job of protecting our Constitutional Rights - should do about it?

whydoibother?

CDfm wrote: »

Have any of the Candidates who are going for the job of protecting our Constitutional Rights made any comment on the case ?

I think the point is that she didn't have the right to prevent them entering onto her land.

Also, even if she did, that's not the Presidents job at all.

CDfm

When faced with the furore caused by his referal of the Emergency Powers Bill 1976 to the Supreme Court ,the then President of Ireland O'Dalagh resigned.

He had been a forrner member if the ECJ and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ireland.

So it is an important issue to have an idea how and under what circumstances a presidential candidate might use their powers.

Their views on a topical matter where a citizen looses their liberty might be one in signing legislation..

As it happened O'Dailagh was right and Gardai used powers under the Act in non terrorist related policing.

Manach

In theory, under the constitution the only infringement of property rights should be done to further "the common good" (Article 43). Thus as CDfm has pointed out on protecting our Constitutional Rights , should this phrase mean that semi-state bodies have driven Mrs. Treacey to such lengths that she feels the only way to assert her rights to defend her lands is to go to jail. Many voters would be interested to hear the candidates views on this.

MadsL

Not mud-slinging in any way, and broadly support this courageous woman; but is there any truth that she got a forestry grant in 1999??

CDfm

MadsL wrote: »

Not mud-slinging in any way, and broadly support this courageous woman; but is there any truth that she got a forestry grant in 1999??

I don't know, but , how would that be relevant and would such rights be dependent on what grants a person got ?

oscarBravo

Manach wrote: »

...semi-state bodies have driven Mrs. Treacey to such lengths that she feels the only way to assert her rights to defend her lands is to go to jail.

As far as I can ascertain, she didn't engage with the public consultations in any way. It's hard to claim to have been "driven to lengths" when you won't engage with the process.

Property rights are tempered by the principle of eminent domain in all common law jurisdictions. I'm still unclear on what role the President is supposed to play in this.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

This is a non-issue for the presidency. The woman is in contempt of court under the law of the state.

MadsL

CDfm wrote: »

I don't know, but , how would that be relevant and would such rights be dependent on what grants a person got ?

I believe she was claiming the trees were 40 years old. Also, if she got a grant for planting on her land, doesn't that convey some obligation to assist the state in infrastructure projects - not legally, but perhaps morally. But as I said I applaud her stand and courage.

Manach

oscarBravo wrote: »

As far as I can ascertain, she didn't engage with the public consultations in any way. It's hard to claim to have been "driven to lengths" when you won't engage with the process.

Property rights are tempered by the principle of eminent domain in all common law jurisdictions. I'm still unclear on what role the President is supposed to play in this.

Firstly, I was not aware that she did not engage with public consultation. However, I myself have found such consultation prone to be unhelpful in the aspects of laying out which particular area of land is being utilised and as well are subject to change as the project plans are altered. Still, her first step should be engagement with this as you've point out.

Compulsory purchase is present in most jurisdictions. However the force of law behind them differs. From the Japanese, where there is extremely weak powers to that of some US states where the common good aspect of "economic development" can be a driver of eminent domain (Amazon link).

So as various Presidential candidates, such as Mr Higgins and Senator Norris, have championed communities whose rights have been infringed by the powers of the state, and who, if elected to the office of President, seek to be a voice for less powerful members of the community as first citizen of the republic, it would be relevant to ask their position on this matter.

Finally to ask, if post election the defendant is still in jail, then would the candidate exercise his/her powers under Article 13.6 to pardon her?

CDfm

Otis Quiet Recorder wrote: »

This is a non-issue for the presidency. The woman is in contempt of court under the law of the state.

I posted the question as one President, Cearbhall O'Dalaigh , President 1974 -1976 ., used his powers as President in such a way to test the Constitutionality of New Laws.

Born in Bray, County Wicklow, educated at Synge Street Christian Brothers and UCD graduating in Celtic Studies, he was called to the Bar in 1934 as well as serving as Irish language editor of the Irish Press from its foundation in 1931. Made Senior Counsel in 1945; served as Attorney-General in two Fianna Fáil governments, 1946–48 and 1951–53; judge of the Supreme Court, 1953 and Chief Justice 1961. He became Ireland’s representative to the European Court on the country’s accession to the EEC in 1972 but returned to become President of Ireland in 1974 after the sudden death of Erskine Childers. He resigned in controversial circumstances in 1976 after the Minister for Defence publicly criticised his action in referring an emergency powers bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. An immensely cultured man, his influence as a member of the Supreme Court and as Chief Justice, in developing the profile of the Court as guardian of constitutional rights, was significant.
http://www.ucd.ie/archives/html/collections/odalaigh-cearbhall.htm

At least 1 candidate , has been an active campaigner on a similar case.

Another is a former IRA leader and another an oponent of European integration and another is a same sex marriage campaigner.

All profess some sort of religious belief.

So they are not all shrinking violets and indepedent thinkers to varying degrees.

I am surprised the issue has not been raised.

oscarBravo

Manach wrote: »

Finally to ask, if post election the defendant is still in jail, then would the candidate exercise his/her powers under Article 13.6 to pardon her?

I would consider that an egregious breach of separation of powers. A pardon is for a criminal offence; she is in contempt of court.

CDfm wrote: »

I posted the question as one President, Cearbhall O'Dalaigh , President 1974 -1976 ., used his powers as President in such a way to test the Constitutionality of New Laws.

Every president has the power to test the constitutionality of new laws. The last two presidents have done so on a number of occasions. This isn't a new law.

Manach

oscarBravo wrote: »

I would consider that an egregious breach of separation of powers. A pardon is for a criminal offence; she is in contempt of court.

Given the Abbeylara referendum, the doctrine of separation of powers might be taking a few hits anyway

oscarBravo

Manach wrote: »

Given the Abbeylara referendum, the doctrine of separation of powers might be taking a few hits anyway

Not a compelling reason to give up on it altogether.

CDfm

The consensus seems to be that the candidate for President of Ireland should not have any truck with such wooly notions as protecting the weak(individual) from the strong (state).

The constitution is like a social contract governing the relationship between the individual and the state.

The constitution tempers the powers of the state for the individual.

This case is the real deal.

Information

The Constitution (Bunreacht na hÉireann) declares that Irish citizens have a right to own property. Broadly speaking, Article 40.3.2 pledges that the State will vindicate the property rights of every cititizen. This means that you have a right to own, transfer and inherit property. You also have the right to bequeath property upon your death. The State guarantees to pass no law to abolish these rights.

Article 43 acknowledges that these rights ought to be regulated by the principles of social justice. This means that the State may pass laws limiting your right to private propety in the interests of the common good. If the state passes a law that restricts your property rights, it may be required to compensate you for this restriction.

Examples of restrictions or limitations on your right to own property include town and regional planning, protection of national monuments, compulsory acquisition of land and property taxes.

You can view the full text of the Irish Constitution (pdf) here.

The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution published a report (pdf format) in 2004 examining the Constitutional articles dealing with private property.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/irish_constitution_1/right_to_own_property.html

oscarBravo

CDfm wrote: »

The consensus seems to be that the candidate for President of Ireland should not have any truck with such wooly notions as protecting the weak(individual) from the strong (state).

Dunno about the consensus, but my view is that the President shouldn't interfere with the work of the courts. If you feel that the President should interfere with the work of the courts, please say so and explain by what mechanism they should do so.

The constitution is like a social contract governing the relationship between the individual and the state.

Every contract, every relationship, involves give and take. The state recognises and enforces private property rights, but curtails those rights in certain cases where it is in the national interest to do so - where the needs of society outweigh the needs of individuals.

If you don't think we should have roads or an electricity grid, again please say so, and explain why (and how) the President should overturn centuries of common law precedent for this one case.

anymore

Otis Quiet Recorder wrote: »

This is a non-issue for the presidency. The woman is in contempt of court under the law of the state.

Presumably those canddates who claim to talk for ' the marginalised' will have commented on it by now ?

After there is enough talk in Ireland of land being ' occupied' abraod.

CDfm

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you don't think we should have roads or an electricity grid, again please say so, and explain why (and how) the President should overturn centuries of common law precedent for this one case.

Actually, one of the few times a putatative president can assert themselves is at election time.

It also is a time citizens should reflect on their rights and contract with the state.

This is not about roads or essential services -but about the little guy and safeguards to protect them and how the president should perform their function..

oscarBravo

CDfm wrote: »

Actually, one of the few times a putatative president can assert themselves is at election time.

That doesn't make any sense. "Vote for me, quick while I'm able to have an opinion. Once in power I'll be constitutionally prohibited from doing anything about the issue I'm raising now."

It also is a time citizens should reflect on their rights and contract with the state.

In other words, you're using the presidential election as a non-sequitur to raise this issue, and it's irrelevant what the candidates' views on the issue are.

This is not about roads or essential services -but about the little guy and safeguards to protect them and how the president should perform their function..

It would be terribly convenient if it was a one-sided issue, yes. It's not. It is about roads and essential services, and preventing the "little guy" from preventing vital infrastructure from being developed.

You've also failed - repeatedly - to explain how the President can "perform their function" in this particular case.

CDfm

Actually, you could have predicted O'Dalaighs response in 1976 from his time as Chief Justice and on the ECJ where he looked at abstract concepts with some verve.

Paddy Hillery's Presidency was defined at the 1971 Ard Fheis when he took on Kevin Boland.

Our current candidates have not really been tested and maybe the have it too easy.

oscarBravo

Considering you started the thread, you're working hard at avoiding discussing the topic.

Manach

Based on a strict originalist reading of the constitution, there is no-scope outside government permission to act on such an issue now. Hence, (assuming the validity of numerous claims that such and such a candidate is worthy of this position due to past such work highlighting similar type causes) now would be the ideal opportunity to raise this issue before being constrained by the post of president.

On the roads and "essential" services aspects, I'd leave it to greener board members argue for the environmental aspects. What I can say is that Japan manages to maintain roads and services without the same level of draconian CPOs. As well, when these powers were initially envisaged (as a historian) the rate of State CPO was not at the same magnitude level as being undertaken now(well back during the boom times.)

Capt'n Midnight

She is in contempt of court.

It's that simple.

I can't seen any candidate touching this with a barge pole.

And anyway there really can't be much legal debate at this stage whatever legal grounds anyone thinks there may be can be undermined by a compulsory purchase.

She gets to keep her property (100 acres) , she gets to keep 95% of the non-native trees planted in non-natural rows which will be harvested at some stage since it's commercial.

CDfm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Considering you started the thread, you're working hard at avoiding discussing the topic.

I started the thread and yes I do expect candidate's to discuss things presidentially concerning the issues of the day. A case that is sub judice might be off limits but the rights themselves are not.

I also expect that they would communicate what they think are good and bad laws and the pro's and cons of different rights etc.

What I do not like is Father Ted style stance which is similar to "that would be an ecunimical matter".

I have learnt very little about our potential president's in the past week that I did not know.