Could the Irish Military suspend the constitution? (Egypt)

Dubwat

I'm not a lawyer but I'm watching what's happening in Egypt on TV. The Egyptian military seem to have suspended their constitution and are moving to impose their own leaders/Government.

I guess I have three questions:
1. Most countries are supposed to be governed by the rule of law but, surely, 'suspending' the constitution is a polite way of ignoring the law? Is there a legal way of suspending our (or any) constitution?

2. Is there any mechanism for the Irish Military to suspend the Irish constitution?

3. I am absolutely NOT suggesting anything but I believe a new Chief of Staff got appointed today. What if he went mad and started getting ideas... (again I'm not implying anything - just curious).

Pro Hoc Vice

Dubwat wrote: »

I'm not a lawyer but I'm watching what's happening in Egypt on TV. The Egyptian military seem to have suspended their constitution and are moving to impose their own leaders/Government.

I guess I have three questions:
1. Most countries are supposed to be governed by the rule of law but, surely, 'suspending' the constitution is a polite way of ignoring the law? Is there a legal way of suspending our (or any) constitution?

2. Is there any mechanism for the Irish Military to suspend the Irish constitution?

3. I am absolutely NOT suggesting anything but I believe a new Chief of Staff got appointed today. What if he went mad and started getting ideas... (again I'm not implying anything - just curious).

The constitution and the rule if law only have power as long as the people can protect the constitution. If I seize power and say this is the new law and these are the new judges and this is the way as long as I am powerful enough then that's it.

In my belief the single biggest attack on our rights is underway, the giving if the Dail sole power to legislate the giving the Dail sole power to remove judges the giving to the Dail the power to make findings of guilt against citizens without resource to courts and when I say Dail I really mean 3 people those people who control the Government which in turn controls the Dail. BTW I'm not in to tin foil hat stuff and I don't for one moment believe that any person is doing this for gain now but who is to say what will happen in 20 or 50 years when some nut job gets into power and there are no safe guards.

Manach

Offhand there used to be clauses within the original constitution to allow the State to go to state very close to martial law. Then it is just a short step to the actual thing. However, since the Curragh incident Irish Officers have been completely apolitical in this regard so the chances of this happening are very remote.

Pat Mustard

Dubwat wrote: »

I'm not a lawyer but I'm watching what's happening in Egypt on TV. The Egyptian military seem to have suspended their constitution and are moving to impose their own leaders/Government.

I guess I have three questions:
1. Most countries are supposed to be governed by the rule of law but, surely, 'suspending' the constitution is a polite way of ignoring the law? Is there a legal way of suspending our (or any) constitution?

2. Is there any mechanism for the Irish Military to suspend the Irish constitution?

3. I am absolutely NOT suggesting anything but I believe a new Chief of Staff got appointed today. What if he went mad and started getting ideas... (again I'm not implying anything - just curious).

Bit rusty on Constitutional, but I'll give it a shot.

1. Under Article 28.3 of the Constitution, in times of war or armed rebellion, the Oireachtas may declare a state of emergency which will limit how the Constitution will operate. During such state of emergency, nothing in the Constitution can invalidate any law which is passed for public safety or preservation of the State (apart from A.15.5.2 - prohibition of laws imposing the death penalty).

2. I suppose that during a state of emergency as outlined above, the Oireachtas could pass an Act imposing martial law, passing powers to the Defence Forces. I can't see the wisdom in that measure though.

There is no legal or Constitutional mechanism for the Defence Forces to suspend the Constitution, as matters stand. However, legal niceties may not be sufficient deterrent to people who are determined enough to stage a coup d'état.

3. This question might be better answered in the military forum, but I suspect that a rogue Chief of Staff would have a short lived term of office. I don't know a lot about military procedure, but I assume that if he started subversive activity, his immediate subordinates would have him quickly arrested and detained pending appearance before a court-martial.

Dubwat

Edit: @ infosys

What's the Egyptian word for 'comma'?

If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying there's 3 elected TD's in control. We can vote them out in the next election. That's democracy, I guess.

But what if the Military just said we're in charge now? Can they do that?

Sulla Felix

Manach wrote: »

Offhand there used to be clauses within the original constitution to allow the State to go to state very close to martial law. Then it is just a short step to the actual thing. However, since the Curragh incident Irish Officers have been completely apolitical in this regard so the chances of this happening are very remote.

never heard of anything about this, any directions for further reading?

LowKeyReturn

Well if they did here what they did in Egypt Susan Denham would be running things and I'd feel a lot happier to be honest.

Pro Hoc Vice

Dubwat wrote: »

Edit: @ infosys

What's the Egyptian word for 'comma'?

If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying there's 3 elected TD's in control. We can vote them out in the next election. That's democracy, I guess.

But what if the Military just said we're in charge now? Can they do that?

I'm on iPhone sorry for punctuation.,...

The point is that the government (the cabinet) can be ruled by one person according to political gossip it is run by 3 members. The changes proposed to the constitution could allow a small group of people to controll the Dail. Yes we can vote them out but we are supposing they have not passed a law empowering all sitting TD's for life.

Yes of course the military can say we are in charge it's called a coup, it happened in Greece not so long ago I assume they just took the rule of law or constitution and either suspended it or ignored it. As I said the constitution or rule of law is only as powerful as its people.

"In a further effort to consolidate its power, the regime, after a perfunctory attempt at public consultation, organised a referendum in September 1968 on a new constitution to replace that of 1952. Given the regime's control over the media and the fact that martial law was still in force it is not surprising that there was a 92 per cent vote in favour (4,638,543 for, 391,923 against). The constitution was a highly authoritarian document, which sought to give the military a permanent voice in the government of the country."

From http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/coup_in_athens.html

LowKeyReturn

Sulla Felix wrote: »

never heard of anything about this, any directions for further reading?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1922/en/act/pub/0001/sched1.html

Pro Hoc Vice

Sulla Felix wrote: »

never heard of anything about this, any directions for further reading?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1922/en/act/pub/0001/sched1.html

28064212

infosys wrote: »

Yes we can vote them out but we are supposing they have not passed a law empowering all sitting TD's for life.

They can't pass such a law, it would be against the constitution.

Bluegrass1

Manach wrote: »

Offhand there used to be clauses within the original constitution to allow the State to go to state very close to martial law. Then it is just a short step to the actual thing. However, since the Curragh incident Irish Officers have been completely apolitical in this regard so the chances of this happening are very remote.

The Curragh incident involved British officers. The nearest thing to a coup was the planned Blueshirts march in Dublin in 1933 which was banned.
Recent changes in the defence forces have increased the risk of a coup (admittedly from a low base). All senior officers of the Defence forces are based South of a line between Dublin and Cork. There are now only two brigades so command of most troops is in the hands of only two officers. It would be a simple matter to surround leinster house and the TV stations and take the Government ministers and members of the Oireachtas prisoner and announce a coup. There would be nobody in a position to do anything much about it.

Pro Hoc Vice

28064212 wrote: »

They can't pass such a law, it would be against the constitution.

BTW we are talking about a coup so the constitution we assume will be ignored. Again you assuming that persons who want to take over power won't get around the constitution. See how the Greek military validly enacted a new constitution in 1968. By removing the second house, by allowing trial by a one chamber house by removing judges then power can be taken from the people.

28064212

infosys wrote: »

Again you assuming that persons who want to take over power won't get around the constitution. See how the Greek military validly enacted a new constitution in 1968. By removing the second house, by allowing trial by a one chamber house by removing judges then power can be taken from the people.

Obviously in the case of a military coup, the constitution is irrelevant. But a legitimate government are not able to and never will be able to pass a law making the current TDs life-long positions. At least not without a majority of the people voting for such a change to the constitution

Pro Hoc Vice

28064212 wrote: »

Obviously in the case of a military coup, the constitution is irrelevant. But a legitimate government are not able to and never will be able to pass a law making the current TDs life-long positions. At least not without a majority of the people voting for such a change to the constitution

My point is that the slow removal of the constitutional safe guards could lead to that. The referendum on judges pay (compliment judiciary the third arm of government) the removal of the Seanad so allowing one house or in reality the cabinet to make decisions, allowing the Dail to act as a court of inquiry with out any recourse to the courts. Over the past number of years the removal of automatic appeal to the SC in many areas of law.

Only last year the Government was caught using tax money to promote an outcome in a referendum. I'm not saying it will happen but the constitution has been weakened over the past numer of years.

amen

but I suspect that a rogue Chief of Staff would have a short lived term of office. I don't know a lot about military procedure, but I assume that if he started subversive activity, his immediate subordinates would have him quickly arrested and detained pending appearance before a court-martial.

Planned exercise to gauge defence forces reaction to an invasion or terrorist attack. Troops to Guard Key installations (Dail, Airports, Media etc).

Suddenly Military in control!

If you have a party that was in control of both houses and there was a war somewhere in the world then could the party not use 28.3.3 to basically declare an emergency and abolish the constitution ?

Manach

Sulla Felix wrote: »

never heard of anything about this, any directions for further reading?

There was a mention of this in Forde's constitutional law, where he quotes various powers the state might invoke - including Art. 28.3.3 : to do with securing Public safety.
"° Nothing in this Constitution other than Article
15.5.2° shall be invoked to invalidate any law
enacted by the Oireachtas which is expressed to be
for the purpose of securing the public safety and
the preservation of the State in time of war or
armed rebellion, or to nullify any act done or
purporting to be done in time of war or armed
rebellion in pursuance of any such law"
Again I think there was other stricter provisions in the original 1937, but they were effectively sunset.

As for the Curragh incident- this was the one I meant : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Mutiny

Pro Hoc Vice

amen wrote: »

Planned exercise to gauge defence forces reaction to an invasion or terrorist attack. Troops to Guard Key installations (Dail, Airports, Media etc).

Suddenly Military in control!

If you have a party that was in control of both houses and there was a war somewhere in the world then could the party not use 28.3.3 to basically declare an emergency and abolish the constitution ?

That's why WWII was called the emergency here. Under the current constitution we have had special non jury court original in response to the troubles not in response to organised crime, not a pip out of the people and same has been held to be constitutional.

Cedrus

Manach wrote: »

However, since the Curragh incident Irish Officers have been completely apolitical in this regard so the chances of this happening are very remote.

Bluegrass1 wrote: »

The Curragh incident involved British officers. The nearest thing to a coup was the planned Blueshirts march in Dublin in 1933 which was banned.
.

I think the first reference here should read Army Mutiny of 1924.

Realistically, most countries which have undergone Coups have had much larger standing armies per capita, the Irish Military would have to be seizing the radio stations to launch a recruitment drive rather than to control the news.

28064212

infosys wrote: »

allowing the Dail to act as a court of inquiry with out any recourse to the courts.

You realise this didn't actually pass? Neither has the Senate referendum yet. And there are many reasons for the Senate to be removed (I'm not necessarily saying it's the right thing, only that there are other reasons than future dictatorship)

And lastly, you can not jump from relatively minor tweaks to the constitution, to "TDs for life"

Pat Mustard

Cedrus wrote: »

I think the first reference here should read Army Mutiny of 1924.

Realistically, most countries which have undergone Coups have had much larger standing armies per capita, the IDF would have to be seizing the radio stations to launch a recruitment drive rather than to control the news.

You mean the PDF. The IDF are the Israelis.

Bluegrass1

Manach wrote: »

There was a mention of this in Forde's constitutional law, where he quotes various powers the state might invoke - including Art. 28.3.3 : to do with securing Public safety.
"° Nothing in this Constitution other than Article
15.5.2° shall be invoked to invalidate any law
enacted by the Oireachtas which is expressed to be
for the purpose of securing the public safety and
the preservation of the State in time of war or
armed rebellion, or to nullify any act done or
purporting to be done in time of war or armed
rebellion in pursuance of any such law"
Again I think there was other stricter provisions in the original 1937, but they were effectively sunset.

As for the Curragh incident- this was the one I meant : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Mutiny

That had nothing to do with the Curragh.

The Curragh incident was 10 years before that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curragh_mutiny.

Pro Hoc Vice

28064212 wrote: »

You realise this didn't actually pass? Neither has the Senate referendum yet. And there are many reasons for the Senate to be removed (I'm not necessarily saying it's the right thing, only that there are other reasons than future dictatorship)

And lastly, you can not jump from relatively minor tweaks to the constitution, to "TDs for life"

Yes it did not pass but hark there is talk after the Anglo tapes to run it again, and this time it might pass. I agree the Seanad is in many ways a lame duck house but we should be asking for it to be given real power not scrapped. I'm not saying and I have been clear there may never be a future dictatorship but a weakened constitution/rule of law could make a political coup easier of course weak or strong the constitution can not stop military force internal or external taking power.

I do not consider the tweaks to be minor I believe that serious damage has been done to the institutions of Goverenment I do not think the judges pay referendum was a minor tweak nor do I think any rerunning of Dail Court to be a minor tweak to be clear I agree with similar committee hearings as in America as long as a person has recourse to the courts to vindicate rights.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/anglo/coalition-wont-rule-out-rerun-of-oireachtas-inquiries-vote-29384914.html don't be surprised if the banking inquiry hits a wall and the refrain of I told you so rises up from the Dail, if only we had the power to stop these bankers wasting tax payers money running off to the courts.

BTW we have a habit in this country of "doing the right thing" on the second referundum.

Pat Mustard

amen wrote: »

Planned exercise to gauge defence forces reaction to an invasion or terrorist attack. Troops to Guard Key installations (Dail, Airports, Media etc).

Suddenly Military in control!

While I accept that the Defence Forces could stage a coup, I think that it is most unlikely that a single rogue Chief of Staff could carry it off. That was the question which was asked.

amen wrote: »

If you have a party that was in control of both houses and there was a war somewhere in the world then could the party not use 28.3.3 to basically declare an emergency and abolish the constitution ?

If the Defence Forces took power by some putsch, they could host the coronation of King Joffrey if they wanted.

Pro Hoc Vice

The Mustard wrote: »

While I accept that the Defence Forces could stage a coup, I think that it is most unlikely that a single rogue Chief of Staff could carry it off. That was the question which was asked.


If the Defence Forces took power by some putsch, they could host the coronation of King Joffrey if they wanted.

Well he is from a distinguished irish legal and banking family, more legal than banking though.

amen

Quote:
Originally Posted by amen
If you have a party that was in control of both houses and there was a war somewhere in the world then could the party not use 28.3.3 to basically declare an emergency and abolish the constitution ?
If the Defence Forces took power by some putsch, they could host the coronation of King Joffrey if they wanted.

I know that in a Coup the army is in control and can do what they want.

What I meant was if a party was legal elected into power could then they then use 28.3.3 to declare an emergency (if a war anywhere in world) ala Hitler and the Nazi party in Germany ?

touts

Could the militaty suspend the constitution. Well enough men with enough guns and enough motivation can always overthrow the government and impose their will.

BUT the Irish army had neither enough men nor enough guns nor enough motivation.

Even if some General got lucky and somehow managed to pull it off (probably because we were in a situation of national strikes and unrest and protests and he managed to get a couple of hundred lads riled up enough to get into trucks and head up to government buildings where there was no one to stop him because the guards were either on strike or couldn't be arsed dying for those tossers inside) how long do you think it would be before the EU stepped in with a threatening letter that made him **** himself and release the ministers?

And as to the discussion on the constitutionality of such an action. Well without reading the constitution I'd hazard a guess it's always going to be illegal. I doubt any constitution in the world contains a clause that says it's OK for enough men with enough guns and enough motivation to seize power. That's just the sort of thing politicians and lawyers DONT put into a constitution

Manach

Offhand on Touts point, there was a similar type clause in the Weimar Constitution which allowed draconian action in the even of a national emergency. 1933.
Also, from a reading of a Law Gazette article from last year the 1937 Irish constitution drew strongly from the Weimar's.

Pat Mustard

amen wrote: »

What I meant was if a party was legal elected into power could then they then use 28.3.3 to declare an emergency (if a war anywhere in world) ala Hitler and the Nazi party in Germany ?

Link.

28.3.3° Nothing in this Constitution other than Article 15.5.2° shall be invoked to invalidate any law enacted by the Oireachtas which is expressed to be for the purpose of securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war or armed rebellion, or to nullify any act done or purporting to be done in time of war or armed rebellion in pursuance of any such law. In this sub-section "time of war" includes a time when there is taking place an armed conflict in which the State is not a participant but in respect of which each of the Houses of the Oireachtas shall have resolved that, arising out of such armed conflict, a national emergency exists affecting the vital interests of the State and "time of war or armed rebel-lion" includes such time after the termination of any war, or of any such armed conflict as aforesaid, or of an armed rebellion, as may elapse until each of the Houses of the Oireachtas shall have resolved that the national emergency occasioned by such war, armed conflict, or armed rebellion has ceased to exist.

Unless the resolution of a state of emergency arises out of a conflict affecting the vital interests of the State, it would be unconstitutional.

So if the Oireachtas resolved that there was a state of emergency solely arising out of the Syrian Civil War (as matters stand), then I doubt that it would be legal.

The armed conflict would have to affect the vital interests of the State.

Zillah

The entire concept of a coup is that military power supersedes law. There don't need to be any mechanisms by which they can depose a leader or suspend a constitution, they simply take control and say "This is how it is now and no one has the power to stop us, so there". That's what a coup is. What's happening in Egypt is completely illegal, but the military have the power and the support of the people so legality becomes somewhat academic.

Pat Mustard

Zillah wrote: »

The entire concept of a coup is that military power supersedes law. There don't need to be any mechanisms by which they can depose a leader or suspend a constitution, they simply take control and say "This is how it is now and no one has the power to stop us, so there". That's what a coup is. What's happening in Egypt is completely illegal, but the military have the power and the support of the people so legality becomes somewhat academic.

This was pointed out by infosys in the second post of the thread, and is not disputed.

Zillah

The Mustard wrote: »

This was pointed out by infosys in the second post of the thread, and is not disputed.

Sorry for elaborating. You keeping a list of what we're allowed mention and what you feel has been sufficiently discussed then, yeah? We'd waste the whole day chatting away about stuff if it wasn't for you.

Pat Mustard

Zillah wrote: »

You keeping a list of what we're allowed mention and what you feel has been sufficiently discussed then, yeah?

Here is a clue: read the posts in the thread and try to keep up.

infosys wrote: »

The constitution and the rule if law only have power as long as the people can protect the constitution. If I seize power and say this is the new law and these are the new judges and this is the way as long as I am powerful enough then that's it.

infosys wrote: »

Yes of course the military can say we are in charge it's called a coup, it happened in Greece not so long ago I assume they just took the rule of law or constitution and either suspended it or ignored it. As I said the constitution or rule of law is only as powerful as its people.

"In a further effort to consolidate its power, the regime, after a perfunctory attempt at public consultation, organised a referendum in September 1968 on a new constitution to replace that of 1952. Given the regime's control over the media and the fact that martial law was still in force it is not surprising that there was a 92 per cent vote in favour (4,638,543 for, 391,923 against). The constitution was a highly authoritarian document, which sought to give the military a permanent voice in the government of the country."

From http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/coup_in_athens.html

Bluegrass1 wrote: »

It would be a simple matter to surround leinster house and the TV stations and take the Government ministers and members of the Oireachtas prisoner and announce a coup. There would be nobody in a position to do anything much about it.

28064212 wrote: »

Obviously in the case of a military coup, the constitution is irrelevant. But a legitimate government are not able to and never will be able to pass a law making the current TDs life-long positions. At least not without a majority of the people voting for such a change to the constitution

The Mustard wrote: »

If the Defence Forces took power by some putsch, they could host the coronation of King Joffrey if they wanted.

touts wrote: »

Could the militaty suspend the constitution. Well enough men with enough guns and enough motivation can always overthrow the government and impose their will.

Zillah wrote: »

Sorry for elaborating.

There was no elaboration on your part. But apology accepted anyway.

Cody Pomeray

The only way you could effectively have the military running the country within the parameters of Bunreacht would be if a political wing of the Army were to come to power under the legitimate electoral process. This party would theoretically be controlled by the defence forces themselves, and would persuade the Government to declare an Emergency by staging some petty armed conflict, or by citing an international conflict that somehow affects national interests.

The Army could then be allowed to interfere with fundamental rights of citizens persuant to Article 40.4.5.

Special courts could also be established to impose emergency justice under the new regime, persuant to Article 33.3.1.

A lot of people are aware of the Emergency powers provision of our Constitution, but I'm not sure many people realize the extent to which the 'Special Courts' provision is open to political abuse. As you may know, this is the provision which allowed the state to establish the Special Criminal Court.

Some people believe, and I agree, that the special criminal court is a constitutional crisis waiting to happen.

Manach

On the plus side, a military coup might be solution to other issues:
- link to the humourous site The Onion.

Grolschevik

Read all about it...








Ooh, that's big! Howd'ya resize again?

Victor

Bluegrass1 wrote: »

The Curragh incident involved British officers.

If I'm correct, there was another incident with Irish officers. Most of them being based in the Curragh.

Bluegrass1 wrote: »

Recent changes in the defence forces have increased the risk of a coup (admittedly from a low base). All senior officers of the Defence forces are based South of a line between Dublin and Cork.

So what?

There are now only two brigades so command of most troops is in the hands of only two officers.

Strictly speaking, command has always been with a single chief of staff. the willingness of individual soldiers to obey orders ina coup situation is another matter. Popular armies rarely support unpopular coups.

There would be nobody in a position to do anything much about it.

Well, except the rest of the country.

amen wrote: »

What I meant was if a party was legal elected into power could then they then use 28.3.3 to declare an emergency (if a war anywhere in world) ala Hitler and the Nazi party in Germany ?

Potentially. In could be argued in court that it was contrived and there would actually need to be an armed conflict (can be arranged if needed ).

The problem of course, is getting a Dáil majority to declare such a situation exists. One man can declare war willy-nilly, two will, three .. even 10, but will 84?

The Mustard wrote: »

3. This question might be better answered in the military forum, but I suspect that a rogue Chief of Staff would have a short lived term of office. I don't know a lot about military procedure, but I assume that if he started subversive activity, his immediate subordinates would have him quickly arrested and detained pending appearance before a court-martial.

Most coups are done either by juntas or by mid-ranking officers with the connivance of senior officers.

The Mustard wrote: »

So if the Oireachtas resolved that there was a state of emergency solely arising out of the Syrian Civil War (as matters stand), then I doubt that it would be legal.

They could of course, just declare war on Syria.

Bluegrass1

Victor wrote: »

If I'm correct, there was another incident with Irish officers. Most of them being based in the Curragh.

Link please.

Victor wrote: »

Strictly speaking, command has always been with a single chief of staff. the willingness of individual soldiers to obey orders ina coup situation is another matter. Popular armies rarely support unpopular coups.

There has been one chief of staff but he has not had full operational control. The army has in fact being run by quadrumvirate at Army HQ.COS (Chief of Staff, 2 by DCOS and an ACS. In addition there has always been at least three territorial commands to which most troops are attached and controlled by their Command O/Cs. The key to preventing a coup is dispersal of power away from one individual and keeping the individuals with power apart. having a situation where two individuals could combine and take over the country is not sensible.

Victor

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The only way you could effectively have the military running the country within the parameters of Bunreacht would be if a political wing of the Army were to come to power under the legitimate electoral process. This party would theoretically be controlled by the defence forces themselves, and would persuade the Government to declare an Emergency by staging some petty armed conflict, or by citing an international conflict that somehow affects national interests.

Members of the PDF aren't allow be politicians. RSF members are allowed be councillors, but that may change under the current reorganisation.

A lot of people are aware of the Emergency powers provision of our Constitution, but I'm not sure many people realize the extent to which the 'Special Courts' provision is open to political abuse. As you may know, this is the provision which allowed the state to establish the Special Criminal Court.

Some people believe, and I agree, that the special criminal court is a constitutional crisis waiting to happen.

Would you like to expand on this?

Some court to deal with subversives and organised criminals is necessary and justifiable.

BornToKill

infosys wrote: »

...the removal of the Seanad so allowing one house or in reality the cabinet to make decisions

But that is already reality. The winners of a general election get to appoint sufficient members of the Seanad as to ensure they have a majority in that House. Combined with the whip system, this means that the Seanad plays no effective role as a counter-point to the Dáil which in turn is controlled by the Cabinet.

Bluegrass1

BornToKill wrote: »

But that is already reality. The winners of a general election get to appoint sufficient members of the Seanad as to ensure they have a majority in that House. Combined with the whip system, this means that the Seanad plays no effective role as a counter-point to the Dáil which in turn is controlled by the Cabinet.

Quite a lot of legislation is amended as a result of amendments tabled in the Seanad. The members of the Seanad are less involved in constituency clinics and can put more effort into scrutinising legislation. The diversity of backgrounds in the Seanad often means there is more expertise in some areas than there is in the Dail.

amen

The problem of course, is getting a Dáil majority to declare such a situation exists. One man can declare war willy-nilly, two will, three .. even 10, but will 84?

I has a quick read of the constitution and I couldn't see where majority is defined i.e. majority of elected TDs or majority of TDs present in the Dail at the time of the vote?

Pro Hoc Vice

amen wrote: »

I has a quick read of the constitution and I couldn't see where majority is defined i.e. majority of elected TDs or majority of TDs present in the Dail at the time of the vote?

Interesting!

Bluegrass1

amen wrote: »

I has a quick read of the constitution and I couldn't see where majority is defined i.e. majority of elected TDs or majority of TDs present in the Dail at the time of the vote?

It is invariably a majority of those present and voting. Those not voting are assumed to be absenting themselves deliberately.

Pat Mustard

amen wrote: »

I has a quick read of the constitution and I couldn't see where majority is defined i.e. majority of elected TDs or majority of TDs present in the Dail at the time of the vote?

Members present.

Article 15.11.1° All questions in each House shall, save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting other than the Chairman or presiding member.

Cody Pomeray

Victor wrote: »

Members of the PDF aren't allow be politicians.

I don't suggest otherwise. My hypothesis is not reliant upon a political party made up of army men and officers, rather of a political party that is associated with army interests, e.g. retired army men and officers, or simply those of a militaristic/militant inclination, which would be effectively influenced by the defence forces.

Would you like to expand on this?

Some court to deal with subversives and organised criminals is necessary and justifiable.

Again Victor, I don't suggest otherwise. At this stage, there has been a reasonably well established debate on the constitutional and human and civil rights questions hanging over the Special Criminal Court. This debate relates to the procedures of the SCC, and the procedures that determine eligibility for trial at the SCC, and the fact that the SCC has significantly departed from the objects of its formation, no longer trying only those prosecutions of a subversive, paramilitary nature.

Rather than my expanding on this, I should relate the opinions of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations in Joseph Kavanagh v. Ireland.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/819-1998.html

...Parliament through legislation set out specific serious offences that were to come within the Special Criminal Court's jurisdiction in the DPP's unfettered discretion ("thinks proper"), and goes on to allow, as in the author's case, any other offences also to be so tried if the DPP considers the ordinary courts inadequate.

No reasons are required to be given for the decisions that the Special Criminal Court would be "proper", or that the ordinary courts are "inadequate", and no reasons for the decision in the particular case have been provided to the Committee.

Moreover, judicial review of the DPP's decisions is effectively restricted to the most exceptional and virtually undemonstrable circumstances.

The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 26 of the Covenant... [Ireland] should ensure that persons are not tried before the Special Criminal Court unless reasonable and objective criteria for the decision are provided.

The fact is that the procedures of the SCC have not changed, and the scope of the SCC has widened to include what appear to have been some reasonably petty crimes down the years suggests - I suggest - that the SCC has a vary large anvil teetering dangerously over its head. Despite the previous affirmations of the procedures of the SCC by the Irish High Court and the Supreme Court, I would not be surprised if there were a legal challenge taken to Europe. I suggest that Ireland is eventually going to wake up to a constitutional crisis with regard to the ongoing, apparently open ended continuation of this court and its dubious procedures.

Owryan

A couple of points to make, DF personnel are not allowed be members of a political party and are supposed to be apolitical. As for supporting a coup, ,my memory is a bit hazy but the oath soldiers takes mentions "obeying all lawful orders" and the authority of the legal government of the state , (my words).

These would prohibit any illegal actions by the DF, or are at least designed to. Also there are other mechanisms in place to maimtain a lawful military presence

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Victor

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

unless reasonable and objective criteria for the decision are provided.

Membership of a subversive organisation or an organised crime gang would seem to cover it.

Cody Pomeray

Victor wrote: »

Membership of a subversive organisation or an organised crime gang would seem to cover it.

It doesn't. That is not a requirement. The minimum requirement is that the DPP forms an opinion that the ordinary courts are inadequate, and as the UN Human Rights Committee pointed out, there is practically no right to judicial review of that decision.

When you have cases like cannabis offenses, and a priest receiving a stolen caravan coming in front of the SCC, nobody should be surprised when people start raising constitutional concerns. It looks like a joke, except it's not funny.

JillyQ

Manach wrote: »

Offhand there used to be clauses within the original constitution to allow the State to go to state very close to martial law. Then it is just a short step to the actual thing. However, since the Curragh incident Irish Officers have been completely apolitical in this regard so the chances of this happening are very remote.

What Curragh Incident?