What kind of abortion legislation ought we expect?

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

"The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen."

If one has a personal right to be adequately represented. Could it be that the referendum pass but the laws deriving from that referendum cannot be invoked?

Anyway. One to watch.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Absolutely agree.

However, If the Government chooses to be steered by the Committees findings and the Committee is found to be an easily identifiable farce, then my right not to be misled by the Government arises.

"Personal rights" aren't defined. It would be for the courts, I imagine, to decide whether e.g. deliberate misleading by the Government was an infringement of my rights

I'm no lawyer so just musing on it. Happy to park it and see what, if anything, comes out in the wash by way of legal challenge.



Did you read the bit regarding the circumstances whereby this "without restriction" applies?

This is just fantasy, unbelievable fantasy,

I am not a lawyer either, you need a Level 8 qualification to call yourself a lawyer, but I have other legal qualifications at a lower level, including one that had a measure of constitutional law. Simply put, a first year law student would fail a law course if tried to put forward a legal argument such as the one you are posing, it just doesn't add up in any way.

How can your individual right to be represented (which isn't specified in the Constitution) trump the right of the 66% who voted to amend the Constitution (a right of theirs which is explicitly enshrined in the Constitution)?

antiskeptic

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, because per the RTE poll, the Yes percentage is bigger than the No percentage.

I'm afraid 52/48 with a margin of error estimated (it turned out to be larger) than 1.6 percent is insufficient a fig leaf.

Remember: if a politician deems proportional representation on the matter advantageous then no matter if it actually was 52/48

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

You would have to find the actual flaw in the argument presented so as to jump to this conclusion.

I'm not saying there aren't flaws. It's just that they need teasing out.


The Government didn't pull the idea of a Citizen's Assembly out of a hat for no reason. If it was acceptable to simply put their proposals forward without reference to anyone then why not do that?

You forget that the Citizen's Assembly came before the debate on the Referendum Bill in the Dail. The Citizen's Assembly made a recommendation, the Dail considered it and subsequently endorsed it, and the people then voted on it and approved.

The Court will rule that as the Oireachtas had every right to amend the Citizen's Assembly proposal and every opportunity to do so, your right to representation was fully respected. Simple as that, case dismissed at first hearing and full costs awarded against the plaintiff for wasting the Court's time.

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm no lawyer

Yes, we can tell.

To be quite clear - the Government could decide on what to put into a Referendum bill by consulting the ghost of Leo's childhood family pet dog with a Ouija board if they want. It is completely up to them, and there is no law that says you, I, the CA or anyone else has any say, input or right to representation on the matter.

The representation bit comes when that Bill is put in front of the Oireachteas. Some knuckle-draggers even represented you there and voted against having a referendum on the topic, but not enough, you lost.

And then you comprehensively lost the referendum, too.

So far you have come up with no grounds to challenge that result, just a bunch of makey-up law talking nonsense.

antiskeptic

blanch152 wrote: »

How can your individual right to be represented (which isn't specified in the Constitution)

Does a personal right have to be defined in the constitution in order to be a personal right. Can it be that the intent of the constitution re: personal rights clarifies those rights subsequent to the Constitution?

trump the right of the 66% who voted to amend the Constitution (a right of theirs which is explicitly enshrined in the Constitution)?

If my rights to be adequately represented were infringed upon by government deceit (let's say) then so were everybody's.

Which way they voted being impacted by the misrepresentation.

I mean, I would have voted YES had the Government legislated for hard cases only. By misrepresenting the view of the people (via the CA) and basing their proposals on that misrepresentation, the goverment caused me to vote No instead of Yes.

Similar story with YES voters if it were found they'd been sold a pup that this is the only way to achieve legislation for hard cases aided and abetted by the CA report.

Put it this way: if the Government is found to be manipulating things. If they are found to be leading the electorate down the garden path through use of a puppet (the CA) is there any recourse to personal rights not being vindicated. Have I a right not to be lied to by my Government, for instance?

antiskeptic

blanch152 wrote: »

You forget that the Citizen's Assembly came before the debate on the Referendum Bill in the Dail. The Citizen's Assembly made a recommendation, the Dail considered it and subsequently endorsed it, and the people then voted on it and approved.

The Court will rule that as the Oireachtas had every right to amend the Citizen's Assembly proposal and every opportunity to do so, your right to representation was fully respected. Simple as that, case dismissed at first hearing and full costs awarded against the plaintiff for wasting the Court's time.

Why did the Government bother with a CA if it didn't have to?

NuMarvel

antiskeptic wrote: »

Does a personal right have to be defined in the constitution in order to be a personal right. Can it be that the intent of the constitution re: personal rights clarifies those rights subsequent to the Constitution?




If my rights to be adequately represented were infringed upon by government deceit (let's say) then so where there's. Which way they voted being impacted by the misrepresentation.

I mean, I would have voted YES had the Government legislated for hard cases only. By misrepresenting the view of the people (via the CA) and basing their proposals on that misrepresentation, the goverment caused me to vote No instead of Yes.

Similar story with YES voters if it were found they'd been sold a pup that this is the only way to achieve legislation for hard cases

I would refer you to the first law of holes:

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

antiskeptic

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, we can tell.

To be quite clear - the Government could decide on what to put into a Referendum bill by consulting the ghost of Leo's childhood family pet dog with a Ouija board if they want. It is completely up to them, and there is no law that says you, I, the CA or anyone else has any say, input or right to representation on the matter.

Understood. The Government didn't need the CA.

But it choose to place the CA in front of their desired intent (supposing my sig arguments are correct for the moment) so as to maks their desired intent with a facade neutrality. Citizens of Oirland: this was decided upon by you, not us.

In an article regarding my right to suppose something unconstitutional and take a case regarding it (the article recognizes that fundamental rights aren't all defined in the Constitution)

The right to fair procedures

The courts, and all other bodies or persons making decisions that affect you, must treat you fairly. There are two essential rules of fair procedure.

•The person making the decision that affects you should not be biased or appear to be biased.

If screwed over by the Government, has the nation entire been treated fairly by a body called the Government in the context of a referendum?

Think class action.

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

Think class action.

Think dead dog seance.

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why did the Government bother with a CA if it didn't have to?

The Government often uses consultancies to prepare recommendations, civil servants to draft proposals, public consultation before preparing legislation etc. All of these, including a Citizen's Assembly, are useful inputs to decisions of the Government and of the Oireachtas, but they are only inputs.

Here is a list of the current public consultations from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform:

https://www.per.gov.ie/en/public-consultations/

And all Departments have these, how else do they get ideas?

You should really drop this nonsense.

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

Understood. The Government didn't need the CA.

But it choose to place the CA in front of their desired intent (supposing my sig arguments are correct for the moment) so as to maks their desired intent with a facade neutrality. Citizens of Oirland: this was decided upon by you, not us.

In an article regarding my right to suppose something unconstitutional and take a case regarding it (the article recognizes that fundamental rights aren't all defined in the Constitution)



If screwed over by the Government, has the nation entire been treated fairly by a body called the Government in the context of a referendum?

Think class action.

Think class action, think stupidity.

Really, study some basic constitutional law which would tell you very quickly that you have no case.

Zubeneschamali

blanch152 wrote: »

Really, study some basic constitutional law which would tell you very quickly that you have no case.

Hey, he's on the fence about whether the case is real or not, he's just askin' questions!

Because it's just askin' questions time!

.......

This post has been deleted.

Chips Lovell

Okey dokey,
The thread has veered well off the original topic of upcoming legislation and has instead descended into bickering, one liners and conspiracy theories. Rather than handing out more cards, I think we'll leave it there.

If you do think the referendum was rigged, this is the appropriate venue for discussing it.

Thank you