recedite wrote: » You can't strike down a referendum to change the constitution for being unconstitutional. Think about it SC have no choice but to tackle this point of law because it was previously made in the High Court, after which somebody disputed it.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » I mean as in the referendum wouldn't be able to happen due to the fact the unborn had the same rights as a born child.
recedite wrote: » Not really. Its more about whether your parents are legal residents, so being born here does not automatically confer citizenship anyway.
recedite wrote: » You may be over analysing this. The people are sovereign, so they can repeal anything or insert anything in the constitution, via referendum. The only extra thing to watch out for is that we don't contradict EU laws. Also we can't have anything in the constitution that contradicts itself. So if we protect children, and we protect the unborn, and some judge says the unborn are children, there is no inherent contradiction in any of that. The contradiction would only come about if we withdrew human rights from the unborn, but not from children, without specifically stating that that the unborn are no longer to be considered children.
aloyisious wrote: » Ref your first; Yes, re referendums, the people are sovereign,,,,, The catch is the Govt and the opposition decide to let us vote in a referendum worded and given to us by them. The Peoples Assembly findings and the Abortion Committee report were something that caught most of us and the THEM by surprise. Ref your second: Except what the Judge said does NOT equate to something definitely in the constitution. If it was, the AG would not have asked the SC for a ruling on the legal correctness of Judge Humphrey's ruling. Ref your third: Therein lies the rub: where [word for word] is it definitely written in the constitution that the unborn are children? I am assuming you are referring to something you think or assume is inherent to and contained in the constitution to that effect.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » But this case was initiated in relation to a foetus. The concept of 'nationality' or 'citizenship' in relation to a zygote, embryo or foetus is entirely and utterly meaningless. My son was conceived in Spain, that doesn't qualify him as a Spanish citizen nor should it. This case was just another desperate attempt by an illegal immigrant to spray his man batter up an EU resident and as a result somehow hit the permanent residency jackpot. The fact a High Court judge was willing to entertain this is pretty worrying.
aloyisious wrote: » In a referendum we held some years ago, didn't we decide on whom can be recognized as a citizen if born here but; as in the same referendum we decided that if the parent of the person born here was a non-national, that that said parent was [from the referendum result being signed into law] denied citizenship which, up til then, would have been granted to said parent?
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » No. We decided (as many other countries already did) not to grant citizenship to a child on the basis of merely being dropped here and nothing else. We never granted citizenship to parents of Irish citizen children, but leave to remain (which may have led to citizenship later, but it has to be earned and blowing your beans doesn't cut it.)
aloyisious wrote: » Ref your second: Except what the Judge said does NOT equate to something definitely in the constitution. If it was, the AG would not have asked the SC for a ruling on the legal correctness of Judge Humphrey's ruling. Ref your third: Therein lies the rub: where [word for word] is it definitely written in the constitution that the unborn are children? I am assuming you are referring to something you think or assume is inherent to and contained in the constitution to that effect.
recedite wrote: » In answer to both of the above, remember that the Irish constitution is a little bit magical, in that it contains rights which are not actually written into it. These implied or unenumurated rights get "discovered" every now and again by judges. For example the right of a woman to have an abortion in Ireland if she was suicidal or her life was threatened, magically appeared in this way after the x-case judgement. So in this other High court case, Judge Humpreys reasoned that unborn children would have children's rights beyond the simple right to life. Rights that might be written, or unwritten, and applicable to "the child" in general. Now, the unborn are simple creatures, and require little except time, nourishment, and life itself. However, if they could chip in to a deportation debate by helping to prevent their dad from being deported, then surely they would, as that would be in their interests. And as they cannot speak for themselves, then in some way the state must represent their interests, just as it does when there is a threat to their life. I realise that all this will be impossible to comprehend for somebody who denies that the unborn have any rights, or any self-interests, or that the state should stand up for them in any way. But there you go anyway. Those are the general principles involved here.
end of the road wrote: » i completely agree with the restriction on irish immigrants abroad voting in irish affairs. it's perfectly fair that people who don't live in the country should have no say in it's running. the people in that article whining because they can't vote and demanding that they should be able to vote get on my wick, they need to except they made their choice and they don't get a say in this country any more. they strike me as self-entitled tbh. hopefully the relevant authorities will get to grips and insure only those who are able to vote can vote. also those living abroad should but out of this referendum altogether, no interfering and trying to get people to vote a certain way whether it be for or against repeal, or any other type of interference.
recedite wrote: » For example the right of a woman to have an abortion in Ireland if she was suicidal or her life was threatened, magically appeared in this way after the x-case judgement.
Cabaal wrote: » Great, so we're agreed the Vatican should also shut its fat gob and not send any instructions to the catholic church in Ireland. I can't help but feel you'd be grand with people coming home to vote if that would swing the vote in favour of the no side. Instead you claim its awful based on a fear of a repeat of 2015.
end of the road wrote: » in relation to this issue, whether the irish living abroad are pro-life or pro-choice is of no concern to me. if you leave the country and move abroad, but out until you return permanently. people living abroad shouldn't return to campaign either. stay away and let those of us who actually live here on a permanent basis do the campaigning and voting. and yes the Vatican should not interfere.
smacl wrote: » So by that logic are you in favour of anyone who is not Irish but temporarily in the country at the time of an election be given a vote?
end of the road wrote: » by what logic. my post was very clear. and of course anyone who is not Irish but temporarily in the country at the time of an election should not get a vote. i thought that would have been obvious but i guess not.
aloyisious wrote: » I know this is an aside to the abortion debate but you got me interested in who can, or can't, vote here. I got this data-link from Wikipedia....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_European_Union Citizenship of the European Union (EU) is afforded to qualifying citizens of European Union member states. It was introduced by the 1992 Maastricht Treaty and has been in force since 1993. European Union citizenship is additional to national citizenship.[2] EU citizenship affords rights, freedoms and legal protections to all of its citizens. European Union citizens have the right to free movement, settlement and employment across the EU. EU citizens are also free to trade and transport goods, services and capital through EU borders, as in national market, with no restrictions on capital movements or duty-fees. [3] Citizens also have the right to vote in and run as a candidate in local elections in the country where they live, European elections and European Citizens' Initiative......... I know people can access and imput data onto Wikipedia which can be misleading until the site Mods or other people with true knowledge can correct errors but reckon the above is correct.
end of the road wrote: » people living abroad shouldn't return to campaign either. stay away and let those of us who actually live here on a permanent basis do the campaigning and voting.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Let me see you try and stop me. You could not stop me in 2015, you can not stop me now. I did a lot of campaigning in 2015, and even travelled over with a few buses of people from the UK who were, despite their new living location, still eligible to vote in Ireland for one reason or another. I will be doing the same this time. And there is not a single little thing you can do about it. Though you are absolutely entirely invited to try.
Peregrinus wrote: » (This is not you personally, Nozz; this is the generic "you". I am not saying that you, Nozz, are not entitled to be registered.)
Peregrinus wrote: » And you do commit an offence in voting when you are not entitled to be on the register. But you can vote, and your vote counts.
recedite wrote: » Thats a bit like saying you do commit an offence if you rob a snickers bar from a newsagent, but you can do it, and it does satisfy hunger; the calories thus obtained are real.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » And, frankly, there is not a damn thing EOTR can do to stop any of that. But as I said, I openly invite him/her to try.
