nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why bother electing a president

Pretzeluck

Seriously, his power are almost nonexistent. Is it to give a false sense of democracy and keep everyone thinking that their vote does something?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ohnonotgmail

rivegauche wrote: »

By circling I mean actually referring to Court, reviewing their response, querying another point which may not be legal and another until you as the protector of the interests of the citizens of Ireland are satisfied that what is proposed is legal and only then shifting a debt of tens of billion euro on to the shoulders of Irish Citizens by which time the Government with time pressing upon them may actually have done what they should have done which was to burn the bondholders. That is the power that that President had which she chose not to exercise.

the president cannot do that. The president has to accept the decision of the supreme court. Your anger is misdirected.

rivegauche

seamus wrote: »

Any road, she couldn't constantly refer it back and forth. Once the Supreme Court rule it's not unconstitutional, she would have to sign it.

Did she even do that? She didn't.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/mcaleese-signs-controversial-bill-1.869204?mode=amp

seamus

rivegauche wrote: »

Did she even do that? She didn't.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/mcaleese-signs-controversial-bill-1.869204?mode=amp

She didn't need to.

ohnonotgmail

rivegauche wrote: »

Did she even do that? She didn't.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/mcaleese-signs-controversial-bill-1.869204?mode=amp

She was not allowed to. As Seamus said the president cannot refer money bills to the supreme court. Your anger is misdirected as i said already.

rivegauche

Says you!
As I said the letter I got back from her was so speedy that it made me spin.
Teh legality of that bank bill should have taken months to tease out.
Mary Rubber Stamp McAlese.

At least you and I agree that a strong President is important.

ohnonotgmail

rivegauche wrote: »

Says you!
As I said the letter I got back from her was so speedy that it made me spin.
Teh legality of that bank bill should have taken months to tease out.
Mary Rubber Stamp McAlese.

At least you and I agree that a strong President is important.

If you disagree with the universally accepted powers of the president please enlighten as to how we are wrong.

rivegauche

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

She was not allowed to. As Seamus said the president cannot refer money bills to the supreme court. Your anger is misdirected as i said already.

You are telling me that she can't refer it to the supreme court. the article says she could. The article says she didn't have to follow the advice of the Council of State and it was her decision to sign it alone once she had satisfied herself that it was legal. Who could possibly have helped her to satisfy herself that it was legal...Judges in the Supreme Court maybe.

rivegauche

I'm out. I'm annoyed about this. The rubber stamp President was one of the reasons I chose to quit Ireland. She should have delayed signing that bill until she had no option but to do so by which time circumstances would have forced the burning of the bondholders.

ohnonotgmail

rivegauche wrote: »

I'm out. I'm annoyed about this. The rubber stamp President was one of the reasons I chose to quit Ireland. She should have delayed signing that bill until she had no option but to do so by which time circumstances would have forced the burning of the bondholders.

You still haven't told us what you think was unconstitutional about the bill.

Wanderer78

rivegauche wrote:

I'm out. I'm annoyed about this. The rubber stamp President was one of the reasons I chose to quit Ireland. She should have delayed signing that bill until she had no option but to do so by which time circumstances would have forced the burning of the bondholders.

To be fair, burning the bond holders would have probably created a different type of **** storm in which we currently have, but bailing out the banks most certainly hasn't solved our problems, i.e. it was a **** sandwich, with no good solutions, the whole process was truly undemocratic also, sadly it's looking more and more likely that the EU could fall apart from the failures of securing it's most important financial institutions, we simply wait and see.

animaal

For me, and this may only be a reflection of my interests, I think one of the more important hats the president wears is Supreme Commander of the Irish Defence Forces. It's worth having a president for this alone. I don't want the (any!) Taoiseach to have power over the Oireachtas, and also the armed forces. The title of Taoiseach is not directly granted by the people, it's granted by members of the Oireachtas. Who knows what kind of Taoiseach we could have in 10 years time? 20 years time? 50 years time? Some of our politicians don't have great records in the support of illegal armed force in this country. At least the President is directly elected by the citizens.

Regarding Michael D, I do think he has done a good job overall. I dislike some of his politics, particularly his fawning over faraway left-wing leaders with "controversial" histories. I'd prefer the president to represent all Irish citizens, not just those with particular views. But I don't doubt his conviction and good intent.

Wanderer78

animaal wrote:

Regarding Michael D, I do think he has done a good job overall. I dislike some of his politics, particularly his fawning over faraway left-wing leaders with "controversial" histories. I'd prefer the president to represent all Irish citizens, not just those with particular views. But I don't doubt his conviction and good intent.

Kinna hard though to get a single person to represent all views, does such a person even exist on this planet? Those able to vote will get their chance to have their say

rivegauche

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You still haven't told us what you think was unconstitutional about the bill.

You know forcing one unrelated person to pay some strangers debt sounds kind of contrary to natural justice unless you have bought in to Statism at the expense of the individual hook, line and sinker. Seems like something a Judge would have a view on.
I'm busy. Can't reply further at the moment.

aroundthehouse

Like the Lord Mayor of Dublin, the presidency should be an honorary post and the salary confined to expenses

Hector Bellend

If the presidency is unimportant or ineffective why bother?

At the very least the president is a constitutional necessity.

ohnonotgmail

rivegauche wrote: »

You know forcing one unrelated person to pay some strangers debt sounds kind of contrary to natural justice unless you have bought in to Statism at the expense of the individual hook, line and sinker. Seems like something a Judge would have a view on.
I'm busy. Can't reply further at the moment.

But what part of the constitution does that breach?

rivegauche

It didn't further the common good(mention throughout the constitution); it was the socialisation of individuals' losses at the expense of the Citizens of Ireland. I'd have argued that a referendum would have been needed for what was done as suggested in the constitution due to its magnitude.
Instead you had a raft of Irish politicians who had sleep-walked Ireland in to catastrophe looking for an escape plan and under pressure from the ECB, not IMF had decided to let the Irish people make good the losses of the few and present it as being for the common good. It was not for the common good. A supra-national axis forced it in to law with the compliance of the politicians.

Donald Trump

Everyone loves Presidents!!!!!!

Billy86

Today I learned Michael D Higgins is apparently a communist. I guess it is true that you learn something every day, sometimes true and sometimes utter bullsh*t.

Ulysses Gaze

Donald Trump wrote: »

Everyone loves Presidents!!!!!!

Particularly when they are the greatest President in the history of Presidents and the greatest President that God has ever created.

animaal

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Kinna hard though to get a single person to represent all views, does such a person even exist on this planet? Those able to vote will get their chance to have their say

Well, in theory the president is "above politics". Some previous Irish presidents were very unpolitical (in that they kept their political views to themselves) but the more recent trend has been for presidents to "push the envelope".

Yes we can have our say in the ballot box, but it shouldn't be "my" president or "your" president. I'm guessing you'd feel slightly less represented if our president was going around gushing with enthusiasm for Margaret Thatcher or Donald Trump.

Taytoland

Waste of time. Electing someone to a position which has no power is pointless. It should be abolished.

ohnonotgmail

Taytoland wrote: »

Waste of time. Electing someone to a position which has no power is pointless. It should be abolished.

Should probably scrap the stormont assembly so.

El Tarangu

rivegauche wrote: »

You know forcing one unrelated person to pay some strangers debt sounds kind of contrary to natural justice unless you have bought in to Statism at the expense of the individual hook, line and sinker. Seems like something a Judge would have a view on.
I'm busy. Can't reply further at the moment.

Which articles of the constitution do you feel were not abided to in the signing of this bill?

Donald Trump

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Particularly when they are the greatest President in the history of Presidents and the greatest President that God has ever created.

Bigly, motherfuckers, bigly

feargale

Taytoland wrote: »

Waste of time. Electing someone to a position which has no power is pointless. It should be abolished.

Where does that leave the British monarchy, albeit not elected?

You appear to be utterly ignorant of the President's functions.

Loafing Oaf

Hector Bellend wrote: »

If the presidency is unimportant or ineffective why bother?

At the very least the president is a constitutional necessity.

Under our current constitution...

somefeen

aaakev wrote: »

Iv stumbled out of gay bars at 2am, does that make me gay?

Just a little bicurious, that's all.

rivegauche

El Tarangu wrote: »

Which articles of the constitution do you feel were not abided to in the signing of this bill?

The preamble. That is broad enough for a President who only worked in criminal law before their political and media career to direct it to the Courts saying "I honestly don't know if this is for the common good".
What we got was law that got the rent seeking classes off the hook and was in part responsible for national debt skyrocketing from 40bn to 200bn.
I will never forgive her for not directing that to the Courts even if they had thrown it back at her and said "We're not interested". At that stage she could sign it before if it were me I'd have resigned and let another patsy sign it. At least then the public would have known how significant that piece of legislation was.

Loafing Oaf

rivegauche wrote: »

The preamble. That is broad enough for a President who only worked in criminal law before their political and media career to direct it to the Courts saying "I honestly don't know if this is for the common good".

But any president could do that with virtually any bill. It would be a total departure from how our system has worked since the constitution and would provoke a massive political and constitutional crisis.