President Connolly

Yes.

I want her to be kept in a cupboard like an old mop for 7 years.

Michael D.Higgins pushed the limits in a way that was damaging to both the office of president and to the political architecture in this country, as detailed in the constitution.

Its time to repaint those grey lines jet black and for the government to define with absolute clarity what they will and will not tolerate from the president and her staff.

The constitution is not an a-la carte menu. It is not something we get to observe in some respects, and disregard in others. If that was allowed to happen, we would have anarchy and subversion on a far grander scale than the sneak preview we saw last week.

The people are sovereign and the Dáil has primacy. The government is elected by the Dáil and it has full executive control until such time as it loses that support.

By extension, the president must then be deliberately and overtly excluded from all matters of policy, diplomacy and the law.

Michael D.Higgins pushed the limits in a way that was damaging to both the office of president and to the political architecture in this country, as detailed in the constitution.

This is not true and you cannot show anything to prove it, he did 'damage' the ego of the FF FG nexus, but did none to the constitution.

I would agree with you Michael D. particularly lost the run of himself towards the end of his second term.

This should read 'Michael D particularly got up the noses of those who think only their opinion is important.' He did nothing more than offer his opinion on world and local events.

You were calling her referring it to the COS as performative politics the other day!

What do you want her to do then sign it even though you yourself have problems with it?

So despite you thinking parts of it are unconstitutional that she shouldn't seek legal advice and just sign it anyway and worry about it later?

Then why not seek the opinion of the Council of State which contains the Chief Justice, President of the High Court, President of the Court of Appeals and the Attorney General?

You and the poster are a perfect example of the reason the swapping of power between FF and FG and now their power share has been a bad thing.

You cannot stomach their authority being challenged by certain quarters and can't stomach them in positions of power or influence, even if they are only doing their duty as allowed by the office they occupy.

Actually, no. Only half of Bills which led to a convention of the Council of State have been referred to the Supreme Court.

If it's referred to the Supreme Court, and the SC upholds it, then there can never again be a challenge to that Bill when it is signed into Law.

However, if she doesn't refer the Bill and signs it into Law, then the application of the Act can raise consitutional questions which weren't considered before can be raised before the Supreme Court and subsequently lead to the Act being struck down.

I swear most of the people giving out about Connolly in this thread don't actually know how the Office works, and they just make up fantasies in their own head in every effort to make her look incompetent.

She's stacked her Council of State with constitutional law experts. This says to be that she's going to be very active in the way President Robinson was. Great to see.

What this also exposes is the right-wing headbangers don't actually know what they want with regards to immigration either.

They criticised and abused Helen McEntee for opting into the EU Migration and Asylum Pact in the first place, and now they're having a go at Catherine Connolly for calling a Council of State meeting to assess the constitutionality of the legislation to enact something the head-the-balls claim to despise so much.

You couldn't make it up.

If the new bill has to be operational by 12 June to comply with EU law, what happens if the COS find against it? (Apologies if incorrect terminology - hope the gist is clear).

Thanks for replying. I don’t understand how this works so please excuse the dumb questions and layman’s language 🙏

So if the COS find against it, Pres C can sign it anyway but if she didn’t do that, it would have to go further to the SC for a ruling in order to either progress or stall. If the SC okays it, then it’s enacted. If the SC agrees with the COS, does JO’C go back to the drawing board to make amendments?

In that scenario, the EU sees the ‘Not ok’ ruling, so the act can’t be operational by 12 June. Then what - is the country fined by the EU for missing the date?

TBH I don’t get if this step by Pres C is because the act won’t be fit for our national interests or that it won’t suit the new EU migration rules we signed up to.
Just curious and trying to understand the process.

The bill is a text, which is either in line with the constitution, another text - or not. Unless the meaning of words changes (and most laws define key words closely) it's a relatively straightforward exercise. Clearly someone with a good knowledge of legal terminology, and the jurisprudence that has been built up over the decades/centuries, is required to carry out the review, but within those confines, the matter is as straightforward as any other legal case.