David Norris for Irish President

Discuss Irish and International politics
Post Reply
inedifix
Posts: 959
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: David Norris for Irish President

Post by inedifix » Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:22 am

Dev wrote:No, provided that David Norris can't speak any competent Irish he simply can't interpret the Irish constitution as it's written in Irish.
But he can understand the English version, and with the aid of a presidential legal advisor, he can understand the irish version too. No president is expected to interpret the constitution unaided. David Norris's Irish ability, or lack of, is no impediment to his ability to comprehend a). the English version, and b). any differences between the two, as explained to him by a constitutional lawyer. The acid test is the quality of the final decision made, and there is no reason to suppose a very intelligent man could not arrive at a perfectly valid decision.

In a rush now, I'll have to come back on the rest later.
“What we call chaos is just patterns we haven't recognized. What we call random is just patterns we can't decipher. What we can't understand we call nonsense. There is no free will. There are no variables. There is only the inevitable.” Chuck Palahniuk
bipedalhumanoid
Posts: 2675
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:55 pm

Re: David Norris for Irish President

Post by bipedalhumanoid » Tue Jul 13, 2010 11:16 am

Beebub wrote:
I was there in '98/ '99 and left just before the referendum. I remeber being aghast that people weren't jumping all over getting rid of the queen being the head of state, but then when I read that the plan was to replace her with a government appointed President I could very much see why the republican movement wasn't happy with it. Isn't it essentially true to say that's what you currently have?
Yep.
Beebub wrote: Althought the queen appoints the governor general isn't the recommendation made to the queen by the government? It's not as if she gets one of her mates a cushy job.
Yep. Technically she could appoint one of her mates into a cushy jub however, in practice, the GG is chosen by the PM. The Queen appoints him/her based on the PM's recommendation.
Beebub wrote: Isn't it entirely possible that Johnny bumhole, knew exactly what he was doing and knew that it would be defeated?
What Johnny bumhole did is set up a process where a constitutional convention would be held, and a bunch of elitist mongrels would choose a constitutional model to be proposed in the referendum. The groups invovled in making the decision included a number of monarchist groups. There is a common misconception that the monarchists voted for a model that is most likely to be rejected, and that that is why we ended up with this model. However, the record shows that none of the monarchist groups voted for the proposed model.

The model proposed is the kind of model you'd expect from a bunch of elitists who distrust the voting public. Some of the wankers on the republican side were claiming that if they allowed the public to elect a president, we'd end up with a media celebrity as our head of state.

After the convention, the republican side split in two. One side who wouldn't accept any model other than a directly elected president and therefore joined the no campaign. The basis of this campaign was a promise that after the referendum, the republicans would re-group and propose a new referendum. We were told to reject this referendum so that we'd later have an opportunity to vote on a better constitutional model.

In reality, Howard's unethical conduct in the whole affair is limited to keeping his mouth wired shut on the issue of whether there would be another referendum until the results came in. He then announced that Australia had made their choice and there wouldn't be another referendum.

We then had to wait until 2007 before we managed to get rid of Howard and by then the national mood had changed to the extent that most people were more worried about the cost of a referendum than the fact that our head of state is an unelected foreigner.

In 2009, on the 10 year anniversary of the referendum, the Australian Republican Movement managed to get a debate started again, but it was hosed down by Kevin Rudd. Despite being a republican, Rudd said it wasn't on the agenda for his first term. The ARM have suggested that the next opportunity for debate will probably be when the prince of piffle is inaugurated.
Beebub wrote:
That said, I did some reading on the Gough Whitlam affair while I was there and the mere thought of a foriegn appointed head of state sacking the prime minister made my skin crawl, although I'm aware there was more to it than that. Rumour has it that he was about to deny the US the renewal of the lease on land that they own not far from Alice Springs. And the US put pressure on to get Whitlam sacked. Don't know how true that is.

As an aisde, on that note. I was in Alice Springs and I'm told occasionally people from the base nearby come into town or are picked up on the road. Anytime anyone from the base is asked what they do there, there answer is always the same: 'I'm a janitor.'
I was born 2 years after the whole Whitlam thing so I can't speak from experience. My understanding is that there was a situation where the Labor party had control of the lower house and the Liberals had control of the upper house. Because of this, the Liberal party (lead by Malcolm Fraser) wanted Whitlam to call an early election. Whitlam's refusal to do so Lead Fraser to create a blockade in the senate until an election was called. They literally blocked every single bill that passed through the lower house.

Fraser then called for the GG to disolve parliament and Whitlam called for some other kind of action to stop the blockade in the senate. The GG went with Fraser and disolved parliament, appointing Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister.
"The fact of your own existence is the most astonishing fact you will ever have to face. Don’t you ever get used to it." - Richard Dawkins... being shrill and offensive again I suppose.
lostexpectation
Posts: 1993
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:28 pm

Re: David Norris for Irish President

Post by lostexpectation » Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:30 pm

Dev wrote:
She basically spoke to people and visited places that other presidents didn't, she was constantly visible and carried herself well. She spoke out on issues and brought positive attention to the Irish people. Many found some of her simple acts endearing such as lighting a candle in Áras an Uachtaráin for the Irish abroad. Women loved her as she helped show women could be excellent politicians who were every bit as good as men.
hmm, i recon hillary had gravitas and effect too, do we really need a professional handshaker
test
Dev
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 914
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:10 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: David Norris for Irish President

Post by Dev » Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:38 pm

lostexpectation wrote:
Dev wrote:
She basically spoke to people and visited places that other presidents didn't, she was constantly visible and carried herself well. She spoke out on issues and brought positive attention to the Irish people. Many found some of her simple acts endearing such as lighting a candle in Áras an Uachtaráin for the Irish abroad. Women loved her as she helped show women could be excellent politicians who were every bit as good as men.
hmm, i recon hillary had gravitas and effect too, do we really need a professional handshaker
Hillary may have been a great president, I'm kind of just taking the consensus opinion by both officials and the masses that Robinson was the best. This does not take from Hillary in any sense. I recall she went on to bigger and better things in the UN and even met Obama last year to receive some prestigious medal which to me is evidence that her sharp political acumen was noted at an international level. I understand that the role is limited but the fact that she seemed to go beyond the call of duty reflects on her well and not something we associate with Irish politicians.

Inedifix made a good argument against the office referring to it as a "hangover from monarchy", the founding fathers made plenty of mistakes in designing the Republic unlike in the US, it wouldn't surprise me that we'd have to change the constitution again.

The final argument for it as biped mention would be within regard to checks and balances of power but then to be fair she hasn't got massive powers or responsibilities either.

The president does have some powers she could invoke in an crisis. I would imagine removing the office would shift these to the Taoiseach, Tanaiste or Ceann Comhairle which whatever way you phrase it, is consolidating power to an already powerful individual.
lostexpectation
Posts: 1993
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:28 pm

Re: David Norris for Irish President

Post by lostexpectation » Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:43 pm

well your seemed to only differentiate her by her volume of handshaking, yes she was qualified, but her qualification and experience for UN job was gained before she became president, to give her due she was probably heavily involved in the peace process im sure, (as is her successor), im sure she was sent to talk to various north and uk parties to flatter them and reassure them by her presence, to show that we were serious about giving up our claim to the north while giving the political message of the government and no more then that.

does this mean she has political influence, it seemed she used it in regard to the northern question could a president use it elsewhere or is all their political savvy trapped by the office as soon as they assume it, what difference does it make to have one person president or the other, i see robinson had numerous presidential councils as has mcaleese i think sure they both on rejected a bill, but we are told they need no legal training and depend on the council

of course i wouldn't suggest removing president as constitutional safety net still can't impressed by amount of handshaking, or sentiment that they attracted.

could they any limited political influence use in our direction?
test
Reilly616
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:42 am

Re: David Norris for Irish President

Post by Reilly616 » Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:33 pm

Dev wrote:
No, provided that David Norris can't speak any competent Irish he simply can't interpret the Irish constitution as it's written in Irish. We have two constitutions an Irish version and an English version. The Irish version has precedence legally should any differences arise between the two. There shouldn't be any differences but how would he know if he can't read them? To me it's important that such an office holder can do this without proxy or aid because it's his job not the the translators.
What is your hang up with the President interpreting the Irish text of the Constitution based on? Why do you think they should be required to be able to differentiate between the few tiny differences in the phrasing of the two texts?
inedifix
Posts: 959
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: David Norris for Irish President

Post by inedifix » Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:51 pm

Reilly616 wrote:
Dev wrote:
No, provided that David Norris can't speak any competent Irish he simply can't interpret the Irish constitution as it's written in Irish. We have two constitutions an Irish version and an English version. The Irish version has precedence legally should any differences arise between the two. There shouldn't be any differences but how would he know if he can't read them? To me it's important that such an office holder can do this without proxy or aid because it's his job not the the translators.
What is your hang up with the President interpreting the Irish text of the Constitution based on? Why do you think they should be required to be able to differentiate between the few tiny differences in the phrasing of the two texts?
Actually, Dev is wrong to imply the Constitution was written in Irish (and wrong for any of us to infer it was then translated into English). It was actually written simultaneously in Irish and English by two authors who worked together on the two texts. Though the Irish takes precedence where discrepancies arise, they are minor, they are well known to constitutional legal experts, and they can easily be explained to any normal member of the genus: homo sapiens sapiens. So basically, unless a candidate is intellectually challenged to the extent that he or she is unable to understand the advice of a constitutional lawyer, then they are perfectly capable of discharging the duties of President.
“What we call chaos is just patterns we haven't recognized. What we call random is just patterns we can't decipher. What we can't understand we call nonsense. There is no free will. There are no variables. There is only the inevitable.” Chuck Palahniuk
Reilly616
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:42 am

Re: David Norris for Irish President

Post by Reilly616 » Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:59 pm

inedifix wrote:
Reilly616 wrote:
Dev wrote:
No, provided that David Norris can't speak any competent Irish he simply can't interpret the Irish constitution as it's written in Irish. We have two constitutions an Irish version and an English version. The Irish version has precedence legally should any differences arise between the two. There shouldn't be any differences but how would he know if he can't read them? To me it's important that such an office holder can do this without proxy or aid because it's his job not the the translators.
What is your hang up with the President interpreting the Irish text of the Constitution based on? Why do you think they should be required to be able to differentiate between the few tiny differences in the phrasing of the two texts?
Actually, Dev is wrong to imply the Constitution was written in Irish (and wrong for any of us to infer it was then translated into English). It was actually written simultaneously in Irish and English by two authors who worked together on the two texts. Though the Irish takes precedence where discrepancies arise, they are minor, they are well known to constitutional legal experts, and they can easily be explained to any normal member of the genus: homo sapiens sapiens. So basically, unless a candidate is intellectually challenged to the extent that he or she is unable to understand the advice of a constitutional lawyer, then they are perfectly capable of discharging the duties of President.

That's exactly why I'm asking! I did Constitutional Law last year as part of my undergraduate degree. It can be taken through English or Irish, but it's not like the course through English ignores the Irish text. As said, the differences are well known and easily explained. Only Superior Court judges need wory about interpreting the exact words of the Irish text...
Tulip1
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: Sligo

Re: David Norris for Irish President

Post by Tulip1 » Tue Aug 10, 2010 7:15 am

I was told (by an Irish man) and correct me if I'm wrong that most of the constitution was coppied from the British one. That would mean it was writen in english then coppied in English and Irish?
Pope says atheists pick & choose their morals. Correct. Today I will be frowning on child abuse & not having a problem with homosexuality.
Bik
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:02 pm
Location: Baile Átha Cliath

Re: David Norris for Irish President

Post by Bik » Tue Aug 10, 2010 8:01 am

Tulip1 wrote:I was told (by an Irish man) and correct me if I'm wrong that most of the constitution was coppied from the British one. That would mean it was writen in english then coppied in English and Irish?
As Britain doesn't have a written constitution it would've been quite difficult to copy it! :lol:
"Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts have no place in organized religion." Superintendent Chalmers
Post Reply