Atheist Ireland Forum

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.

Yep.



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.



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.



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.

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.

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?

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...

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!

Unless you can use slang in Irish whats the point, Irish taught in school is as useful as learning a bit of french to order coffee.

I have heard people speaking fluent Irish on their mobile just beautiful, as there are many levels of Irish, does hack-Irish pass the standard.

Basically shove the consitution into google translator and bingo.

I think having the repersentative of Ireland being able to speak to foreign dignitaries in their natural tounge is more important than mumbling some Irish words that most people think 'just get onto the English part so we know what your on about'.

That film can't think of the name ?hero? ... Burka burka burka burka would pass for many as Irish.

Look,

Most people seem confused as to why I won't be voting for a candidate who doesn't speak Irish.

We've already established that the role of the president is mostly a symbolic one.
The utility of such a role at such an expense doesn't seem to be justified. Most people here are skeptical that it should exist.

Given that it does exist and that it is mostly symbolic. I will be voting for the candidate based on what would otherwise be seen as trivial criteria.

In this case I want the head of state to be fluent in Irish. The president will have little in the way of power an will be mostly and advocacy position for various policies with a lot of hand shaking as lost stated. The president should be an advocate of the Irish language and I can't take any candidate seriously on this if they aren't fluent in it. I simply see it as lip service.

Similarly some will see him as an advocate for the cause of gay rights given his experience on gay legislation. They will be voting for him on this issue. I don't think every Irish presidential candidate has to be fluent in Irish but they will receive my vote if they are, similarly with gay rights activists and David Norris.

I see the language as part of the identity of being Irish and something we should promote in certain ways. I understand that other Irish people do not see the Irish language as being part being Irish and it will not influence their decision. Thats fine they are no more or less Irish than me.

I have been clear the the president should be able to interpret both constitutions without the aid of a proxy. You guys are saying but he can use a proxy! Thats not the point he should be able to interpret it based on his own understanding of the language not someone else's understanding in the same way he should understand the legal ramifications of the two texts without the aid of a proxy even if he could get someone to explain it to him.

Should Norris convince me that he is a serious advocate of the Irish language I will change my mind and my vote.



That was my understanding. I simply thought only referred to the Irish constitution as the higher one of the two. If I didn't apologies and thanks for the correction.

I wouldn't vote for a candidate who wasn't fluent in Irish either, so you're not alone Dev.
If Norris (or anyone else for that matter) is serious about wanting to be the first citizen of the country I don't think it's unreasonable to expect him/her to speak the first language of the country and frankly I don't care if the only speaker is a toothless 90 year old on Scellig Michael, it is still the first language of the country unless/until the nation decide otherwise in a referendum.
Presidential candidates may not be native speakers but as, presumably, intelligent people it shouldn't be beyond their capacity to learn it.

I've asked you about this already. Maybe you missed it, but you haven't answered. I'm wondering why you think it's so important for the President to be able to interpret the Irish text of the Constitution. I understand your general feeling that the President should speak Irish in the cultural sense, but I don't see why you think his interpretation of the Constitution matters too much. It isn't his job to interpret the Constitution, that is for the Superior Courts.

I did miss your post sorry. People without avatars often escape my attention - my eye doesn't catch the post as easily.

I haven't made a case for why the president should legally be obliged to speak Irish.

I just think that given her primary role is to pass it on to the Supreme Court to test whether a bill is constitutional or not it seems fair that she should have a strong idea as to what the result will be should and Irish/English nuance be an issue. Also given that it is where her power is derived from to me it makes sense rather than being reflective of any functional capacity. It's simply my expectation of the legal role rather than a minimum qualification that would deny entry.

If one was looking for a solid case as to why we need Irish at all - I probably couldn't give one. I just think it would be such a shame if we lost it. It is a dying language and should be promoted at all levels including the government.