What is the point of having a President?

JohnnySideburns

Hi,

I'm just wondering does anyone know what the point of having a President is. I know they're required to officially dissolve the Dail at times of planned elections or to make a political judgement in whether or not to dissolve the Dail at times of collapsing Governments, but besides that are they required for anything besides visiting from place to place.

Any thoughts.

Hydroquinone

I've often wondered that. Seems to me to be a relic from when there was a monarch.
Head of government in a Republic= elected official, Taoiseach
Head of state in a Republic = monarchlite, President
I know a President in a Republic is elected, whereas a monarch gets the gig through inheritance, but I am also interested in knowing why there's a need to have president in the first place. Good question, JohnnySideburns.

Similarly, while we're here in a place where someone will know the real answer - why the Dail and the Seanad? The powers of the Seanad are nil, it seems to me, they don't even have to pass bills, if they reject them, they're passed and made law by the Dail anyway. So what's the deal? What do they actually do?

zuma

For the Dail, Seanad issue we should only have the Dail and a cap of 100 TD's.
We already have the most over represented government in Europe....what a total waste of money!

The President is not supposed to get political....but you just cant stop Mary getting political!

w66w66

Ireland should rejoin the commonwealth realm and so have queen Elizabeth II as head of state.
Just a thought.

flogen

Hydroquinone wrote:

Similarly, while we're here in a place where someone will know the real answer - why the Dail and the Seanad? The powers of the Seanad are nil, it seems to me, they don't even have to pass bills, if they reject them, they're passed and made law by the Dail anyway. So what's the deal? What do they actually do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad#Powers
They're pretty limited alright, but no more than the House of Lords are (Parliament Act can push things through etc.), because the Government usually has a majority in the Seanad as well we never see many rejections like we do in the UK...

I think they generally set up committee's and the like..

Litcagral

Back in the 1930s they weren't sure what else to do with Protestants.

zuma

Litcagral wrote:

Back in the 1930s they weren't sure what else to do with Protestants.

Smart anwser there.....reAAALLLYYY Smart:eek:

gandalf

zuma wrote:

For the Dail, Seanad issue we should only have the Dail and a cap of 100 TD's.
We already have the most over represented government in Europe....what a total waste of money!

Already discussed here a fair few times, heres one I made earlier (2001!!!)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=36665&highlight=dail

The President is not supposed to get political....but you just cant stop Mary getting political!

Ah stop sure all she is doing is building bridges :rolleyes:

TBH the President is a figurehead and is useful for getting positive exposure for Ireland in countries that he/she visits. Really it is a purely ceremonial position and a throwback to older times.

And bear in mind as long as we have a President they can't turn Aras into a Casino

Hermione*

In some countries, the head of government is the President, including the US, which is the oldest Republic.

The most imprtant role of the President is to safeguard the constitutionality of all legislation passed by the Oireachtas. Any legislation which is presented to the President, which the President feels may be in conflict with the Constitution, can be refered to the the Supreme Court for judicial review.

zuma

Hermione* wrote:

In some countries, the head of government is the President, including the US, which is the oldest Republic.

Hes head of state and government.

Its the oldest Republic interms that it hasnt changed to an Empire/Dictatorship...etc since it was created as we all know what Rome was before becoming an Empire.

The Irish President is supposed to speak for the people.
Basically its a job designed for anyone who wants to travel around the world and when they feel some law is unconstitutional they will refer it to the courts.

layke

I like having a figurehead. We do need one to make us look good around the world.

The problem I have is why do we pay them such a filthy wad of cash?

But all in all at least Mary is making somewhat of an effort to earn some of that cash.

ISAW

w66w66 wrote:

Ireland should rejoin the commonwealth realm and so have queen Elizabeth II as head of state.
Just a thought.

Logical fallacy. Joining the commonwealth does not necessitate changing head of state. The President was constitutionally in place since 1937. We didnt leave the commonwealth until 1948!

Part of the REason Dev wanted the President position was to prevent a coup (c.f. Chaves discussion). the Blueshirts and Pro treaty people had links with the military. Dev also knew that in 1916 the IRB/IV/ICA had targeted the military because of their strategic relevance. the President is the Chief of Staff and it was felt putting a civilian/political person at the head of the chain (as opposed to a career military man) would lessen the impact of a coup attempt (again c.f. the Chaves constitution).

Dave!

I think I remember when I was in school, my history teacher telling us that the president is important because the whole system of dáil, seanad, president, prevents anyone from getting too much power, cos they keep each other in check, kinda.

I really amn't familiar with the powers of the president, so I won't pretend to know whether that's a good explaination or not, but maybe someone else will comment

Hermione*

zuma wrote:

Hes head of state and government.

That was my point. I was also refering to the oldest-surviving Republic.

w66w66

ISAW wrote:

Joining the commonwealth does not necessitate changing head of state.

for the Commonwealth no, but for the Commonwealth Realm I do believe it does. Although, as you pointed out we where part of the Commonwealth Realm up until to 1948, there is some dispute as to who the head of state was between 1936-1948. Ireland is in this respect an anomaly.

ISAW

DaveMcG wrote:

I think I remember when I was in school, my history teacher telling us that the president is important because the whole system of dáil, seanad, president, prevents anyone from getting too much power, cos they keep each other in check, kinda.

It is called "separation of powers"

I really amn't familiar with the powers of the president, so I won't pretend to know whether that's a good explaination or not, but maybe someone else will comment

See : http://www.oasis.gov.ie/government_in_ireland/the_constitution/constitution_introduction.html

Look up Articles 12-14 and 25-27 for some powers and role of the president.

constitutionus

as was stated earlier the president is meant to ensure the constitutionality of leglislation unfortunetly the pres is usually a lacky of the government of the day (dont give me that non partisen crap, theyve practically ALL been fianna fail ) which is why when they actually do their job the dail has a hissy fit. to my knowledge only 2 items of leglislation were ever refered to the supreme court, one under mary robinson (and she got in a **** load of crap over that, despite the fact the supreme court ruled in her favor and stopped it) and the infamous "its all right to retroactively steal money off pensioners in nursing homes" bill put forward by mary harney.
dont think im praising Macalleese, she didnt say word one over the public order act (which means if you fart at a gardai, its an offence and your arrested), the monuments act (which means the gov can level newgrange if they find oil in it) and she stood by and let bertie sign up to the EU constitution in her stead (which to me for a defender of the IRISH constitution is tantamount to treason ,way to protect that document mary :rolleyes: )

people continously talk down the prezs role, but in the end its him/her that signs all leglislation into law,its a VERY important position hence why we didnt get to elect a new one last time and are now stuck with one with the same democratic mandate as sadam huiesein despite several candidates wanting to stand. but our lords and masters in the mainstream parties didnt think we deserved it (or to be more honest, didnt want to deal with someone like dana who might send leglislation to the supreme court on a regular basis. this now means ordinairy people have to take it upon themselves to contest these leglislations going through all the courts till eventually they get to the supreme court. taking several years,millions of euros and probably ending with a huge state payout (the monuments act is one of these ) )

there are other responsibilities but this is the most important

Time Magazine

The answer: Article 26 of the Constitution. The President swears an oath to protect the Constitution, and it's their job to refer a Bill (via Article 26) to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. It's not perfect, but it's certainly better than there not being a person to do that.

constitutionus wrote:

theyve practically ALL been fianna fail

Not quite. There has never been a non-Fianna Fáil party-President. There have been four Fianna Fáil presidents and the other four were independents.

Incidentally, how close can you get?

constitutionus

Angry Banana wrote:

The answer: Article 26 of the Constitution. The President swears an oath to protect the Constitution, and it's their job to refer a Bill (via Article 26) to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. It's not perfect, but it's certainly better than there not being a person to do that.

Not quite. There has never been a non-Fianna Fáil party-President. There have been four Fianna Fáil presidents and the other four were independents.

Incidentally, how close can you get?

wow, people should check that link out every time they think their vote doesnt count

Zebra3

It's simply a nice payday for some politican.

The sad thing is it's the Presidant's job to go round and meet the communties and that sort of crap, but Bertie and his man of the people roll has him opening kitchen showrooms while DE is sitting.

Two con artists getting paid by us to do the same job.

New_Departure06

The importance of the Presidency is to make it clear who our Head of State isn't i.e. Elizabeth Windsor, and to protect the Constitution in so far as the president has the power to do so e.g. referring proposed laws to the Supreme Court to test their constitutionality, calling a referendum under certain circumstances, refusing to allow a minority govt call an election etc.

Flex

w66w66 wrote:

Ireland should rejoin the commonwealth realm and so have queen Elizabeth II as head of state.
Just a thought.

Why on earth would we want to make some foreign monarch our head of state?

Victor

Having a president means the taoiseach can't have it all his own way.

dermot_sheehan

constitutionus wrote:

dont think im praising Macalleese, she didnt say word one over the public order act (which means if you fart at a gardai, its an offence and your arrested), the monuments act (which means the gov can level newgrange if they find oil in it) and she stood by and let bertie sign up to the EU constitution in her stead (which to me for a defender of the IRISH constitution is tantamount to treason ,way to protect that document mary :rolleyes: )


there are other responsibilities but this is the most important

Ok where to start,

Firstly Mary McAlese wasn't even President when the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 was enacted.

Secondly there has been far more then two article 26 references, off the top of my head theres been re: article 26 and the planning and development act, employment quality act, health amendment act, electoral amendment act, school attendence bill, abortion information bill, offences against the state act, illegal immigrants trafficing, emergency powers bill. I'm sure there's a list somewhere on the internet but you get the idea.


Also any citizen, provided they have been adversly affected by a law, can challenge it's constitutionality in the high court, so the president's role in this regard is not as important as some people may think.


Ok, Ireland hasn't signed the EU Constitution. It's interesting how you call it tantamount to treason since ratification itself would amend the constitution, and treason is defined in art. 39 as levelling war against the state or adhering to the state's enemies (paraphrasing).


The point of the president is to act as a figurehead. Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach leads the government, engages in policy matters, and therefore has political enemies so therefore many people would not see him as their leader since they politically oppose him. With separating head of state from head of government, like in Ireland, you can feel President McAlese represents the irish nation, both at home and abroad, and she wouldn't have many political enemies since it's not a political position (her approval rating is over 90%).

There is also the argument that since the President theoretically is top of the ladder with regard to the army/government/state the president could use their moral authority to prevent coups. Look at the example of King Juan Carlos of Spain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23-F

Hotblack Desiato

constitutionus wrote:

to my knowledge only 2 items of leglislation were ever refered to the supreme court

Google for "thundering disgrace", a President resigned over this issue in order to protect the independence and dignity of the office from party political attack.

and she stood by and let bertie sign up to the EU constitution in her stead

The EU constitution cannot be ratified by Ireland without a referendum. Not that I believe it'll ever be resurrected in anything like its current form.

constitutionus

gabhain7 wrote:

Ok where to start,

Firstly Mary McAlese wasn't even President when the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 was enacted.

i believe there was an ammendment to this recently which removed the right to silence (ok they cant force you to talk but remaing silent can be used againt you as an implication of guilt ) and increased the amount of time you can be held in gardai custody? she singed off on that

gabhain7 wrote:

Secondly there has been far more then two article 26 references, off the top of my head theres been re: article 26 and the planning and development act, employment quality act, health amendment act, electoral amendment act, school attendence bill, abortion information bill, offences against the state act, illegal immigrants trafficing, emergency powers bill. I'm sure there's a list somewhere on the internet but you get the idea.

indeed, but NOT referred by the president. ordinairy citzens she and others didnt represent were forced to go through all the courts systems to get where the president couldve went on day one but didnt want to in case it upset their party mates

gahain7 wrote:

Also any citizen, provided they have been adversly affected by a law, can challenge it's constitutionality in the high court, so the president's role in this regard is not as important as some people may think.

just like if your defamed in the press you have the right to go their too to clear your name. course you need about 700 thousand euro to do this , and in fact if memory serves vincent salachia did just what you said over the monuments act in regard to the M3 at tara and was hit with a bill in execess of 2 million but im sure this is nothing of consequence

gabhain7 wrote:

Ok, Ireland hasn't signed the EU Constitution. It's interesting how you call it tantamount to treason since ratification itself would amend the constitution, and treason is defined in art. 39 as levelling war against the state or adhering to the state's enemies (paraphrasing).

wrong. bertie did sign off on it,he was televised signing it, hell he sold it to the other member states during our tenure as EU president. if we had the same system as germany it would be law now. thankfully as much chargrin as it cause's him bertie has to come to us in a referendum. which by the way we were meant to get this year but arent because he knows it'll be defeated so he pulled it. and i for one am pissed about that, i want to vote against this constitution and see where we stand in europe on this issue

gabhain7 wrote:

The point of the president is to act as a figurehead. Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach leads the government, engages in policy matters, and therefore has political enemies so therefore many people would not see him as their leader since they politically oppose him. With separating head of state from head of government, like in Ireland, you can feel President McAlese represents the irish nation, both at home and abroad, and she wouldn't have many political enemies since it's not a political position (her approval rating is over 90%).

this is your opinion, the presidency may have been relegated to the level of figurehead by the majority of its holders but that doesnt make it the official position and indeed theres nothing to say that the president cant be at odds with the government on a continual basis. is this desirable? no, but if we were allowed to exercise our franchise last time around instead of being blocked by the dail we may have had a president in there that would reflect the present feelings of the irish people instead on one which reflects the desires of a dail almost 5 years old. there is a reason why the senate , dail and presidential elections are spread over a differing time period and its to keep the powers that be awake. the truth is the dail didnt want this election and as a result we didnt get one

Time Magazine

constitutionus wrote:

i believe there was an ammendment to this recently which removed the right to silence (ok they cant force you to talk but remaing silent can be used againt you as an implication of guilt ) and increased the amount of time you can be held in gardai custody? she singed off on that

No there was not. This was quashed by the Supreme Court, you can remain silent. It only implicates you as guilty if the jury consider that an implication of guilt.

indeed, but NOT referred by the president. ordinairy citzens she and others didnt represent were forced to go through all the courts systems to get where the president couldve went on day one but didnt want to in case it upset their party mates

That's wrong. He listed Bills that were referred by the President. That's what Article 26 is, the President putting a Bill to the Supreme Court.

just like if your defamed in the press you have the right to go their too to clear your name. course you need about 700 thousand euro to do this

No you don't. That's just wrong. Some Longford GAA player recently brought a tabloid to court - do you really think he has €700,000 to spare?

and in fact if memory serves vincent salachia did just what you said over the monuments act in regard to the M3 at tara and was hit with a bill in execess of 2 million but im sure this is nothing of consequence

His case was ridiculous, not a chance of it winning and very few people thought it had a chance. Sure even one of my law lecturers referred to it as "a very weak case", and they tend to be very diplomatic. If I take a case on stupid grounds I should be responsible for the costs unless it was obviously in the public interest, and the manner in which this case was taken was judged to not be in the public interest.

wrong. bertie did sign off on it,he was televised signing it, hell he sold it to the other member states during our tenure as EU president. if we had the same system as germany it would be law now. thankfully as much chargrin as it cause's him bertie has to come to us in a referendum. which by the way we were meant to get this year but arent because he knows it'll be defeated so he pulled it. and i for one am pissed about that, i want to vote against this constitution and see where we stand in europe on this issue

I don't think you quite understand what it meant when he signed off to it. Essentially he agreed, as the Taoiseach, to put this to the people by signing it. He did not make it law, or anything like it. There's no point in putting it to the people if it's not going to get through. I'd like to vote on it too, but only if it's of some meaning.

this is your opinion, the presidency may have been relegated to the level of figurehead by the majority of its holders but that doesnt make it the official position and indeed theres nothing to say that the president cant be at odds with the government on a continual basis. is this desirable? no, but if we were allowed to exercise our franchise last time around instead of being blocked by the dail we may have had a president in there that would reflect the present feelings of the irish people instead on one which reflects the desires of a dail almost 5 years old. there is a reason why the senate , dail and presidential elections are spread over a differing time period and its to keep the powers that be awake. the truth is the dail didnt want this election and as a result we didnt get one

And if the people wish to punish the members of the Dáil for that they can. It's just that they don't. And, for the record, it was not blocked by the Dáíl. The alternative was just not actively pursued by them.

dermot_sheehan

constitutionus wrote:

i believe there was an ammendment to this recently which removed the right to silence (ok they cant force you to talk but remaing silent can be used againt you as an implication of guilt ) and increased the amount of time you can be held in gardai custody? she singed off on that

I am unaware of this, the only time when the right to silence is abriged is under the Offences Against the State Act when certain adverse inferences can be drawn from a failure to answer questions. Upheld as constitutional in Heaney v. Ireland

indeed, but NOT referred by the president. ordinairy citzens she and others didnt represent were forced to go through all the courts systems to get where the president couldve went on day one but didnt want to in case it upset their party mates

These were article 26 cases, by definition article 26 cases could only be referred by the president

wrong. bertie did sign off on it,he was televised signing it, hell he sold it to the other member states during our tenure as EU president. if we had the same system as germany it would be law now. thankfully as much chargrin as it cause's him bertie has to come to us in a referendum. which by the way we were meant to get this year but arent because he knows it'll be defeated so he pulled it. and i for one am pissed about that, i want to vote against this constitution and see where we stand in europe on this issue

I forgot about the signing ceremony, it's signed but not ratified, therefore of no consequence in domestic or international law. It must be ratified by Dail Eireann and for that ratification to be constitutional under irish domestic law, article 29 will have to be amended

this is your opinion, the presidency may have been relegated to the level of figurehead by the majority of its holders but that doesnt make it the official position and indeed theres nothing to say that the president cant be at odds with the government on a continual basis. is this desirable? no, but if we were allowed to exercise our franchise last time around instead of being blocked by the dail we may have had a president in there that would reflect the present feelings of the irish people instead on one which reflects the desires of a dail almost 5 years old. there is a reason why the senate , dail and presidential elections are spread over a differing time period and its to keep the powers that be awake. the truth is the dail didnt want this election and as a result we didnt get one

I think it's a fairly accurate assesment of the role of a figurehead presidency. The president could be at odds with the government all she wants, but remember all her powers (with the exception of article 26 and the ability to refuse a dail disolution to a taoiseach who has lost the support of a mjority of dail eireann) are exercised on the advice of the government. The government also controlls what the president can say to the nation and even if she can leave the jurisdiction. The president has not been relegated to the position of figurehead, the office was specifically setup for that role, it's a ceremonial job, with no actualy political power.

There is no need for a presidential election if there is a broad political consensus on a candidate. The presidential elections and senate elections are not meant to send a message to the politicians (especially since the senate is elected 90 days after the dail and the only people who can vote are county councillers and university graduates)