How is government regulated?

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

We don't have a separately elected legislative and executive branch. The judiciary has separation of powers.

Even the political judicial appointees.

Invidious

ronivek wrote: »

So the US is the model to follow; yet you’re using the example of the current head of the US Executive Branch to highlight why the Irish system is inferior? Care to give any actual reasons why this is your position?

Under the Irish system, when the Cabinet decides something, what can stop it?

A bill that has the support of the Cabinet will pass through a tightly whipped Dail, a toothless Seanad, and a toothless president, and become law, often without proper debate or consideration.

In the US, legislation has to pass the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the president before becoming law. Any of the above can block or veto legislation.

The US system may seem like it guarantees gridlock — and it often does, especially when different houses or branches are controlled by competing parties — but that's because it was designed around checks and balances.

ronivek

Invidious wrote: »

Under the Irish system, when the Cabinet decides something, what can stop it?

Depends on what the 'something' is. If you're talking about a change of law I've answered below; anything else you'll need to give examples.

Invidious wrote: »

A bill that has the support of the Cabinet will pass through a tightly whipped Dail, a toothless Seanad, and a toothless president, and become law, often without proper debate or consideration.

A 'tightly whipped Dail' is still a majority of elected representatives. The implication you're making is that a majority would still pass an inherently flawed or bad bill even if only a minority truly supported it. Do you have any examples where this has happened?

True the Seanad isn't particularly 'toothy' in and of itself but it can certainly delay problematic bills and draw attention to issues.

Likewise for the President. He doesn't have many teeth either (likely in both senses of the phrase) but he does have power to refer bills to the Supreme Court and again delay or draw attention.

The Seanad does have a kind of a veto mechanism although it has never actually been used: a majority of the Seanad and 1/3rd of the Dail can force the President to send a bill for an Ordinary Referendum. Alternatively the Dail can ask to be dissolved and the bill can be resumed once a General Election has been held.

What exactly constitutes 'proper debate or consideration' in your mind? Do you have any specific bills in mind which weren't 'properly debated or considered'?

Invidious wrote: »

In the US, legislation has to pass the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the president before becoming law. Any of the above can block or veto legislation.

Bills here also have to pass through both the Dail and the Seanad; the difference being that the Seanad can only unilaterally delay a bill which has passed the Dail.

However as noted above if 1/3rd of the Dail agrees the Seanad can petition the President to put a bill to the people via referendum or force the dissolution of the Dail.

This is also completely overlooking the various committee sessions and legal scrutiny the bills are required to undergo before they even make it to a vote.

Invidious wrote: »

The US system may seem like it guarantees gridlock — and it often does, especially when different houses or branches are controlled by competing parties — but that's because it was designed around checks and balances.

If one of the parties controls Congress, Senate, and the Presidency; how exactly do the checks and balances work adequately in this system? They can just push everything through anyway.

The only substantive difference that I can really see is that the President of the USA does have the power to veto bills; and the only defence against that power is a 2/3rd majority of both houses blocking the veto. I'm not really sure I agree with that kind of power residing in a single individual quite honestly.

jimmycrackcorm

Invidious wrote: »

Under the Irish system, when the Cabinet decides something, what can stop it?

A bill that has the support of the Cabinet will pass through a tightly whipped Dail, a toothless Seanad, and a toothless president, and become law, often without proper debate or consideration.

In the US, legislation has to pass the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the president before becoming law. Any of the above can block or veto legislation.

The US system may seem like it guarantees gridlock — and it often does, especially when different houses or branches are controlled by competing parties — but that's because it was designed around checks and balances.

I don't think the US system is something to envy where legislation passes driven and usually provided by rich lobbyists.

Take net neutrality as an example.

Invidious

ronivek wrote: »

The implication you're making is that a majority would still pass an inherently flawed or bad bill even if only a minority truly supported it. Do you have any examples where this has happened?

Are you trying to say that Ireland has never passed an inherently flawed or bad piece of legislation that was pushed through a whipped Dail and a toothless Seanad?

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 is one such example.

Invidious

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't think the US system is something to envy where legislation passes driven and usually provided by rich lobbyists.

Take net neutrality as an example.

Net neutrality was repealed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), not via legislation passed by Congress.

Former Former

Bowie wrote: »

Even the political judicial appointees.

We have an independent board which advises the minister of justice on appointees, I'm not sure what else we could do.

blanch152

Invidious wrote: »

Are you trying to say that Ireland has never passed an inherently flawed or bad piece of legislation that was pushed through a whipped Dail and a toothless Seanad?

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 is one such example.

And how was that inherently flawed or a bad piece of legislation?

There are much more examples of bad legislation in the US, with nearly every single bill having pork-barrel attachments to appease one legislator or another.

ronivek

Invidious wrote: »

Are you trying to say that Ireland has never passed an inherently flawed or bad piece of legislation that was pushed through a whipped Dail and a toothless Seanad?

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 is one such example.

No; I asked you to give us one example of a bill which supports your claims. That doesn't mean I'm familiar with every bill which has ever been enacted.

As to your example: that Bill passed through the Dail by 127 votes for and 31 votes against. That would seem to me like a significant majority of elected representatives in favour; would you not agree?

Indeed some parties (such as Fianna Fail) abandoned the whip and allowed a free vote on the matter. Furthermore the passage of that bill was notable for the number of TDs who voted against the whip at various points; which would also appear to invalidate your claims about the 'tightly whipped Dail' being unable or unwilling to vote against bills.

Aside from the fact that the basis of that bill was a judgement from the European Court of Human Rights; it wasn't undertaken by the Government just for the fun of it and indeed its entire purpose was to make the minimum of changes required to align with the European Court of Human Right's judgement.

Would you care to point out the particular aspects of that Bills enactment which would support your assertions that the US system is somehow superior and the Irish system somehow flawed by comparison?