Ardoyne women are easy.

__________________
Do you remember,writing in your diary,Freedom is the freedom to say that 2 plus 2 make 4?'.Yes,said Winston.O'Brien held up his left hand,its back towards Winston,with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.How many fingers am I holding up,Winston?.Four.And if the party says that it is not four but five,then how many?.The needle went up to 60 How many fingers,Winston?'Four!Stop it,stop it!How can you go on?Four!Four!'How many fingers,Winston?'Five!Five!Five!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

*figures out schemes to avoid paying taxes*

Article 26, states "as to whether such Bill or any specified provision or provisions of such Bill is or are repugnant to this Constitution"

So if the Supreme Court found "any part" i.e. the part of the Bill under question (for arguements sake, say section 12 of the bill) repugnant then we start again. However is the Supreme Court finds it be constitutional then yes it is effectively enshrined in law. However, without the review, the possibilty of it being repugnant remains, and remains in the hands of its authors, open to further amendments etc..etc..

If the Supreme Court finds the section, or the bill, constitutional, then it is merely up to those of us who still oppose the bill, to democratically elect a party or individuals or both, who are of like mind, into power in order to wind down NAMA and in effect make the NAMA Act redundant.

She, or her Council of State, did not refer it for judicial review - that was failure. Just becuase YOU think it would have been a "bad idea" does not make it correct that she did not do it. Such is the magnitude of the power and imapct of this bill (I wont pretend to understand all of this), then its constitutionality must surely have been tested in an independent court - it wasnt and therefore, in my opinion she broke her oath.

I dont pretend to be a legal expert, but neither should you. Passing your first year law exams does not qualify to raise yourself above anybody else as some sort of legal expert. Spend more time studying and less time with the comic bools yourself

I think it's fairly certain that the absences were deliberate safeguards against any backbench or green have-a-go-heroes that might have have rebelled, however unlikely that was.
The magnitude of this legislation didn't allow for real opponents to throw in the towel early, or secure their future disassociation from it after it goes ar'se-up - even if only symbolic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

''Very soon NAMA will be the least of our worries. In January there is going to be a bloodbath of liquidations, insolvencies, bantruptcies and job losses from whatever is left of construction, retail, hospitality, solicitors in particular. '' - [Cassandra Syndrome.]

We are being dismantled in preparation for some unwelcome redeemer, it seems...

The Council of State does not, and cannot, refer bills to the courts. All it does is asked for its opinion, or rather the President asks individual members for their opinion. It doesn't take a collective stance and cannot ever refer a bill.

No it wasn't.

All top lawyers agree that it should not be referred. Judges have consistently urged presidents not to refer bills. If you knew anything about the referral power you would know why.

Bollocks.

Referral is a rarely used power for very good reason - it is flawed. If a referral is made, the judges have to go through a makey-up process of trying to imagine what flaws are in a bill. They hate that, as do presidents, for the simple reason that they have no idea if buried in section 118 (b) they missed something which later on will be seen to be unconstitutional. But by then it will be too late. If it is referred and OKed it can never be referred again, even when it becomes clear later on that there is a whopping great problem with some section. Successive ex-chief justices at Council meetings have urged presidents not to refer bills because they cannot be 100% sure that somewhere at sometime some bit may in the light of further judicial review be patently unconstitutional but they will then be prevented from ruling it as such.

Ex-chief justices (chief justices in office don't comment on the constitutionality of a bill at a council meeting because there would be a conflict of interest as they are one of the people being discussed at the meeting) repeatedly have said that they dread referrals and really wish they weren't used. President Hyde in the 1940s referred one bill that was ruled constitutional. A key bit of the bill, as contained in other bills, was later deemed unconstitutional by the courts. But though it is patently obvious that that section of the Act is unconstitutional the Supreme Court can never rule it as such as back in 1943 a court ruled the Bill constitutional. So one can be held for up to seven days without charge under the 1943 Act, but one cannot be held for any three days under later rulings. Three days is too long. But seven days, under our law, thanks to the 1943 referral isn't.

The NAMA bill is horrendously complex and long. There is no way judges could satisfactorily examine every section and imagine every theoretical possibility that might at some stage in the future arise. All they can do in referrals is guess what might be a problem. If the President had referred the Bill and it was ruled constitutional (as was likely), and six months later you or someone else found that it undermined your constitutional rights there would be nothing you could do about it, and nothing the courts could. By not referring it, you or anyone else can take a case at any time on a specific issue of how the Act is working, and if the courts find your arguments valid they can strike down the section or the Act. They could never ever do that if she had referred it.

The vast majority of lawyers believe a referral of this bill would have been the height of irresponsibility as it would have prevented all future challenged for all time. By not referring it she has left it open to any citizen at any stage and any time to challenge it on a specific point of law.

That is obvious.

I work with bills all the time as part of my job. I had to go through the NAMA bill as part of my job. Did you read it?

I deal with top lawyers who draft bills all the time. I deal with legal cases all the time. I deal with the AG's office and have regularly dealt with the President's office, including interviewing presidents and judges on how Article 26 functions. Do you?

__________________
Economic Left/Right: -4.16
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.28

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.