President May Convene Council of State on Gang Bill

[Bobert]

It appears the Children's Choir will have to meet the President at another time as she seems to be considering summoning the Council of State to discuss the Gangs Bill. The last time she did this it was Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2004 which was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court.

President may call in Council of State on gang bill - National News, Frontpage - Independent.ie

President Mary McAleese is expected to convene the Council of State later this week before deciding whether to ask the Supreme Court to test the constitutionality of the controversial gangland crime bill.
During the debate on the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009 in the Seanad yesterday, Justice Minister Dermot Ahern said he wanted this bill in force so people can be charged on the day after it becomes law.
But after completing its passage though the Oireachtas early this morning, the highly contentious bill faces another major test before it can become the law of the land.
After it is delivered, President McAleese has seven days to decide whether or not to sign it into law -- but she must convene the Council of State for their advice if she chooses to send it to the Supreme Court.

[corelli]

It appears the Children's Choir will have to meet the President at another time as she seems to be considering summoning the Council of State to discuss the Gangs Bill. The last time she did this it was Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2004 which was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court.

President may call in Council of State on gang bill - National News, Frontpage - Independent.ie

Thanks Bob.

I would actually prefer if she did not refer it. There is a legal school of thought, with which I would subscribe, which holds that referrals to the Supreme Court is undesirable.

The Court will hear the case in a vacuum, with no defendant giving example of the practical effects of the legislation before them, and once approved by the Court, no section of the bill could ever be challenged, domestically, again.

Much preferable to let a defendant challenge it.

[ivnryn]

This is the section that deals with why it might be referred:

Lawyers who are friendly with the President are particularly concerned that section 8 of the bill is incompatible with Article 38 of the Constitution, which states: "Special Courts may be established by law for the trial of offences where it may be determined in accordance with such law that the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice."

Previously, was there a hearing before a case was referred to the SCC?

[leroy42]

I think if it is referred, or even if it is later found to have major concerns with it, Dermot Ahern needs to review his position and step down.

During the last two weeks numerous commentators have voiced concerns over this bill but it was pushed through regardless on the basis that swift action was required.

If it is referred etc, the whole process will be stopped for a lot longer than if an extra few days had been given to informed debate.

It would show again that FF are more interested in looking good rather than the good of the country. Get a bill, any bill, through the houses before our holidays rather than take the time needed to get it right.

[corelli]

This is the section that deals with why it might be referred:



Previously, was there a hearing before a case was referred to the SCC?

No, membership of proscribed, named, orginisations were automatically tried before the SCC. The difficulty with this is trying to name or give some shape or description to a gang so it can be said to be "proscribed". Methinks the legislation of far too general application.

[Munion]

Much preferable to let a defendant challenge it.

That is the preferred option. To test it in a real-life situation as opposed to a simulation in the case of a Presidential referal.

Thing is you then require a case and someone with the funds and will to persue it.

[eurosceptic]

She should veto the bill straight away and let the govt try to impeach her. I dont think they would dare. She promised to veto any legislation allowing for abortion during her 1997 election campaign.

[corelli]

She should veto the bill straight away and let the govt try to impeach her. I dont think they would dare. She promised to veto any legislation allowing for abortion during her 1997 election campaign.

Ah now Euro. Much as I would enjoy that particular scenario, you well know that she has no power to refuse to sign any bill. She can sign or refer. Thats it.

[corelli]

That is the preferred option. To test it in a real-life situation as opposed to a simulation in the case of a Presidential referal.

Thing is you then require a case and someone with the funds and will to persue it.

It won't require funds. Criminal Legal Aid and the AG's scheme would cover any challenge.

[David Cochrane]

She should veto the bill straight away and let the govt try to impeach her. I dont think they would dare. She promised to veto any legislation allowing for abortion during her 1997 election campaign.

No she didn't, that's a lie. I was writing for my student newspaper when she visited the school and I got to walk around with her on her tour of the school - I asked her would there ever be a time she wouldn't sign a bill the Supreme Court had approved (upon her referral) she said no, because it would be beyond her role as President.

I'd asked her this, because it was Dana who at the time had made a comment similar to what you're alleging the President made.