North Korea Increases Aid to Russia, Mos... Tue Nov 19, 2024 12:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
Trump Assembles a War Cabinet Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
Slavgrinder Ramps Up Into Overdrive Tue Nov 12, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
?Existential? Culling to Continue on Com... Mon Nov 11, 2024 10:28 | Marko Marjanovi?
US to Deploy Military Contractors to Ukr... Sun Nov 10, 2024 02:37 | Field Empty Anti-Empire >>
A bird's eye view of the vineyard
Alternative Copy of thesaker.is site is available Thu May 25, 2023 14:38 | Ice-Saker-V6bKu3nz Alternative site: https://thesaker.si/saker-a... Site was created using the downloads provided Regards Herb
The Saker blog is now frozen Tue Feb 28, 2023 23:55 | The Saker Dear friends As I have previously announced, we are now “freezing” the blog.? We are also making archives of the blog available for free download in various formats (see below).?
What do you make of the Russia and China Partnership? Tue Feb 28, 2023 16:26 | The Saker by Mr. Allen for the Saker blog Over the last few years, we hear leaders from both Russia and China pronouncing that they have formed a relationship where there are
Moveable Feast Cafe 2023/02/27 ? Open Thread Mon Feb 27, 2023 19:00 | cafe-uploader 2023/02/27 19:00:02Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of
The stage is set for Hybrid World War III Mon Feb 27, 2023 15:50 | The Saker Pepe Escobar for the Saker blog A powerful feeling rhythms your skin and drums up your soul as you?re immersed in a long walk under persistent snow flurries, pinpointed by The Saker >>
Does the Psychology Literature Reflect Reality? Wed Jan 29, 2025 13:00 | Noah Carl Does the psychology literature reflect reality? Thousands of studies have been published claiming this effects that and that affects this, and so on. But how many of these effects are actually real?
The post Does the Psychology Literature Reflect Reality? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Why Free Speech Matters Wed Jan 29, 2025 11:00 | Toby Young Read the joint op-ed in the Telegraph by Lord Biggar of Castle Douglas and Lord Young of Acton, both introduced into the House of Lords yesterday, on why defending free speech is vital for Britain?s national interest.
The post Why Free Speech Matters appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
The Problem With the WHO Isn?t China Wed Jan 29, 2025 09:00 | Dr David Livermore Trump is right to withdraw from the WHO. But the problem isn't China, says Prof David Livermore. The problem is funders like Bill Gates who are obsessed with saving the world with mRNAs vaccines and other boondoggles.
The post The Problem With the WHO Isn’t China appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Trump?s First Week: ?I Spoke, I Signed, I Listened? Wed Jan 29, 2025 07:00 | James Alexander Veni, vidi, vici, said Caesar: "I came, I saw, I conquered." Well, Trump, of his first week, could well say: "I spoke, I signed, I listened." Read Prof James Alexander's review of the opening days of Trump's second term.
The post Trump’s First Week: “I Spoke, I Signed, I Listened” appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
News Round-Up Wed Jan 29, 2025 01:26 | Richard Eldred A summary of the most interesting stories in the past 24 hours that challenge the prevailing orthodoxy about the ?climate emergency?, public health ?crises? and the supposed moral defects of Western civilisation.
The post News Round-Up appeared first on The Daily Sceptic. Lockdown Skeptics >>
Voltaire, international edition
Misinterpretations of US trends (1/2), by Thierry Meyssan Tue Jan 28, 2025 06:59 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter #117 Fri Jan 24, 2025 19:54 | en
The United States bets its hegemony on the Fourth Industrial Revolution Fri Jan 24, 2025 19:26 | en
For Thierry Meyssan, the Sarkozy trial for illegal financing of the 2007 preside... Fri Jan 24, 2025 19:23 | en
Should we condemn or not the glorification of Nazism?, by Thierry Meyssan Wed Jan 22, 2025 14:05 | en Voltaire Network >>
|
Presidential Elections Unconstitutional
national |
politics / elections |
opinion/analysis
Wednesday March 30, 2005 18:31 by John Fitzgibbon - Various johnfitz at connect dot ie Dublin 01 2853387
Keep it Quiet! They don't want to know
Attempts to raise the constitutionality of Presidential elections in 1997 and recently via the papers and radio shows were completely ignored. The 1997 letter herewith outlines the thinking. A further aspect raised its head in the recent election, i.e. the denial by politicians of citizens right to stand for election and the coungy's right to elect their president. Letter sent to: Sunday Business Post, Irish Times, Sunday Tribune, Irish Catholic, Sunday Independent, Irish Independent, Pat Kenny Show, Liveline, etc on 22/10/97
Editor,
The presidential election process is unconstitutional!
I want to challenge its constitutionality but haven't money or free legal aid!
Only Dana and Derek Nally used the constitutional options correctly. The others were preselected by parties & are seen to represent those parties.
Party supported candidates have a grossly unfair advantage over other candidates.
The Parties are putting forward 3 candidates of their choice. Generally, the odds against anyone else being elected without party support are very high. This has likely ruled out excellent potential candidates.
The peoples choice has been, and is being, subordinated to the parties' choices. (only 3 to 4% of adults are in a party)
A candidate needs only 20 TDs/senators or 4 Councils for nomination. There could be up to 10 nominated by TDs and senators each nominating 1, and another 6 or 8 nominated by councils. Abuse of the procedures until now doesn’t make it right.
Why do parties unconstitutionally, undemocratically, control the choice of president?. Has the Attorney General not a role in this?.
Why didn’t Albert go for 20 TDs when he was challenging his party’s joint sponsorship of John Hume or, later, if he was to be the people’s president?. Why didn’t others?? e.g. the other FF & FG hopefulls
The ridiculous controversy, damning Mary McAleese by association, shows that parties will stoop to anything to have THEIR OWN candidate elected.
The parties (particularly the PDs, Democratic Left, Fine Gael) vilified and harangued John Hume for talking with Jerry Adams to bring about the first peace process. That they would have agreed him as a cross-party choice for president, except for Albert’s pique, implicitly shows their cynical opportunism.
Politicians may have, in their own interest, damaged Mary McAleese’s chances of being a healer of divisions should she be elected. They quickly put the president in his/her box if (s)he puts a foot wrong but, they have commandeered the choice of president from the citizens.
In the current referendum the Govt must give equal weight & financial resources to both arguments as a result of the McKenna judgement in the Divorce referendum process.
In a Presidential election each candidate must, likewise, have a fair and equitable (based on their perceived merits only) chance of election. The parties have ruled that out
What of Govt parties nominating/ supporting/endorsing a candidate. Can Govt, or members of Govt, legally(constitutionally) add their weight to a particular candidate, attend rallies in favour of one candidate? & use state cars etc to attend them.
M Bannotti made a boob questioning the appropriateness of Northerners being candidates and was silenced while J Bruton took up the Adams connection (implicitly it seems, on her behalf) to damage the stronger runner.
Why doesn’t M Bannotti disassociate herself from FG & the ugly campaign being waged by John Bruton against M McAleese using the leaked documents &, probably, exacerbating the harm done by that leak?. D Nally distanced himself when he discovered he was being duped seemingly by the same sources as FG were using to blacken Mc Aleese.
If the Marys & Adi are interested in a democratic election & a fair deal for candidates and electors, why are they prepared to use the grossly unfair advantage of party support. That support virtually eliminates the potential of other runners to get elected &, unconstitutionally, fills a NON-PARTY political office with a PARTY candidate.
If the parties stayed out of the race it could be a democratic election and the person chosen would, more likely, be the peoples choice.
John Fitzgibbon
|
View Full Comment Text
save preference
Comments (9 of 9)