Sir, – We are strongly opposed to the current proposals to amend the Constitution for the following reasons.
The proposal in relation to Oireachtas inquiries seriously weakens the rights of individual citizens, firstly to protect their good names, and secondly to have disputes between themselves and the Oireachtas concerning their constitutional rights (especially their rights to fair procedures) decided by an independent judiciary.
The proposal to allow proportionate reductions in judicial remuneration (which we support in principle) provides insufficient protection for the independence of the judiciary. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The 30th Amendment to the Constitution is a clear and direct attempt by the Oireachtas to persuade the people to overturn a decision of the Supreme Court and also to usurp the function of the judiciary by undermining the Separation of Powers enshrined in both the Constitution and common law.
The motivation for this has been the Supreme Court’s decisions in the Abbeylara and Callely cases, which directly rejected the Oireachtas’s desire to conduct inquiries and, most controversially, to make findings about individuals.
Rather than accept the Supreme Court’s decision, the Oireachtas has, in a fit of pique, decided to attempt to persuade the people to overturn a court decision they, the politicians, didn’t agree with and were affronted by.
This motivation is being cloaked and “sold” to the people as a means of reform of the tribunals of inquiry, which all would have to admit have become too expensive in both time and treasure. But to undermine the separation of powers and a citizen’s right to defend his/her good name in order to do this is to take a number of steps too far.
The intention of the proposed amendment is to remove from people against whom the inquiry makes adverse findings the right to go to the courts to vindicate their right to a good name as, if their good name is damaged, it will be for the Oireachtas (which made findings that damaged their good name) to decide if their good name is more valuable than the “public interest”, and they’ll decide that too, with no court oversight or right of appeal.
Another worrying aspect of this proposed amendment is that all parties in the Oireachtas support it, and why wouldn’t they, as it will greatly increase their own power beyond being legislators and turn them into investigators and quasi-judges, with all of the opportunities for publicity and grandstanding a TD or senator could want.
Therefore, I believe the rejection of the 30th Amendment is a democratic necessity and I intend to vote No. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Surely we have to find a cure for the obsession with amending the Constitution. Apart from the current referendums and the many reports by the Oireachtas Committees between 1997 and 2011, the Government has promised to establish a Constitutional Convention.
A constitution is not a transient book of rules. It is the fundamental law of the state, embodying its political philosophy and basic provisions relating to the formation and powers of the principal organs of government. Formal amendment should arise in exceptional circumstances only – examples are changes in the structure of the state or in its international relations. Otherwise the challenge for the courts is to interpret the constitution intelligently and imaginatively, acknowledging as appropriate an evolving social and economic milieu. Yours, etc,
Sir, – I was undecided regarding the two pending referendums until I saw the headline, “Lawyers urge No vote in referendums” (Home News, October 12th). Now I shall certainly be voting in favour of both proposals! – Yours, etc,
Sir, – As I struggle to make up my mind as to how I will vote in respect of the proposed amendment on Oireachtas inquiries, and having read the information provided by the Referendum Commission, two points need to be clarified.
In subsection 2 of the proposed amendment, it states that a House or both Houses of the Oireachtas shall have the power to conduct an inquiry” in a manner provided by law” and in sub section 4 of the proposed amendment it states that the House or Houses shall determine “with due regard to the principles of fair procedures”. What are the powers provided by law and what is set down as due regard to the principles of fair procedures?
Will the Oireachtas have the power to decide how these two statements will be enacted? If so, why have we not been told how these statements will be interpreted by the Oireachtas to enable us make an informed decision.
My initial reaction was to vote Yes to this amendment but I am now so unsure that I believe the expression “if in doubt, leave it out” will and should apply.
This amendment seems rushed and lacks clarity. In its current form it does not justify a change that will mean more power for the Oireachtas, a body that does not always cover itself in glory regarding the best interests of the electorate. – Yours, etc,