Sir, – I am somewhat concerned that in the midst of all the drama surrounding the presidential election, that two proposed amendments to our Constitution, the fundamental law of the State, will not receive as much attention as they should. We should never alter our Constitution without serious debate and consideration of the issues, especially in the light of what could well turn out to be unintended consequences.
Neither of these amendments are mere technical emendations to the text but represent an action by the executive and the legislature to aggregate more power to themselves. This from an Oireachtas that has rarely in its history shown itself to be capable of exercising in a responsible fashion the powers it already has.
In the case of the 29th amendment, the executive and legislature seek to gain some power over the judiciary. Now this may or may not be justified, but it still is, however small, an interference in the balance of power between the three pillars of government and deserves our attention. There is a danger that the executive could be perceived by judges as being a “paymaster” and that this perception could influence, or seem to influence, judicial decisions by the higher courts in cases involving the State as a party. If even one judge acts, or is suspected to have acted, because of such an impression, then it may well cast doubt on all other judges too.
There is also the question of whether or not this amendment is even required, as the imposition of the “public service levy” on judges was never tested in court. The O’Byrne case in the 1950s would seem to indicate that no constitutional issue would have presented itself and the current Government should have sought to test this.
The 30th amendment also contains worrying features. In particular, the last section which places the protection of citizens’ rights in the hands of the same body, the Oireachtas, that is investigating them, without the full protection of the courts. It assumes the Oireachtas can be trusted to act in a non-partisan or impartial way, when history shows that politicians as a class often fail to act in this manner.
On the face of it, both amendments seem to be motherhood and apple pie, but a closer look reveals cause for concern. Both rely on us trusting government to be a benign institution, whereas history ought to teach us that governments are not always benign or trustworthy. Our Constitution exists to lay down limits to the power of the State and to protect us from any abuse of power. We must always be careful to hand any power to the State that may be misused in the future by a less benign government than we currently enjoy. – Yours, etc,