http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0801/breaking4.html Should Norris be allowed to run, despite these (*)(*)(*)(*)ing* revelations? I was a supporter of Norris up until this story broke and hoped to be able to vote for him in the upcoming election. Does any Irish poster doubt that any other member of the oireachtas would attempt to intervene in a similar situation? I was surprised when I first heard the restrictions on entering the race and still believe the requirements for nomination are two high, anti-democratic and a cynical attempt by established parties to maintain control over high offices in this country. Should Norris be allowed to run and be judged by the citizens of Ireland? Should we have constitutional reform of the nomination process as advocated by the all party green paper? Is his campaign too damaged? Does he now, by continuing to fight, damage the chance of having significant constitutional reform in this area? *D A M N I N G is not an obscenity.
What are the restrictions on entering the race? What are the requirements? Are gay people allowed to run for office? What is the situation regarding gay rights in Ireland? Yes. If it is an issue for the people, they can vote against. In this case, they have a right to know what happened. From the letters he wrote, it appears he went to great lengths to use every bit of influence to weight the case in favour of his partner. It could be construed by some as misuse of the position he held at that time, or even indicative he would abuse his power in the future. Otherwise, is there any reason to reveal a person's inclination unless there is some issue about it? You wouldn't have to mention you're hetero. People usually only acquire rights by fighting for them and making a point. Still, he could make the point for gay rights, but not much of a point to be made in favour of abuse of power.
Abuse of power is in this case relative it is standard practice in the country for TD's and senators to write to judges seeking clemency for constituants and relatives. It is wrong but is it right that he should be the only one punished for it?
34% want him back, 18% would still give him their first preference. The letters aside, this is extremely troubling, how flawed is our democracy? There is something terribly wrong with a country where, when 1 in 3 wish for a candidate to run, that citizen should still be denied a place in the election. http://www.independent.ie/national-...-want-david-norris-for-president-2866201.html If Norris is not on the ballot paper I will spoil my vote. If he does make it I'm abstaining. We constitutional reform and we need it now!!!
No, this is one of many issues with Norris. His bright idea to have a film Fairytale of Kathmandu be checked for "facts" just because Cathal Ó Searcaigh looks like a pedophile which he is. To calling the future (now current) Pope a Nazi. Not even including why the hell would he have an academic discussion with a reporter from Magill. Norris has a habit of saying things then days later denying he said it. Which is why I would never support him because I don't believe his denial about about his position on Ireland joining the Commonwealth. He quit so no. No different then in any other country. Political elites always back one horse over another. The back horse tends to win. For example: McCain vs Obama. McCain was backed by Republican political elites, Obama was backed by liberal elites during primaries. Change the Constitution first. Haven't read it as it's from a party that barely gets 1% of the vote. Can you link it? Its over. Does he now, by continuing to fight, damage the chance of having significant constitutional reform in this area?
Irish sense of Democracy isn't flawed, it's your understanding and that of 34% of voting Irish of how hypocritical and scummy this guy is. Let's just look at his position dealing with this letter to have a conviction for his former lover overturned. The man raped a child and Norris is defending him. Now that looks bad, really bad. Nobody should be able to survive that politically. But somehow you still support him. Now is Norris going to defend the Irish Catholic Church and those who took part in molesting kids for decades? Nope. Now that makes Norris look like a hypocrite. Then throw on the fact he didn't deny saying Pederasty in ancient Greece was something that is up for discussion morally makes the man a no go. You can call for reform all you want. This is not a good example to use for that reform. He'd lose in the election and you'd waste a Constitutional vote on a man who thinks Children are fair game. But I would expect nothing less from a 20 year old who probably doesn't have kids.
Take a deep breath. Go back and reread what I have written. I will not vote for him if he is on the ballot but I support his right to run. I will not vote for any candidate who writes letters of representation for criminal trials it is not in my view the proper place of a member of the legislature it is however commonplace there are two other memers of the oirechtas who wrote such letters lynch and kileen both have since been reelected. I will spoil my ballot if he is kept off the list because it is wrong to disenfancuise those who wish to vote for him. If 18% of the population wishes to vote for him and they are denied the opportunuty to do so then they have been disenfranchised. I dislike Sinn Fein and I dislike Michael Lowry. I don't think that members of that party hould be elected or that he should sit in the dail but I respect the right of other citizens to vote them in. I don't say that I know better or that they should be denied the chance to exercise their right to vote. I think your a fool if you vote for SF, FF or ML but I support your right to do so, as at least 25% do. I don't believe that a system that was agreed in the all party green paper on the presidency was in need of democratisation should be used to keep a candidate out of the race who has a high level of democratic support. And I am not the only person who feels this way 18% will vote for him but 34% want him back, a 16% difference.
Edit Breen not Kileen wrote letters on behalf of a rapist and was reelected. Kileen was forced to step down because his office attempted to directly contact the judge. The exact changes advised by the Green paper were. But of course that would weaken the hold that the parties hold over the institutions of state and so cannot be allowed to happen.
Can't see a problem with joining the common wealth. But if you don't want to vote for him you can vote for a candidate that does make the ballot. Every citizen should have the right to votefor any candidate they wish. You don't feel that it is a practice endemic in Irish politics? In the US they can only decide the nominee of their party. Citizens may still vote for any candidate they wish. Constitutional reform was called for in 1998. Strangely the call for reform was sat on, it might just mean that parties lose control of the office of the presidency. And as I am sure you are aware the constitution cannot be amended except that a bill is first proposed in the Dail. So the constitution can't be ammended except with support of major political parties and I can't see any of them voting to reduce their own powers. I believe you havent read it because you have no idea what an all party green paper is. No it's not a paper from the Greens. The clue is in the name All Party Green Paper. It is from a dail committee charged with review of the constitution. They have published several reports and this, the third, on the presidency recomended that nomination to the office needed democratisation. http://www.constitution.ie/reports/3rd-Report-President.pdf Yes his chance of being elected is over, doesn't mean that people should not be able to vote for him if they wish.
I have, have you read what you written? You started out supporting him (the OP) until the story broke. Which means you would have voted for him if the story never came out even though he has a history (older then you) of this kind of crap. But now you support his right to run? He ass should be in jail for tampering with a case. And Lynch and Breen should not have. But Norris was wanting to run for President of Ireland. Which is a different beast because the President has the power to pardon. No, they haven't. They still have the right to vote. It's not about disliking. It's about criminal actions. IS Sinn Fein a criminal org, yes. But so is every other Irish political party. Lowry should have been in jail years ago. That's a failure of the Irish Government as a whole for not going after him. But these are local elections not National, which is a big difference. And tomorrow you can poll and it'll be totally different. That's democracy works. Whats the difference between non-custodial sentence and walking free? There is none.
You can't see a problem with joining the commonwealth? Let's forget Irish history and it's struggles to gain some sense of independence or even the fact both sides of Ireland can't even decide to be part of a United Ireland/ All Ireland system. Create a written in ballot then. Oh wait.. No, it's common in all politics whatever country to live in. But there are only 2 parties in the US that make all 50 state ballots. So you have a choice between 2 people picked by the parties, not the people. The major difference is the letter after their names. Republican or Democrat, Because during the National election both run towards the middle. That's American politics. When a 3rd party person get's elected either President or to Congress without support for either party then you'd have a case, but you don't. And 1998 there were bigger issues at hand then voting. Peace in Ireland is much more important don't you think? But I keep forgetting you were only 7 then and barely saw the violence of the 1980s and early 1990s. Dail has in the past approved changes to voting (plurality voting), in 1958 and 1968 but it was the Irish voters who rejected it, then in 1984 when certain non-nationals were given the right to vote. But even in 1998(the 19th Amendment) a special mechanism was created to make sure all those involved met the conditions and when those conditions were met then the change would happen, it didn't follow Constitution outright but delayed the change for a year. So it's possible to get what you want with conditions that are met. Say over a 1 or 2 period as it would have to require a radical change in Irish voting. Actually misread. So it's a Dail idea, eh? The very bunch you (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about. This should be good. So instead of democratization, it's lowering the bar of who can run. Imagine if Mick O'Hara or Ciaran Morrison made the ballot and was elected President of Ireland. And I have no problem with a write in but be careful of what you wish for. What if he was elected?
Yes, I supported him till the story broke... again you seem to feel that Irish citizens are incapable of weighing the pro's ad cons of every candidate. I support the right of all citizens to run but understand why it might be necessarily to have some restrictions on entering. The current restrictions are anti democratic they aren't designed to prevent an excessive number of no hopes from running they are designed to keep control of important offices of state in the control of a few established parties . A moment ago the practice was common to all politics and all countries now it is a criminal offence that warrents jail time. What makes the other candidates different? No he doesn't the president can only pardon on the advice of the government, Article 13.9 pardon is not a discretionary power. Disenfranchise to deprive of the right to vote or to marginalize. Keeping Norris of the ballot does not marginalise his supporters??? 20% of the population??? Local election in Ireland. A member of the Dail has far more power than the president. And if every policital party in ireland is a criminal organisation though that is not the adjective i'd use in the case of sinn fein then we have much bigger problems then the candidacy of David Norris. That does not mean he should ot be able to run or that citizens should not be able to vote for him. Your right today poll gives 40% support. Walking free was not your point, you claimed he tried to have his conviction overturned the letter did not relate to the conviction but his sentence.
We'll call it a generational gap perhaps, but no I don't see a problem with joining the commonwealth. India manages just fine were they better treated by the British government? And we could compete in the games!!! Wait for what? I don't see a a write in as being unacceptable. I would very much like to see write ins, the proposition of referendums by popular petition* and the ability of any constituency to recall a TD^. I don't fear democracy. Though the 25% of people who voted for SF/FF should probably give me pause. A common feature of ballot access laws across the US is the ability of a candidate to make the ballot by popular petition. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans can prevent a candidate achieving the ballot if they can reach the required number of signatures, that option is not available in Ireland. I have a case because in the US any candidate can reach the ballot through popular petition, a path denied to Irish citizens. Few Americans will vote for a non D/R candidate though because with FPTP such votes are "wasted". And in the 13 years since then? The 1958 and 1968 attempts to move to plurality voting were another cynical attempt again by FF to consolidate power by moving to FPTP they believed they could squeeze out labour and independents entirely and have a two party system with FG. The 1984 was a reciprocal measure for the UK and the 1998 was neccisary for the peace process. What is your point? We would have to move completely away from political parties and towards a Dail composed of independents, completely unworkable in a parliamentary system. No their is still a bar in place but instead of the lever being held by political parties it would allow citizens a say over the process of nomination. What fun instead of presidential fire sidechats we could have a scare at bed time. You have a very low opinion of the Irish electorate. Then he is elected. Democracy the least worst form of government is working to the satisfaction of a majority of citizens. I live in lowry laand sometime democracy isn't pretty. But unless the * an excellent feature of the free state constitution that was dropped in the Dev's 1937 constitution again we can't let the little people have too much power. California has made an unholy mess of it but the swiss seem to be managing quiet nicely. ^Yes I know it could wreak havoc on a sitting unpopular government thats the point.
I've watched the Irish citizens screw themselves over for 13 years now. I lost all faith after the 2nd vote on the Lisbon Treaty. Eh, what's the difference between some restrictions and allow untested to run? Yes, in all countries, not just Ireland. It pisses me off to no end when those in political power pass laws to make such things illegal but it's okay for them to do it. Really depends on how you read it. But I got 2 aces. Article 13.6: "The right of pardon and the power to commute or remit punishment imposed by any court exercising criminal jurisdiction are hereby vested in the President" It's very important you see that because.... Article 13.9 states: "The powers and functions conferred on the President by this Constitution shall be exercisable and performable by him only on the advice of the Government, save where it is provided by this Constitution that he shall act in his absolute discretion or after consultation with or in relation to the Council of State, or on the advice or nomination of, or on receipt of any other communication from, any other person or body." Key words in bold.. Vested: meaning fully and unconditionally guaranteed as a legal right, benefit, or privilege. So it's unconditionally his/her legal right. So it's his/her absolute discretion. So to me it means he or she should have absolute authority. Despite how much the rest of the Government wants to be involved and I say this because of 2 reasons: 1. Everything else the President can or can't do without consent is clearly laid out through out the whole of the Constitution like Article 12.9 where the President can't leave Ireland without consent. 2. In Article 13.8: "The President shall not be answerable to either House of the Oireachtas or to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and functions of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of these powers and functions. " So there is actually 2 parts in the Constitution that holds my view. He/She can act alone on this matter. Nobody's vote is being deprived. He decided to not run, that was his choice. Sinn Fein is a criminal org. Just as FF, FG and the rest are. Again, Norris gave up, if he was one away from the ballot it be a different story. and come election day... he won't even register. Actually it did related to the conviction because you need a conviction to get a sentence. He also claimed his ex-lover was lured into some elaborate trap and he was unfairly convicted even after Ezra plead guilty. Read the letter. It's full of double speak and trying to tell the court he's something of a big deal.
I have faith in the electorate we are maturing some day hopefully soon we will have political parties that have ideologies as opposed to civil war legacies. Some day michael lowry will not be elected and the healy reas will be booted from power. Shane Ross will have his own party and the cabinet will comprise of a range of business people and experts not teachers and lawyers stephen Donnelly will have the finance portfolio. I think anyone should be able to go, But I will accept that as a practical matter a candidate should be able to demonstrate a reasonable level of public support, in line with the recommendations of the all party green paper. It is not illegal for a citizen to write such a letter. No its not, the only provision giving absolute discretion.... The only time that the president has absolute discretion is on the question of the dissolution of the government. Article 13.9 specifially state that the government has final say unless it is in the absolute discretion of the president. 13.8 is irrelevant to the discussion. The powers vested in the president are all restricted by 13.9 the only power that is exempt from oversight is the power to disolve the dail which is vested in the preident at his absolute discretion. wiki explains it more succinctly And if he re-enters the race and is denied the nomination are his supporters not being disenfranchised then? Why? why would it be a different story? If 20% want to vote for him and he was willing to run then why does it matter that he was denied by one oireachtas signature or ninteen? Why should citizens not be able to look at the ballot paper and make their own decision? Probably not ( if by register you mean make the ballot) that doesn't mean he shouldn't have the right to. No he had already been convicted in Norris' (futile) attempts to secure a noncustodial sentence he raised wht he seems to have believed were anomalies at the trial he did not attempt to get the conviction overturned he tried and failed to secure a noncustodial sentence.
It is a generational gap as we (Irish) are losing the generational knowledge of the past. Younger generations (including mine) forgets the UK is fundamentally still racist in nature. That the orange order is still a problem. While that still exist it is unwise to align ourselves with it. (a view that will get me in trouble) Ireland enjoys the same rights as India with the UK even with Ireland out in the Commonwealth, and no I am not saying India was treated better, but that Ireland decided to leave the Commonwealth. The only difference is the commonwealth games which is really nothing. Only thing we'd be really able to compete in is Rugby 7s and would still lose to NZ. So I'll stick with the 6 Nations. Wait for it being picked up again. I would gladly support that. But only seats and making it a 2 year process for Referendum (a vote to get on the ballot/ 100,000 signers) then a National vote. Well at least they give you pause. Umm, no. It varies between States. I lived in Ohio during 2006-2008 election cylces and in 2006 parties were denied ballot access for both elections. It took the US Supreme Court to overturn it well after the election cycle. In most states you need between 1-3% of signatures in that State for a National election. You usually have 30-60 days to get a couple hundred thousand signatures. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe always criticizes the US over this. Every time certain members of Congress interest laws to reduce the standards to even the game, its usually voted down by huge margins. If you are lucky you make the ballot. No person who runs for a National election outside of the 2 parties has made it on all 50 State ballots. Ross Perot was only one in recent history and he spent well over $150 million before it even thought needed. Since Perot, States have made it harder. Dealing with the EU and Default? That it requires support. Having 20% of the population isn't going to get you the change. Not really. Irish would have to stop voting based on party alignment and start voting on what they want nationally.. do they want more democracy or more nurturing? Stuff like that. So it's really up to the Irish voter as they vote in the Dail. People still hold say over the process as they vote the political hacks in. Just cause you don't the like results doesn't mean it didn't work. Changing the bar doesn't change the fact it's done by political hacks voted in by the people. See the irony in that? Only cause I know if Jack (Charlton) ran he'd win. Cause we're all part of Jackie's army. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. * an excellent feature of the free state constitution that was dropped in the Dev's 1937 constitution again we can't let the little people have too much power. California has made an unholy mess of it but the swiss seem to be managing quiet nicely. ^Yes I know it could wreak havoc on a sitting unpopular government thats the point.[/QUOTE]
Okay, fair point, but at some point in the future could you see it happening? We could also decide to rejoin... Oh ye of little faith. I said it should give me pause not that it did. Wiki says three 3rd party candidates made the ballot in enough states to theoretically be able to win the presidential election. But it is possible, the bar is high, but a candidate with strong grassroots support could do it. Citizens can nominate. You don't really believe that do you? Golf and the Galway races more like. No 20% want Norris in. I don't have any polls indicating the level of support for such a change but I can't see how broadening the process for nomination in line with the green paper would be contentious. They vote the hacks in to legislate and manage rubbish disposal. There is no reason why the power to nominate should be solely vested in TD's and County Councillor. Would he be such a bad President? It is still the least worst for of government.
I really don't think the electorate is really maturing. Last 3 election cycles didn't show it. It's the same garbage in. That's a start. Not saying citizen but for a politician to get involved in a court matter, it undermines the ability of the courts in any country. We'll agree to disagree. And I know what Wiki says and using Wiki is a horrible idea. If he does, we'll discuss it then. Because as of right now Constitutionally he is required to have 20. Until it's changed, it's still 20. By register I mean, the support he has now will fade. By mentioning those anomalies he was trying to undermine the Israeli court. These anomalies could have been addressed at a later date in appellate court, not by a letter. He was trying to use those anomalies to carry favor by the manner of threat. Basically this is how you (the court) screwed up and "I am the guy who took Ireland to Humans Right court" angle. Politically that toxic. In international politics that has backlash.
Not really. Ireland already gets the benefits without being in it. Now if leader of the commonwealth of nations is elected and not passed to William, you'll find some support in Ireland. I'd also mention better odds would come of it if there was an All-Ireland sports program. But what is gained from it? What's in it for Ireland to join the commonwealth again? It's not little faith, just the reality of what the Irish are good at. Rugby and Football (Soccer) are our strengths. But the Aussies and Kiwis would run all over us in Rugby 7s. Oh I know, just felt like being a cheeky bastard. That's true, but you'd have to win those States. No way in hell you are. In fact you can make it on the ballot in 11 States (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, New Jersey, and North Carolina), but odds of you winning are 0%. As these are States that either heavily Republican or Democrat. And tomorrow the Pope will convert to Islam. Ron Paul has a strong grassroots and he didn't get anywhere close. Dealing with the EU and Default, yeah. But doing it all the time no. It's Ireland, everything is contentious just as it is in every other country. You mean the people voted in by the citizens. No clue, but my point is, anybody who does what Jack did and did more like bring the Cup home, you'd have person in Ireland consider him a Presidential front runner. That's scary because I don't think Jack or any manager knows how to run business let alone a country as Keep them under pressure doesn't really work. Except the day they take your rights away.
I would point to some excellent Independents who were elected (Shane Ross, Stephen Donnelly, our first cannabis campaigner) and the maturation of the political divide to a rational right left split with one dominant party on each side in the last election. But you have already argued that it is common across all politicians of all parties and countries. Why single out norris? I also quote the relevant constitutional article limiting the presidents powers in all matters except the dissolution of the dail, the only power at their absolute discretion is clearly enumerated. He has. Now who do I vote for? They are all awful. Mary Davis seems to be the best of a really bad lot but really Mary, Mary, Mary. My CSPE teacher once told the class that it was a constitutional requirement that a woman could only become president if she was named Mary, perhaps she spoke more truth then she knew. That it is constitutional does not make it right. Support for him as measured by polls displayed earlier(those wishing to give first preference) doesn't seemed to have waned significantly. It is in transfer that he has suffered. No one outside Ireland cares who our president is. We are not that important and the role is not that significant. For there to be backlash first some one has to know he's there.
He made the ballot. If he chooses to run as a republican candidate then he has to abide by the party decision. Candidate should have a right to run. No one has a right to win. If he failed to secure sufficient popular votes that's not the fault of republicans or democrats. You're very charitable in your view of the last 3 governments I can't see that provision being anymore contentious than the judges pay. To represent them. If they were representing the people there wold have been at least 40 names on the nomination paper. And many county councilors put the interests of their party above the wished of their constituents. Irish presidents unlike american presidents do not run the country so the situation doesn't really arise. And if the president did run the country, if we brought in constitutional change to give the president a role outside of national mascot, do you not see that people criteria would change to reflect the increased responsibilities? Funnily enough if enough people decide to take your rights away it is (*)(*)(*)(*)* hard to use a piece of paper to enforce them. I really hope you were being facetious when you were renouncing your american citizenship. On the off chance that things go belly up it would be a wonderful out. Yet again D A M N is not offensive or obscene.
Of course. But if he choose to run outside the Party, it's harder for him or anyone to make the ballot in all 50 States. Meaning his access to enough popular vote (which doesn't matter in the US, you can lose the popular vote and still win). It becomes their fault when Sectaries of State/ Parties deny ballot access by process of creating laws which make it virtually impossible to gain ballot access. The previous 2 Governments were in no win situations. Fianna Fáil was assuming (quite wrongly) that the Irish model didn't need to change after the first Celtic Tiger and tried to double down on it (using Foreign Direct Investment) to spur spending and cutting taxes (by 40% to 20% on Capital Gains) at the same time. FitzGerald (may he rest in peace) was right to go after McCreevy for his stupidity. You don't cut taxes from 40% to 20% then allow spending to increase by 48% over 3 years. But even then some of the blame falls on ECB who ignored Ireland's inflation issues, which lead to wage inflation that doesn't help Ireland's bottom line. The current Government just got in power. 6 months isn't enough time to measure their response. But I like the fact Kenny held firm on Ireland's Corporate tax rate and got the Eurozone to knock 2% of interest payments and add 7.5 years (15 years total to pay it back). This allows Ireland to get it's house in order in a fashion Greece could not. Instead of making 11.7 Billion a year, it's closer to 6 Billion. Plus a 7% cut to his pay and others around him is always a win in my book. Plush, who can't but like someone who says what need to be said about the Catholic Church. No, I am not saying that. What I saying is President does have an opinion (and signs laws). Do we know his opinions? Not really. I don't think the criteria would really change as people still vote based on if they like them or not. When people start voting on the issues directly maybe, but it doesn't happen. Of course, which is why the people have to be the protection. The people need to support and defend the paper, not the State as it's the State's natural reaction to increase it's powers not limit them. Though Ireland does an okay job of it. Why would I be facetious about a matter that has 2 power parties in the US cheering an assassination of a citizen? It's sickening.
