A Message from the people of Europe to the Irish voters

by Colm Moloney - wethepeople.ie Fri Oct 16, 2009 16:12

An attempt to bring a number of legal challenges aimed at overturning the result of the second referendum on the Lisbon treaty has been refused by the High Court which ruled the arguments advanced were political not legal.Mr. Justice Sean Ryan on Monday dismissed four seperate applications for leave to challenge the constitutionality of the 28th amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009 brought about as a result of the majority Yes vote in the October 2nd referendum.The judge said no compelling arguments had been made out for leave in any of the cases.The challenges were brought by Harry Rea, Blarney Rd., Co. Cork;Nora Bennis, north circular rd.,Limerick;Mark McCrystal,Swords Rd., dublin and richard Behal,Killarney, Co. kerry.All four made their applications personally without the assistance of lawyers and sought leave to seek declarations that the result of the referendum is null and void and the amendment itself is repugnant to the constitution.Among a series of claims, it was alleged the Government acted outside its jurisdiction by failing to put the 'guarantees' obtained by it concerning the lisbon treaty before the Oireachtas prior to the referendum.A number of arguments were also made about the status of those guarantees. It was claimed there had been a 'cynical deception' of the people and the government had acted beyond its authority by involving the heads of other member states in their private capacity so as to create an internationally binding treaty affecting people's fundamental rights and constitutional protections without obtaining their consent.
It also argued that retaining the same title for the latest bill was an attempt to eradicate the existance of the previous vote which the government lost and 'should have respected'
Mr. Justice ryan ruled, in order to bring judicial review proceeding, a statable case must be made. While that threshold was low,'very compelling reasons' would have to be given to allow leave for a case to have 'a solemn decision of the people' declared null and void.Some of the arguments put forward, while 'dressed up in constitutional language', did not contain the required legal or constitutional points for judicial review and were densely political arguments, Mr. Justice Ryan found. While the applicants had made 'a powerful argument' about why a particular attitude should be taken on how to vote in the referendum, there was no legal basis to justify judicial review.A number of the points made constituted 'politics not law',Mr. justice Ryan stated.The judge also said some of the applications contained arguments which were more technical in nature, such as the argument in relation to the title of the amendment.Others were more complex in their presentation, and were less easy to summarise, he added. Mr. Justice ryan also rejected an earlier application by the four for an order granting them the costs of bringing their case and any subsequent judicial review proceedings on the basis that the matter had been brought in the national interest and not for any personal benefit.Following the judge's decision,Mr. Rea said he intended to appeal to the Supreme Court.

by W. Finnerty. Sun Oct 18, 2009 16:32

If, in connection with ANY matter relating to our Constitution (Bunreacht na hEireann), Mr. Justice Sean Ryan -- or ANY one of his colleagues in our judiciary -- said "black is white", we would all have to FULLY accept that as being 100% "gospel truth" presumably?

Our judiciary appears to have no regard for the fact that constitutions such as ours are very deliberately written so that people who are not lawyers can easily understand them, and thus make perfectly healthy, sensible, responsible and valid assessments as to whether they are being violated or not: just as well, and possibly many times better, than judges who appear -- for reasons best known to themselves -- to imagine they have the right to "play God" regarding such crucially important matters for our Nation, and for all the people of our Nation.

Unfortunately for all of us, the members of our judiciary can act out this very arrogant and extremely dangerous and socially unhealthy role in the clear knowledge that their very well-paid jobs, and their extremely privileged and completely over-protected positions in our Government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial), CANNOT be altered by any direct means (by the people of our Nation) at election time, or at any other time for that matter.

Consequently, our judges can (in practice) pretty much do and say whatever they like regarding Bunreacht na hEireann (The BASIC Law of the Republic of Ireland): and do so with TOTAL impunity. This being the case, it's very small wonder (in my view) that the Republic of Ireland has gradually sunk down into the almighty mess it's now in: socially, financially, and every way virtually.

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Like many others who have studied the actual situation, and for the reasons stated at http://www.humanrightsireland.com/DailEireannGroup1/3August2009/Email.htm (connected with Article 6.1 of our Constitution), I believe the holding of a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was a very straightforward violation of our Constitution.

"Final appeal" means "FINAL appeal", and none of us need arrogant and ignorant judges to be forcing us all to believe otherwise.

Related link: http://www.humanrightsireland.com/DrAnneJeffers/5July2009/Email.htm#Finally

by Lugh Sun Oct 18, 2009 18:03

The outrageous corruption in our judiciary now desperately needs to be purged.

Dictionary definition of the word "final":

Meaning 1: "of or occurring at the end; concluding; ultimate; last."

Meaning 2: "having no possibility for further discussion, action, or change; conclusive; decisive: a final decree of judgement."