some questions

Ibis wrote:

I'd have to point out that while I agree with what you're saying here,
I think you'll find that if the government is acting unconstitutionally
in promoting illegal war, your correct recourse is to the courts,
because acting unconstitutionally is no more treasonous than any other
illegal activity.

Thanks for saying that. I think in this case, the crime is special. It's promoting a violent overthrow of the Constitution. The act of supporting an international crime (which I admit has yet to be ruled on by any court), would be an ordinary crime. But the pitting of folks like myself against others in this country, is seditious, to put it mildly. I suppose it would be very possible to get bogged down in this particular discussion, so I ought to say that it's not my desire to be involved in a civil war and that the courts would indeed by my choice. But thanks to the existence of this policy, such an endeavour becomes complicated beyond comprehension, if one wanted to win that is. Look at how complex an argument can become in general discussion. Imagine it with the red tape of the courts. Of course, if and when an international court makes a ruling on the legality of the conflict, we have a completely different ballgame. I'm venting because I'm frustrated I suppose, I hate being forced to be a clock watcher.

Ibis wrote:

I believe the cover is that we allow use of our airports to everyone, which is another form of neutrality.

I once put that point to a Detective Houlihan, the Garda in charge of security at Shannon. I asked him would he have a problem with the Iranians transitting Shannon on their way to bomb the US. He replied that he wouldn't, so at least he's consistent. I'd bet nobody in our government would be willing to be so consistent and make such an open declaration. That type of neutrality is all fine and well as long as nobody in government discusses it openly.

Ibis wrote:

Hoo boy. Yes, it's interesting that it wasn't a very strong campaign
element (an issue it certainly was, but raised by the public rather
than the campaigns), and you may well be correct about the reasoning.
Certainly Libertas threw absolutely every other Irish bogeyman into the
mix, but not neutrality - and that was quite noticeable - but thinking
back, none of the other campaigns used it much either. Startlingly
coherent policy formation - far better than the Yes "side".

It did get a bit of an airing, but not much. I remember having an argument about it with a good friend who is part of the CAEUC. I just wish it wasn't a part of either campaign, it sets my interests, as described already, back considerably. It just adds to the confusion. On the plus side, at least it wasn't as big an issue as it was during Nice. Jesus... I couldn't go through that again.

There is no right to take arms and overthrow the Government inherent within the Constitution if you feel that it is being breached. Beyond which, the idea of distinguishing the crime as "special" which you do is most arbitrary in nature. What about a militant Catholic who at the time of the passing of the Divorce Referendum felt particularly aggrieved. Should they be entitled to overthrow the State? This is not the United States of America.

If anything the only right which comes near to that in our Constitution is one in favour of the State which extends Constitutional immunity to any Act of the Oireachtas expressed to be for the purpose of securing public safety and the preservation of the State in times of war or armed rebellion. This one exception for this is the imposition of the death penalty which cannot be reinvoked without a referendum. This is all in Article 28 of the Constitution.

johnfás wrote:

There is no right to take arms and overthrow the Government inherent within the Constitution if you feel that it is being breached. Beyond which, the idea of distinguishing the crime as "special" which you do is most arbitrary in nature. What about a militant Catholic who at the time of the passing of the Divorce Referendum felt particularly aggrieved. Should they be entitled to overthrow the State? This is not the United States of America.

If anything the only right which comes near to that in our Constitution is one in favour of the State which extends Constitutional immunity to any Act of the Oireachtas expressed to be for the purpose of securing public safety and the preservation of the State in times of war or armed rebellion. This one exception for this is the imposition of the death penalty which cannot be reinvoked without a referendum. This is all in Article 28 of the Constitution.

What you say regarding the Constitution is very true. On the other hand, an open declaration of war against someone who poses us no threat would be the sundering of the Constitution and I'd see it as an act that rendered whatever authority the State claims, null and void. And I would reserve the right to take up arms. A referendum would be quite different and despite the fact that there have been many that I do not agree with, it's never entered my head to take up arms. The only party acting in an arbitrary fashion is the State. I'm very consistent in what I do and say.

Article 28 is one of the more interesting articles of our Constitution. Some claim that the state of emergency ended some time around the Good Friday Agreement. Others, like myself, would argue that it was never lifted at all. Whatever the answer to this, it would be very hard to claim, that at the present time, the State adheres to the template provided for the Constitution in the preamble. If the State lived up to its obligations and consistently ruled with the aims of implementing the template, I'd never have become an activist. The truth is, I honestly cannot think of any act of this government or indeed any legislation, that is in the spirit of the preamble. Every day we move further away from it and this is the only consistency our government has ever shown.

It is also worth pointing out that Article 6.1 has this to say:

Quote :

All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.

We're more like the US than you might like to think.