President must explain refusal to refer Bill

One wonders what considerations President McAleese took into account in deciding not to refer the Banking Stabilisation Bill to the Supreme Court amid its probable unconstitutional provisions?

The Constitution (A.26) does not dictate those considerations, but as guardian of the Constitution and the rights of the people from legal mall-administration, presumably those considerations are properly and exclusively ‘legal’ ones.

The sole issue for referral is whether the Bill or any of its provisions is “repugnant to the Constitution“. That she probably took into account misguided political considerations as well or predominantly, time will tell. But the office is devalued significantly by taking into account considerations which are themselves questionable constitutionally.

To be true to her office and the people the President should practise ‘glasnost and perestroika’ and now state clearly and fully her reasons for not referring the Bill, the consequences of which are profound and potentially ruinous.

Kevin T Finn

Mitchelstown

Co. Cork