asked the President whether his attention has been called to the recent decision of the Court of appeal in the case of Rex. (Corcoran) v. Clinton, and Rex. (O'Connell) v. Military Governor of Hare Park Internment Camp, and whether he proposes to introduce legislation to amend Article 50 of the Constitution so as to ensure its interpretation in accordance with the intention of the Constituent Assembly, or to take any other steps to remedy the present situation.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. [ORAL ANSWERS.] - ARTICLE 50 OF CONSTITUTION.
TOMAS Mac EOIN
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative.
As regards the second part, the late Court of Appeal was not competent to define the interpretation of the Constitution. The late Attorney-General on behalf of the Government refused to submit the question as to whether the Public Safety Act was constitutional or otherwise, and though pressed by the Court, refused to adopt this view that the Public Safety Act amended the Constitution though not purporting to do so expressly. The late Attorney-General had advised the Government that the Constitution could not be amended incidentally, but that any amendment by legislation must be by legislation directed expressly to that purpose.
Certain of the Judges in the late Court of Appeal, according to my information, were reluctant to recognise the position of Dáil Eireann as a Constituent Assembly, and pressed upon the late Attorney-General to argue that the Constitution was itself an ordinary Statute and was subject to amendment like an ordinary Statute. The late Attorney-General in open court unequivocally declined to argue this point of view or submit any contention founded upon it.
I would like to ask, arising out of that question, if there is not a possibility, even a probability, inasmuch as the expression of the judges was such as to create more than a doubt, that the judges would decide as indicated? It does not depend on what the Attorney-General may advise, but what is the probable effect of such a judgment, and therefore it is necessary to deal either with the Constitution or with every Bill that comes forward. Every Bill must definitely contain a statement to the effect that it does not in any way abrogate or go contrary to the Constitution, and it must be read subject to the Constitution.
I fear that that would be implying that there was some foundation for the contention that it would be possible to amend the Constitution by legislation, not expressly directed to that purpose. As regards the first part of the question, I have only got to reiterate that it was not competent for the late Court of Appeal to pronounce upon the Constitution, and that within the Constitution itself there is a provision stating the court which would have the right to interpret it.
But it was within the competence of the court to say whether an Act did not violate the Constitution and if, on the one hand, it is contended that an Act of the Oireachtas does violate the Constitution, if the court says it is the law and if the Constitution is not binding, then surely the matter is of very great importance indeed?
That question can be debated at another time.