Several of the presidential candidates have been talking absolute nonsense about the constitutional role of the Presidency. For the most part it doesn't matter at all, but for one of the candidates it matters quite a bit.
This candidate is Mary McAleese. And it matters about her because the very basis upon which she claims to be distinctively suited to the Presidency is bogus.
Just have a read of what she said about how uniquely qualified she was for the Presidency on RTE's Morning Ireland two weeks ago.
Asked "What do you offer [as a presidential candidate] that none of the other candidates offer?" She replied: "I think it is important that the Irish people look across the breadth of the job description of the Presidency, because it is quite a complex job description.
"The Constitution is the spine of Irish democracy. It is that which guarantees people that they live in a free and open democracy. They don't have to fear government in any shape or form and so the constitutional watchdog role of the Presidency, I believe, is absolutely crucial.
"The fact that we have not had a constitutional crisis over a great number of years or a very long time has got to do with the subtle impact of those people in the role of the Presidency, people who were consummately happy dealing with constitutional law.
"Constitutional giants like Cearbhaill O Dalaigh, Paddy Hillery, who was an experienced parliamentarian, Mary Robinson, a very accomplished constitutional lawyer. I think that it's important we note that. I think at some times it can be lost as we talk about the more caring outreach of the Presidency which was the one that was most beautifully developed by Mary Robinson.
"So if I say to you that in relation to the formal aspect and the constitutional protective role, that is something that I think I bring a special skill to as a lawyer and as someone who is very intimate with the Irish Constitution."
The sheer vanity of the claim and of the association with "constitutional giants" is staggering, especially when it is appreciated that everything she has to say about the constitutional role of the Presidency is sheer nonsense.
The authoritative work on the Irish Constitution, The Irish Constitution by J.M. Kelly (third edition edited by Gerard Hogan and Gerry White) states in a footnote on page 83:
"It scarcely needs to be said that the flattering titles sometimes bestowed on the Presidency - `guardian of the constitution', `guardian of the people's rights' and so on - are pure journalistic hyperbole. The Constitution nowhere describes the Presidency in such terms and is extremely sparing in its attribution of any independent functions to the office at all.
"The only possible basis for describing the office in such a way - the rarely-used machinery of Article 26 (which gives discretion to the President to refer Bills to the Supreme Court to test their constitutionality, prior to signing them into law) - is in fact arguably inimical to the upholding of constitutional values, since a bill, once cleared under the Article 26 procedure and passing into law, can by Article 34.3.3 never again be challenged, even though conditions (including the climate of public and judicial opinion) may have changed or the working of the law may have disclosed objectionable results not foreseen at the time of the Article 26 reference."
At the press conference opening her campaign last Thursday I asked Mrs McAleese what authority she could cite for her claims about the constitutional role of the Presidency. She replied tartly "Myself, for starters," to the joy of the serried ranks of Fianna Fail Ministers and TDs.
I asked her again on Monday via the Irish Times website. This time she replied: "Please read the more recent comments of the constitutional review committee, which took quite a different view on the subject [from the view of Hogan and Whyte]."
The Report of the Constitutional Review Group (to which I assume she is referring) devotes 10 pages to the Presidency (pages 25 to 34).
Far from offering a view different from those of Hogan and Whyte on the blather about "the constitutional protective role of the Presidency", no mention at all is made of this. There is nothing at all in those 10 pages which in any way disagrees with the comments offered by Hogan and Whyte. Indeed, it would have been very surprising if it did, since one of the main authors of the report was the same Gerard Hogan.
I am not alleging that Mary McAleese is lying when she suggests that the Report of the Constitutional Review Group supports her view of the constitutional role of the Presidency. I do not think that. She is just chancing her arm. A president who has no "special skill as a lawyer" and who is in no way "very intimate with the Irish Constitution" (whatever that means) is at no disadvantage. But a president suffused with vain admiration for her own entirely mistaken appreciation of her "special skill as a lawyer" and her intimacy with the Constitution could cause havoc.
A president needs to know only three things about the Constitution: (i) it is a bad idea to refer bills to the Supreme Court to test their constitutionality before signing them into law, so don't bother your head about this constitutional function; (ii) if a Taoiseach who has lost the confidence of the Dail wants to call an election, keep your head down and see how the ball bounces; and (iii) otherwise do exactly as you are told by the government of the day.
Yes, there are bits in the Constitution about promulgating laws, being in supreme command of the Defence Forces (for God's sake don't think that means anything), about disputes between the Dail and the Seanad on money bills (it will never happen), or abridgement of time for the Seanad to consider a Bill (that won't arise either and if it does get in the Chief Justice smartly). But there is no need for a president to have any "intimacy" with these. From a constitutional perspective, there should be no problems with Dana, Adi Roche, Derek Nally or Mary Banotti (although Mary Banotti has talked rubbish also about the President being "guardian of the Constitution"). The only candidate who is a cause for worry on this front is Prof Mary McAleese.
And since she fails on the very criteria she herself self-servingly (she thought) devised for the Presidency, where does that leave her?