Equality before the law. Letter from a constituent.

Dear Bill,

Article 40 of the Irish Constitution and Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union hold that all citizens must be treated equally before the law.

The following three quotes are clear on how citizens are to be treated equally before the law and as the Dáil and Seanad seems to continually ignore the constitutional force pertaining to this I must conclude that TDs and Senators are either ignorant of the facts or deliberately willing to act unconstitutionally and unlawfully.

 

“This conclusion, that there is a right of bodily integrity, gets support from a passage in the Encyclical Letter, “Peace on Earth”:-

“Beginning our discussion of the rights of man, we see that every man has the right to life, to bodily integrity and to the means which are necessary and suitable for the proper development of life; these are primarily FOOD, clothing, SHELTER, rest, MEDICAL CARE, and finally the NECESSARY SOCIAL SERVICES.””

(G Ryan v. Attorney General.) http://supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf

 

“Those entitled to State aid by constitutional right SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DEPEND ON NUMERICAL STRENGTH AND OR POLITICAL CLOUT to achieve their just desserts. Needs should be met as a matter of constitutional priority and savings, if necessary, should be made elsewhere. A citizen’s constitutional right must be responded to by the State in full. A partial response has no justification in law, even in difficult financial circumstances which may entail the raising of new tax revenue to meet such claims – happily a situation which has not pertained for several years.”

(Sinnott v. Minister of education.)

http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3

 

“I am satisfied that the provisions of the Constitution which enact that all citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law require that, prima facie, EVERY CITIZEN HAS THE SAME RIGHTS AS EVERY OTHER CITIZEN, but I am also satisfied that the concluding part of the section indicates that the enactments of the State may have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function. This gives a wide scope for differentiation between individual citizens, but it DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THE ARBITRARY PREFERENCE OF ONE CITIZEN TO ANOTHER.

(East Donegal Co-operative Livestock Mart Limited and Others v. Attorney General)

http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3

 

If I earn €100 and you €50 and the tax rate is 10% I pay €10 and you €5 that is I pay twice as much tax as you and you end up with €45, me €90, i.e. I twice as well off before and after tax or charge. We both have been treated equally before the law.

 

If we are both charged €10 however, I end up with €90 and you with €40 whereas before at a 10% rate you ended with €45. That is an arbitrary preference of one citizen to another so is unconstitutional and unlawful. It is also making you pay the same tax though earning less and leaving me more than twice as well off after the charge as I was before it. In other words, I have been treated more than equally to you.

 

If I don’t receive a reply to this within a reasonable time I’ll assume that you don’t care about the lower earners being cheated out of more of their income than higher earners through unlawful charges and will vote accordingly.

Government is not a private commercial company. It must treat all citizens equally and if it doesn’t it can be taken to court and in this case, I think, be forced to refund all unlawful charges.

 

Sincerely,

Michael

Shangan Ave.,

Ballymun,

Dublin 9.