Complete 6 page APA formatted essay: Constitutional Law Degree.

This is what this paper is all about.

McKenna v. An Taoiseach (No. 2) followed the earlier unsuccessful McKenna v. An Taoiseach (No. 1) case, which was a challenge brought by the same litigant in respect of Government expenditure during the Maastricht treaty referendum campaign. In this case, the Supreme Court resolved a question on whether or not it was proper for the government to expend certain monies in a publicity campaign designed to influence public opinion in relation to the proposed referendum on divorce. The Supreme Court found that the Government expended public monies in the sum of 500,000 which had been made available by Dail Eireann to the Minister of Equality and Law Reform in the conduct of a campaign to provide information with regard to the issues involved in the Referendum and to advocate a vote in favour of the proposed amendment.

Hanafin v. Minister for the Environment was an appeal from the High Court dismissing a petition by petitioner Hanafin under Section 42 of the Referendum Act. In this case, the Supreme Court passed over a question on whether or not it was proper for the government to expended public monies in campaigning for amending the Constitution by removing therefrom the absolute prohibition of legislation providing for the grant of dissolution of marriage contained in Article 41.3.2 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court did not find any material interference by the State and as proven by the petitioner.

The Supreme Court disallowed the appeal in this case due to the fact that the Petitioner has failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionality of the result of the referendum, ruling that each voter must be taken to have been sufficiently enlightened at that stage on the issue involved to exercise what was a free choice.

In Coughlan v. Broadcasting Complaints Commission, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to pass upon a question on whether or not allocation of uncontested broadcasting time by the government to each side of the argument in relation to the Divorce Referendum of 1995 was significantly unequal and thereby constitutionally unfair. This case is an appeal from the decision of the High Court quashing by certiorari the denial of the complaint brought by herein petitioner before herein public respondent.

The Supreme Court found that the government, through the Radio Telefs ireann, transmitted ten political party broadcasts aggregating 30 minutes which all favoured a ‘Yes’ vote. two uncontested broadcasts from ad hoc campaign groups advocating a ‘yes’ vote aggregating 10 minutes and two uncontested broadcasts from ad hoc campaign groups advocating a ‘no’ vote aggregating 10 minutes. and in addition, it transmitted in error one repeat broadcast made by an ad hoc campaign group of 2.5 minutes.

Furthermore, the Supreme Cou