![tad cummins arrested tad cummins arrested](https://patch.com/img/cdn20/users/22893192/20170421/115928/styles/raw/public/article_images/uscxffls-1492789588-7279.jpg)
But once the judges state that war has ceased, that in their opinion war has ceased, then, and therefore, they must grant a habeas corpus.
![tad cummins arrested tad cummins arrested](https://www.nydailynews.com/resizer/xfcD2rp2daZQnxPuQNvu1cK1qE8=/800x1023/top/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/AVW7MV3BQE64BKW63XYRMEJD7Q.jpg)
As long as they do not say that, the state of war is presumed to continue. For instance, any of those days the judges may decide, and it is for them to decide, that a state of war no longer exists. But it is clearly not that, because it is meant to continue after the war is over. So that, if this Bill referred merely to a time of war there would be no such objection to be raised. Then, of course, the Constitution states very clearly and definitely that these Rules do not apply in time of war. That would not matter if it was in time of war. It seems to me that a good many of these Articles laid down here in this Bill now before us are clearly contrary to the Constitution. Section 6 of the Constitution states, "the liberty of the person is inviolable, and so on, and in Sections 7, 70 and 72, you will find similar provisions. I am not sure, but I think that is the Constitutional state of affairs. When a Bill is passed by the Oireachtas it is always to be considered in collaboration with the Constitution, and when the two clash the Constitution rules. Any Bill that controverts the Constitution is in itself illegal. I put down an amendment:-"Before the word ‘It' in line 38 to insert the words ‘subject to the provisions of the Constitution.'" My reason for that is that the Constitution lays down in Sections 6, 7, 70 and 72 some important rules which cannot, as far as I see, be broken through. Appearing before an Oireachtas Committee.