While the role of the president is often spoken of as ceremonial and symbolic, it also has a key constitutional importance. Yet, in the long history of the office, two powers have never been exercised. So what are those powers, and why have they remained unused?
If the big house in the Phoenix Park and significant salary weren't enough of a clue, the Constitution makes it unmistakable: according to Bunreacht na hÉireann, the President "shall take precedence over all other persons in the State".
In addition to the President's ceremonial duties, the occupant of Áras an Uachtaráin holds certain legislative powers - most notably, the ability to refer bills to the Supreme Court to assess their constitutionality, a process that has been used 16 times to date. However, there are two other potentially significant powers granted to the presidency that have never been exercised.
Under Article 13 of the Constitution, the President can reject the request for a Dáil dissolution if the Taoiseach lacks majority support, which could be indicated by a loss of a confidence vote.
The Taoiseach may request a dissolution of the Dáil at any time, and if they hold the support of a majority of TDs, the President is required to grant it - leading to a general election.
However, there are circumstances where the President has the power to refuse the request and insist TDs attempt to form a new Government without an election. The idea is the President could save the time and expense of a fresh election by encouraging TDs to form a new Government with different parties and members. It's a power that has never been used.
Why so? In the past it has been unusual for there to be another "Taoiseach-in-waiting" without an election, according to David Kenny, Professor in Law at Trinity College.
"The pattern has tended to be that if the Taoiseach is asking for a dissolution it's either because the Government's term is up or it has clearly lost the confidence of the house, and there is no other assembly of parties that will possibly be able to form a new Government."
There have been some occasions where Presidents may have come close to invoking the article.
While President Patrick Hillery ultimately agreed to a request from Fine Gael Taoiseach, Garret FitzGerald, to dissolve the Dáil in 1982. That was despite Fianna Fáil's Charles Haughey and Brian Lenihan Sr – the Opposition - making several phone calls to the Áras demanding that President Hillery use his powers to refuse the dissolution, so they could form a Government. Infamously, during the 1990 Presidential election on "mature recollection" Mr Lenihan denied making such calls.
Eoin O'Malley, Associate Professor in Political Science at DCU, said that as elections deliver increasingly fragmented Dáil compositions the power to dissolve the parliament could become more important. If Government formation is proving lengthy and difficult a President could say: "I'm not going to allow another election, so you better start talking to each other," he said.
Pointing out that it took 140 days for the most recent Government to be formed, Prof O'Malley added it "might be useful to have a third party like a President get involved".
The collapse of future multi-party governments might also not necessitate entirely new elections, added Prof David Kenny.
"If the dynamics of the Dáil became something much closer to a genuine multi-party system where there are more than two viable major coalition partners, you would easily see a situation where the collapse of a government would be followed by a new and different coalition," he said.
It happened in 1994 when Albert Reynolds was reportedly considering going to President Mary Robinson to seek a dissolution of the Dáil. He instead resigned without the calling of a General Election, and a new Taoiseach and the 'Rainbow Coalition' took charge.
Mrs Robinson has never commented on whether she had indicated in advance if she would use Article 13 if she had been asked to dissolve the Dáil.
Another of the President's lesser-known powers is one with considerable potential. Under Article 27 the President has the power to refuse to sign a new law and instead trigger a referendum on the legislation. This power can be invoked if an anti-government majority in the Seanad joins forces with the opposition in the Dáil.
If a majority of Senators and one-third of TDs petition on a particular piece of legislation the President can, after consulting with the Council of State, refuse to sign a Bill unless it is passed by a referendum or passed by a newly elected Dáil within 18 months.
In other words, the Government must put the law to the people directly or have an election and re-table the law.
This provision can only be invoked if the President considers that the Bill "contains a proposal of such national importance" that the will of the people ought to be ascertained.
The article has never been used because the powers are "arcane and unworkable", according to Prof O’Malley.
The process can only begin if a majority in the Seanad blocks a Bill, something that has hardly ever happened because governments have tended to have in-built majorities in the Seanad, he explained.
"There has never been a standoff between the Dáil and the Seanad of sufficient severity that that power was even close to contemplation," Prof Kenny added.
While the bar to trigger the provision is high, there is also an added complication with Article 27.
The subsequent referendum would not be a simple majority, instead the Bill is only rejected if a third of the entire electorate vote against it - that is, everyone on the electoral register, not just those who show up to vote. The reason for the condition, Éamon de Valera explained, was to prevent intense minorities being able to veto bills that had the tacit consent of the majority.
So while a President could in effect trigger a referendum, under the current system the parliamentary preconditions are unlikely to be met to get to that point.
While Michael D Higgins has developed the role of President as the "conscience of the nation", the powers of the President remain constrained, Prof O'Malley notes.
"They can delay pieces of legislation by calling in the Council State, sending laws to the Supreme Court constantly but if a President were to try and do that too often I think even the opposition might see it as a reason for an impeachment process."
As the only directly elected major public figure in the State, the President carries a strong democratic mandate, Professor Kenny noted.
"But that's balanced out by the fact that it's a mandate not to do very much."
