Their are "incredible dangers" in havint a branch of the administration that routinely frustrates the will of the peple who it is supposed to represent and who pay for it's upkeep, James O'Neil. The recent rash of judicial decisions which plainly were contrary to public expectations appear to be the means by which the unelected judiciary are telling the public that they are in control, not the public.

The decision of the present Queensland government to reign in this pseudo aristocratic class on behalf of the electorate is exactly the right thing to do. If judges are more concerned about their power and privileges than doing their jobs, then it is the duty of the parliament to do whatever it takes within the Constitution to remind them that the will of the people is the only sovereign power.

Mandatory sentences is one way the people can deliver the message to judges that they are in control, not judges. We the people, bestow upon the unelected judiciary wide ranging powers on the provision that they use them wisely. But when they look down their noises at the people who pay their wages and who they are supposed to serve, and act in ways which seem calculated to offend us, then it is time to take some of that power away and return it to the people's parliament.

What is the one thing these statements have in common? They all operate from a collectivist platform. Statists believe in the “social contract” theory. The idea that through the constitution, through using public roads, and having a birth certificate, you are inherently under the authority of the government. However, these arguments are severely flawed.
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/do-you-consent-to-be-governed-myths-and-facts_012014
Firstly, for a contract to be valid, it must be done under full disclosure, it must contain the signature of the contract creator and the wet signature of the customer who agrees to its terms, nor can a valid contract be created under duress. The birth certificate, nor does the constitution abide by these basic contract rules. And as far as using government services, when the government has claimed eminent domain and has successfully monopolized most of societies essential services, we are left with little choice on whether or not we should use them, if we want to have productive lives. It’s not like private companies are allowed to compete with government provided services. However, even as a man who does not pay income taxes, he will still fund the roads, since the taxes collected on gasoline are apportioned towards infrastructure. Sales taxes, excise taxes, etc…..are unavoidable for the general population, even among so called “illegal immigrants.” Everyone pays taxes, not by choice, but because the mafia (government) forces us into their protection racket scheme either directly or indirectly to some degree or another.

Now, this brings me to address the title of this post. Do we truly consent towards being governed and does the state even exist, or is it merely just a corporate title? The answer is obvious. We are the coerced clients of a monopolized insurance company known as the Government.

Dear Rhys Jones,

Lets look at some of the misdirection’s in your post just to examine your grasp on reality.

Firstly you adopt the same falsity as the author when you use the words “politician” as a substitute for an “elected government”. We are not referring at all to individual politicians.

Politicians do not “lock up” people, the courts do that. People are not punished by politicians, they are punished by the judiciary who apply and interpret the laws the elected government enacts.

You say << It amazes me people like spindoc who would rather trust a politician >>.

Not true. Politicians as individuals are powerless to act in the manner you describe. Elected governments do have the power to enact, modify or remove laws. What I trust is the elected government. If don't like what they do I will vote against them.

It would be no surprise to anyone that you are “amazed” at your own false premise.

The elected QLD government has not overruled any court decision. They have considered two options. One is an appeal the courts decision to a higher court and the other is to invoke “The Public Interest Declarations Act” which, by a “quirk” of Queensland’s constitution, allows the QLD government to attempt to use that Act to effectively change the application of standing legislation.

The QLD Court of Appeal then ruled against the Act and the government.

It may suit your overhyped rhetoric to attempt to draw attention away from the facts however, you still have choices. You might wish consider comprehension, critical thinking and reality rather than adopting someone else’s “public hysteria”.

Bye the way, how’s that research going into King Edward I campaigns against the marauding savages behind the Welsh “Marches”?

The doctrine of the separation of powers divides the institutions of government into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. The legislature passes the laws, the executive puts those laws into operation, and the judiciary interprets the laws. This doctrine is an essential cornerstone of democratic government.

In the Australian context the distinctions are blurred because the executive and the legislature are essentially one and the same. This raises the relative importance of an independent judiciary and also a Senate that can act as a brake on an arbitrary exercise of power by the legislature/executive. The significance of this is of course relevant in the Queensland case.

As early as 1915 (the Wheat Case) the High Court affirmed that the strict insulation of judicial power was a fundamental principle of the Constitution. One result of this is a recognition that the legislature should not interfere with judicial functions and vice versa.

I understand Professor Keyzer's article to be drawing attention to the dangers posed to these well established doctrines by the actions of the Queensland government, compounded as it is by the unicameral nature of the Queensland legislature and the authoritarian instincts of the present government. This is a legitimate concern.

The debate is not advanced by attacking an allegedly biased/elitist/unelected etc judiciary. Such criticism, apart from being profoundly ignorant, entirely misses the point of the article.

Dear James,

I note you keep telling us just how << important >> this article is, that there are << incredible dangers >> and that we should be << dismayed >>.

The fact that it is generated by constitutional law academia as yet another manifestation of alarmism should be noted. I would be very surprised if anyone outside the progressives and fellow travelers had the slightest interest in it, it is pure hyped up rhetoric designed to frighten and alarm those of us who are so stupid that we don’t understand the “very serious” nature of what is going on with our Newman government.

It is based entirely on the rhetoric of Ethos ( I’m important would I lie to you?) Pathos (This is how good this will be for you) and Logos (Here’s heaps of “really interesting facts” I’ve prepared to alarm you).

Australians are increasingly tuned in to this type of MO. We get it from the progressive Squalk-a-tariat every single day. If you did spot it but failed to draw our attention to it, that makes you a “like” progressive. If you didn’t spot it that makes you a “useful idiot”.

Any more catastrophic, dangerous, terrifying or alarming developments you wish to bring to our attention?