Hi Lego,

I'm sorry, but I'm tired of spending half of my posts correcting your deliberate misrepresentations of my position. It is wrong of you to frame my views in such a dishonest way.

I'm tired of the rudeness and condescension in your posts.

I'm tired of the endless ad hominem attacks.

When I see you treating other posters with the respect they deserve, I will start replying to your posts.

There is enough negativity in this world. You bring fear, hatred and discord with your posts. And I'm not going to participate in that.

That is good to read, BJelly.

Please refrain from commenting upon my posts because if you do, you can bet I will return fire.

En guarde.

Yeah, BJelly, watch out! LEGO might spout more crap.

Craig

Since you don’t understand what you’re talking about, I’ll explain it to you one more time.

In judicial review of *executive* action, the courts only look at whether the executive action was lawful. There is nothing unlawful about the Parliament vesting decision-making discretion in an executive officer. They do it all the time: it’s standard practice in any statute you care to mention, including all the ones you are in favour of.

Even where the courts find executive action unlawful for breach of a common law rule, for example the requirement of procedural fairness, the question is still only ever whether the *Parliament intended* to require procedural fairness.

As for judicial review of *legislative* action, this is not intrinsically required by the rule of law. For example, the courts in the UK do not claim or exercise any power to declare Acts of Parliament invalid. Our courts do it only because we have a written Constitution: the courts have the job of determining the limits of shared power as between branches of the federal government, and as between the feds and the States.

In determining whether an Act is constitutional, the courts will only look at whether the impugned law is properly characterised as within a head of legislative power conferred on the Parliament by the Constitution. In this case, they will only ask whether the Parliament had the power to revoke citizenship under any power conferred by the Constitution.

Not even you have denied that they have this power.

Your objection to the proposed law goes only to your political opinion, not to its constitutionality.

But once the court finds that the actions of the executive are authorised by the statute, and the statute is authorised by the Constitution, they will not substitute their personal political opinion for the Act of Parliament, which is all your lame-brained argument amounts to.

Neither the legislature, the judiciary or the executive have ever claimed that the rule of law intrinsically requires that every administrative action must be judicially reviewable.

If turdy self-opinionated circularity was constitutional law, you’d be a Chief Justice.

Apparently I do understand, JKJ.

"Tony Abbott's plan to use ministerial discretion to cancel the citizenship of dual nationals suspected of terrorism activities - without trial or conviction - has proved unconstitutional"

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/new-laws-on-terrorism-could-be-retrospective-for-dual-nationals-20150623-ghvf07.html

You do understand, don't you, that what determines the constitutionality of a proposed law is not articles in the Brisbane Times?