Thanks, Albie Manton. I know where you are coming from now. (Sheesh!). Not sure that I want to engage with it, though. Good luck with your 'agenda'.

Two judiciaries are fighting back against the despots that pretend to be running their countries as democracies.

In the US the supreme court has finally ruled that Bush has no right to order military commissions without procedural fairness and the British have decided that control orders against people who are not suspected of or have any information of or have been deemed to have done anything are illegal.

What a pity our own high court has deemed that it is legal for our government to do what ever they want with anyone deemed to be an "alien" under our migration act.

Now we come to another problem - breaching under the welfare to work rules.

Where is the constitutional right of an executive to inflict a punishment such as deprivation of financial support simply because the person doesn't turn up for a job interview or take a job? There is no requirement to take a job in Australia's constitution that there is a requirement that every person has the right to welfare support..

So this needs to be tested in the High court before we have an executive prepared to force Australian's to be homeless beggars on the street.

After all - it could be construed as attempted murder to deprive people any ability to get essential food and clothing and shelter which are rights under the constitution, and they don't know who can help them.

What if their English is poor for example, or they are mentally ill and just don't know?

Johnj,

I don't think our positions on judicial activism are really that far apart. As far as opinion polls on capital punishment are concerned, I don't think you are raining on my parade, as experience has shown that there is a great difference between what people say in a poll and what they put on a ballot paper in the privacy of a polling booth. Think for a minute about the polls in favour of a republic and how the vote actually went.

I don't see there would be any need for a federal referendum on the subject of hanging, as a state one would be sufficient. Considering, however how the courts are invalidating any attempt by the states to pass attainder laws, when there is nothing in either the state or federal constitutions prohibiting them, you never know what the judges might come up with. As this an academic discussion, it is interesting how this might be administered in the face of the opposition of the whole legal profession. It would be necessary to restrict the Royal perogative of Mercy, and it may be necessary to follow the american method of having the verdict decided by the jury, not the judge, as well as having severe sanctions on all these officials if they failed to carry out their duty. The main reason I find the subject interesting is that it is one where most people hold strong views either way, which are usually held for emotional reasons. It must be the anarchist in me, but I would love to see a situation where an offence was punishable by hanging in one state and strongly approved of in another, with people racing for the Queensland border, etc. Remenber that if an offence is not a crime in both states there is no extradition.

As far as industrial relations are concerned, considering that the states have referred their corporations powers to Canberra I would be surprised if the new laws were struck down by the High Court. It wouldn't say much for Howard's judgement on judicial appointments.

Hi Plerdsus.

The double edged sword thrust at us in the last Republic attempt was very much the: "Damned if we do" - (Directly elected) vs "Damned if we do" - (Constitutionally elected).

These very craftily put together scenarios were not that far apart when carefully unpacked. The problem was lack of real consultation with the voting public at large, along with a lack of education about the current Constitution [Act]. 'Dubblya' (Jay W) being an ex lawyer is well versed in the doublespeak, smoke and mirrors.

The continuing Crown policy (almost a 'dogma' it seems to me)
of 'divide and conquer' is as alive today as it was when Guv Arty Phillip dropped anchor in Sydney Cove.

Education is the key, and as Marilyn Shepherd alludes to frequently, we Australians (black, white or brindle) are not being taught about our responsibilities as 'citizens' (more correctly: subjects of the Crown) in this country, the region or in the greater world. There is a reason our masters don't want that to happen.

Daily, weekly, year by year, we see attacks on our freedoms, and our human rights eroded by the termites who feast upon the beams in the house of (formerly) great common law traditions.

We don't in this country, have a Constitutionally protected "right to life" - let alone a right for anything else that derives from it.

Any poster who can show me irrefutable proof we truly are a 'robust democracy' in the truest sense, will have my admiration (for what it's worth).

Anth - 'responsible government' is perhaps the classic of classics oxy moron.

Bring back the 'ostrakos vote' in a modernised version of its ancient Greek concept. This might for a change - "...keep the bastards honest."

Given the type of people we have in parliament today (so-called elected representatives of the electorate) I am quite glad judges are appointed rather than elected. Unless you want Tony Abbot deciding your family law cases, or Kylie Manogue sitting in the High Court, I suggest the judicial system remains moderately as is in that sense. The public simply are not able nor adequate to assess the credentials of a judicial member.

The real issue with separation of powers is not that judges are out of touch with society, but rather, that judges are only really in-touch with the government. We are only now seeing the product of Howards reign in the High Court, with decisions becoming increasingly predictable and almost never anti-liberal (i mean it in the political part sense!).