The author claims that the Constitution is almost changed, well as a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I would agree with this, albeit the High Court of Australia has purportedly changed with the UNCONSTITUTIONAL Australia Act 1986.
.
The High Court of Australia also deceived the people with its deceptive 14-11-2006 judgment about WorkChoices, as it did in Sue v Hill, Sykes v Cleary, the Franklin Dam, Mabo and a whole range of other cases.
.
This post would not allow me to set it all out but anyone interested can always use the ling to my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH and my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com
.
On 19 July 2006 I succeeded in both appeal on all constitutional issues I raised UNCHALLENGED because I knew what was constitutionally applicable better then the lawyers in the 5-year litigation did.
.
We need better trained judges at the High Court of Australia who are willing to do their job within the limited judicial powers provided to them in the Constitution rather then to act as a STAR CHAMBER COURT and using KANGAROO COURT type of proceedings.
.
HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. SOLOMON.-
We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution:
.
As set out on my blog there are no constitutional powers for the Federal Government to do as they are doing against Aboriginals!
.
HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. GORDON.-
The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
.
The Commonwealth of Australia is not a country at all but a “POLITICAL UNION” and as such cannot have a centralised government either..
.
The Premiers should pursue the RULE OF LAW what is constitutionally permissible, as they are the once allowing this constitutional deception to occur!
.
As for the WATER issue, this also is an unconstitutional grab for power!