Dear Forrest,

You and Mr Gerrit... are quite welcome to
discuss the pros and cons of the Constitution
to your hearts content.

Cheers.

Something I learned was that when you lack a proper skill in a language you more then likely will question the meaning of words more then those who have learned since birth. As such my lack of education in the English language is in fact a benefit to me, but not to those who have to read my crummy-English.
Still, in the end, the misconception surrounding Section 128 and for this also 123 is a clear example. Section 128 deals with what is under part 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution act 1900 which is the part of the Constitution and does not apply to the monarchy, the flag, etc.

Also, no federal referendum can cause the robbing of any State legislative powers unless first a State referendum approved of this. Say for example that all States other then Western Australia desired to give federal powers over all Western Australian uranium, steel and other mining industries. All states other then WA might vote in a referendum for this but the referendum itself would be unconstitutional if not first WA had held a State referendum to approve of this. The Framers of the Constitution made clear that unless the State concern first approved of it no federal referendum could otherwise rob the State of its legislative powers.

Section 123 actually applies to any reference of legislative powers within Subsection 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution. No State Parliament can give away legislative powers to the Commonwealth without approval by State electors.

With my crummy-English (and proud of it) I happen to comprehend the Constitution better then most if not all so highly educated constitutional and other lawyers!

The flag is part of the monarchy and no section in the Constitution provides legislative powers to change it. Neither is the purported Aboriginal flag of any constitutional standing.

“Citizenship” is not a legislative powers for the Commonwealth as in fact on 2-3-1898 the Framers of the Constitution specifically refused to give this power to the Commonwealth.

This post limit does not allow me to set out all relevant matters

Where is the constitutional powers for the High Court of Australia (Sue v Hill) to declare the Commonwealth of Australia to be an independent country? There was never such judicial power as if it had it could declare us to be a state of the USA by implication that we seem to follow whatever they dictate.

Are we next going to have that the High Court of Australia decides that all Aboriginals can de deported as non-citizens because since the 1967 con-jo0b referendum constitutionally Aboriginal lost citizenship rights?

Lets make it clear the High Court of Australia can make whatever declaration it wants but it does not mean that it will be constitutionally valid!
.
We have had judges who admitted to hand down judgment where they held the legislators failed to legislate so they did it for them. This in breach of the separation of powers.

Like it or not but constitutionally the Commonwealth of Australia is nothing more but a POLITICAL UNION which had certain specific legislative powers transferred from the colonies to the commonwealth and no more.

Being an Australian is because you reside in the continent of Australia! If for example New Zealanders were to join the federation they would not be Australians as they are not residing within the continent of Australia. Mexicans, Brazilians, etc are all Americans because they reside in a continent of South or Northern America! Europeans are because they reside in the Continent of Europe. A Brit is a European if residing in Europe. A Brit residing in the Commonwealth of Australia is an Australian. As such the Brit retains his nationality but is a citizen of a continent and can refer to this also. The constitution does not provide for an Australian nationality as it is not a country but a POLITICAL UNION.
The High Court has no constitutional powers to amend the Constitution! If you do not even know your identity then what are you on about a flag?

Dear Mr Gerrit...

Your last sentence, "If you do not even know your
identity then what are you on about a flag?"

Again, you've missed the point Sir.
We are seeking a common identity,
that's why we are "on" about a flag!

It seems you missed the point that we have a flag (constitutionally) being the Union Jack and there exist no constitutional powers to amend this either!
.
Either we have a Constitution or we don't.
.
The moment you accept to ignore what is constitutionally appropriate you play in the handsof politicians to abuse their powers more and more as they for one don't like constitutional constraint and soon would rob you of other rights also.
No use then to complain about what is constitutionally appropriate if you sanction politicians to ignore the Constitution when it suits you.
.
Uually a flag is to define independent nation, which the Commonwealth of Australia is not, and never was!
We are and remain under a British constitution and so by this under their flag and national anthem.
.

Dear Mr Gerrit,

This is not about what you or I think.
This is not about Australia's current status.
You Sir, keep repeating yourself.
This is about what Australia will decide
regarding her future. And that is something
you can't prevent from happening no matter
how much you protest.

We once had the National Anthem as, "God
Save the Queen." Today we have, "Advance
Australia Fair." We once had a British
male Governor General. Today we have an
Australian, a female.

The only constant in life is change.

You can carry on about the legalities of
the Constitution, but it won't change a
thing - if Australia votes for a Republic.

And that may not be a palatable fact to you,
but its not something that you (or I) will be
able to change.

Thank you for all your inputs into this thread.
I admire your tenacity and resolve.

Take care