What the US did with its flag is not relevant to the Commonwealth of Australia as there are totally different legal positions.
The republican campaign was lost as so it should be and so every other referendum that is deceptive and misleading.
.
There is no constitutional powers to amend the Constitution to turn the Commonwealth into a republic, and if you lack any understanding about this then why not first educate yourself to what really is applicable.
.
Likewise, there is no constitutional power in the Constitution to amend the preamble.
The is no constitutional power either to naturalise any alien to become Australian citizen, only to subjects of the British Crown!
And on and on it goes.
Why would you want to amend the Constitution if you already fall for the garbage the politicians and the courts are showing down your throat?
.
Citizenship since federation remained to be a State legislative power and on 19 July 2006 the County Court of Victoria upheld this submission as it did with all other submissions I made regarding constitutional issues without any Attorney General and for that any other lawyers of the Crown (State/Federal) filing even a single piece of paper to make submissions to challenge these submissions I made.
.
The got you with hook, line and sinker following whatever they fed you of nonsense over the years well aware that in Court they are exposed.
.
Like it or not the so called Australian Flag or the so called Aboriginal flag are in my view utterly worthless as if you consider them to be applicable then any flag design I made can be as much applicable, at least constitutionally. Likewise with the anthem.
.
Either we have a Constitution or we don’t, and it is not that the Constitution stands for what you may make of it and for whatever anyone else desires to make from it.

You may not like certain parts of the Constitution but then if within constitutional powers the electors (not judges/politicians) can amend it and until then stick to what we have.

Whilst this is your topic Foxy, I think you're being a bit hard on Philo in suggesting his comments are out of place in this thread. I'll grant you they are tangential, but isn't that how we may obtain a fresh insight into, or a different perspective on, an issue?

It is all very well to call for ideas for a new flag, but in doing so there is an implicit putting of the cart before the horse.

A flag symbolises something, indeed maybe many things. To change, or propose to change it, is to indicate that the things it symbolises are no longer relevant, if in fact not positively repudiated, on the part of those proposing the change. By your own admission you see the existing flag as symbolising Australian links to the Crown, links which are intimately entwined with our whole system of governance. A change in the one implies or reflects a change in the other. No such change has been approved.

You happily discuss with Banjo the meaning and significance, in your view, of the 1999 Republic referenda outcome, but you rebuke Philo for relating the symbolism contained within the flag to prospective changes to a republican form of governance.
Yet it is not that Philo has posted off-topic beforehand: Philo offered information on what may be symbolised by the existing flag. Surely that's relevant to the discussion?

With respect to what you said to Banjo about 70% of electors wanting a republic, that is just not backed up by the two fully formal electoral results on record. The first, that held to determine the composition of the Constitutional Convention, was voluntary, and a clear majority of electors chose not to vote in it at all! It is reasonable to impute to those who did not vote therein a recognition that voting itself amounted to perticipation in a seditious enterprise. Your 70% was on its head, and in fact was in the opposite direction.

What's the idea? To say "We've already changed the flag: why not have a republic?"

Dear Forrest,

I in no way meant to be "hard" on Philo,
that's why I asked him not to take offense.
I simply did not want to get into a discussion
about the pros and cons of a Republic.

It's not a case of putting the cart before
the horse, we've discussed the Republic on
previous threads I didn't want this one
to be one of them. My intention was not to
look at what we have today, but look to the
future - regarding the design of a new flag.

However, after your post, and that of Mr Hvalka's
I'm beginning to realize that perhaps you're
right, perhaps the flag can't be separated from
the system of Government - and it was naive of
me to think it could be.

Foxy,
I agree with Forrest and neither Phillo or myself were not the first to mention a republic. Incidently the republic we voted on was the one the republican supporters wanted. There was no manipulation by the conservatives in fact some very prominant conservatives were republicans.

I mentioned the national anthem to illustrate the deceptiveness of politicians. We got the tune but not the original words.

Just because we may vote to change does not mean we get what we want.
That could well apply to a flag.

Banjo that is rubbish.

I am pro-Republic (under conditions), and the referendum -with it's "two-third majority of elected officials" - was unquestionably and deliberately designed to only offer one choice, when Australians wanted direct election of the head of state. This is a fact. This is precisely why I and others voted against it and taking away this choice from us is theft of our power as the Australian people.

Here's a cast-iron guarantee.

If we were to adopt a new flag:

20% would oppose it simply because they would prefer to retain the current flag, with all its symbols of the past.

20% would oppose it because it didn't incorporate the aboriginal red yellow and black design.

20% would oppose it because it did.

20% would oppose it because it was not green and gold

20% would oppose it because it was

20% would oppose it because it didn't show the southern cross

20% would oppose it because it did

20% would oppose it because it didn't incorporate the Eureka flag

20% would oppose it because it did... etc etc.

The maximum number you could satisfy will be one in five of the population