As some of us are aware The Australian Constitution has been treated with contempt by political parties and Governments.

What are you opinions regarding this.

Should we stand and fight or just let them do as they please.

Hi Tapp. Welcome to the 21 century. Can I ask you a question! How many people even know what the contents are concerning the constitution?

I believe the majority don't even give it a second thought.

EVO

tapp "As some of us are aware The Australian Constitution has been treated with contempt by political parties and Governments."

if you use some specific references, it might help stimulate constructive responses

col rouge. Can I give you a reference on what i mean. Multiculturalism! People from other countries that now live here, have their own homeland Constitutions well breed in them since child hood. If you were to go ask someone in lets say, Chinatown in Sydney, and ask them to quote just some of the Australian constitution, I hope your not too disappointed with the reflection of blank faces.

EVO

Dear Evo,

You don't have to go to Chinatown in Sydney.
Ask any of your Australian neighbours or friends
the words to our National Anthem, and see how many of
them know the words to say the second verse.

Ask how many know where the name "Australia" derives
from. How many of them know that Australia has three
official flags, or what we celebrate on Australia Day
every year. Would any of them know what Australian
values are or what's on the Coat of Arms...

This is our land, our nation, but how many of us,
simply take it for granted? Don't blame
multiculturalism - let's look at all of us.

Lets have a look at the nsw constitution act of 1902.

Is it constitutional or just a fairytale.

Did the government send it to the people as a referendum.

NO

So what are the repercussions to this.

No laws have been constitutional since 1902.

The framers of the constitution made it quite clear in the debates that the constitutions before federation came into effect could be changed but once federation came about all constitutional change required a referendum.

A conspiracy to alter what our forefathers established under God for the good of the Australian people?
I think it exists.

I think the republic movement has some dark intentions behind it.

I probably wouldnt be wrong if I said the republicans would want the Constitution "re-arranged" to suit the plans of World Government.
Change the current flag, get rid of the Royal household, change this act and that act, get prayer out of parliament etc...oppress the people and their freedoms through acts of parliament.

Back in the 70's Garry Allen wrote a book called NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY about world government and groups like the Bilderbergers.

Stan Deyo also wrote a book called THE COSMIC CONSPIRACY similar to Garrys but with The Gospel preached.

Come to 1980s Barry Smith (NZ) was writing about the same Illuminati/Bilderberger groups striving for global control in WARNING, SECOND WARNING and FINAL NOTICE.

So whats clear in it all?
What clear comes from Gods Word in Revelation 13:16-18.
"He (the beast) forced all of the people, rich and poor, to receive a mark (also read microchip possible) on his right hand or forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast, or the number of his name". This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is a mans number. His number is 666".

So there it is.
The World Government system is looking for an Adolf Hitler, for surely he turns out to be one, to sort out global problems and the final economy is a mark/ID tag.
The Bible in Revelation 14:9-11 says we are not to take it.
This is all "the Bible look" at the future.

Yes...there are men in this country who want to alter good things for the sake of submission to World Government.

tapp,

Its always a good idea to have a copy of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia open beside you if you want to talk about it.

Your broad-brush statements relating to the NSW Constitution Act 1902, and the constitutionality of NSW legislation passed subsequently to that date, betray some possible misunderstanding on your part. Section 106 of the Commonwealth Constitution states:

"106. The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the Constitution of the State."

To further clarify the position with respect to State legislation, Section 109 of the Constitution states:

"109. When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid."

Do you know of some specific instance where the NSW Constitution Act was altered inconsistently with regard to the provisions within that Act relating to alteration thereof?

A copy of the Constitution (as altered to 30 June 1987) has been printed for the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia has also historically been reprinted in each edition of the Year Books, now referred to as Year Book Australia, with the relevant year appended to the title. Editions of the Year Book prior to 1967 would show the text of the now repealed Section 127, which for some reason is not shown in the struck-through form otherwise used to reveal the precise nature of any alteration to the original text, in the Parliament reprinting of 1987.

Your claim that it was the intention of the framers of the Commonwealth Constitution that all State constitution alterations post-Federation required to be submitted to referendum in their respective States requires a specific reference, and in any case was there to have been any such intention, it was not embodied in the original Constitution as enacted.

Hi foxy. Yes, you are 100% correct. I fall short on half of that myself. Gibo made an interesting point about the sharky motives for constitutional change, and to be honest, with forrest, tapp, posts, I am clearly out gunned when it comes to the intricate workings, other than common knowledge of the norm.
I think I'll leave it to the professionals.

EVO

Dear Evo,

Me too.

And, probably most of the country
as well.

Tapp,
I have contempt for political parties does that help?

gibo,
I'd like to see a government that is a democracy one be it State, Federal or world. So far we as a species have only managed to intall more complex variant forms of tribal (mis quoted) Darwinism. "Survival of the fitest." As for religions, our supersticions are just more ritually and doctrinally complex.
:-o

Well that does help as long as you can stand up for yourself.

FG
Whilst i go through my data to find that reference we can look at the nationality and citizenship act 1948.

Now since states have the responsibility of citizenship as per what the framers of the constitution had written we also come about to dual citizenship as well, which is between the states and commonwealth.

An interesting Christian viewpoint on One World Government can be seen on
http://www.trueconspiracies.com/

A gun club friend in Cairns, Queensland says all of the gun clubbers he knows believe part of the global plan is to disarm the populations so that later...there can be no resistance to the World government police forces.

If "they" are allowed to disarm the people totally it becomes just that much harder to defend Australia in time of invasion.

My friend says that tighter regulations are making it so hard for new people to enter Gunsmithing that they too are under threat of dying out.

Its now almost impossible to camp overnight in most of our own national parks because of international heritage listings.

FG

We either have the choice to beleive the facts by those who created the constitution or we can believe the propoganda created and approved by the government.

HANSARD 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

Dr. COCKBURN:
Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own will.

Again;
No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own will.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/

If "ignorance" is not an excuse for erring against the law, don't u think that it is unreasonable that they do not teach the basics to the kiddies, not to mention the rest of us?

Bcoz u know, the reason that lawyers can charge as much as they do, and we note a comment from a High Court Poppet re:

"Remorseless Mercantilisation"

is becoz if one does not honour ones obligations to the law, it can bite the living _uck out of u and seriously _uck up yr life and or u can seriously miss out on goldern opportunities or alternatively _ock up the ones u get by unwittingly erring as u go.

It is a disgusting "monopoly." See how many of the polis are legally trained to some extent. Whilst it takes some skill, it is by no means rocket science and unnecessarily kept out of the reach of jack & jill.

Shld u have an issue with the law, departmental brochures and alternative dispute resolution centres can provide u with the knowledge of what law is applicable to yr case and then U wld do well to read the act/s & regs for yrself.

Then, whilst it is still a complicated matter in some cases, u will at least b able to minimise the time that u may need to pay someone by only spending time addressing that which is relevant.

And of course, the material continuum darlings, as the ferrengi call it, the gravy train, the money stream - is for the most part regulated to some extent by the law and by being familiar with it, u can quickly discover where all the "bait balls" are and how "legitimately" to get a piece of the action, should u choose to make this a field of endeavour.

Of course, "plain english" is a work in progress and many of the older acts are a serious "spaghetti bowel" but I assure u all, u have everything to gain and absolutely nothing to lose by checking it out for yrself.

...Adam...

The Constitution provides a mechanism by which it can be altered, called a referendum. Before there can be any change to the Constitution, a majority of electors must vote in favour of the change. In addition, there must be a majority vote in a majority of States, that is, in four out of the six States. (Further, a proposed amendment which would diminish the representation of a State in the Commonwealth Parliament or which would alter the territorial limits of a State must be approved by a majority of electors in that State.) Ordinarily, before a matter can be the subject of a referendum, both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament must pass the proposed law containing the suggested amendment of the Constitution (section 128).

Chapter VIII – Alteration of the Constitution
128 Mode of altering the Constitution
This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner:
..

Chapter III – The Judicature
74 Appeal to Queen in Council
No appeal shall be permitted to the Queen in Council from a decision of the High Court upon any question, howsoever arising, as to the limitsinter se of the Constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States, or as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of any two or more States, unless the High Court shall certify that the question is one which ought to be determined by Her Majesty in Council. The High Court may so certify if satisfied that for any special reason the certificate should be granted, and thereupon an appeal shall lie to Her Majesty in Council on the question without further leave. Except as provided in this section, this Constitution shall not impair any right which the Queen may be pleased to exercise by virtue of Her Royal prerogative to grant special leave of appeal from the High Court to Her Majesty in Council. The Parliament may make laws limiting the matters in which such leave may be asked,17 but proposed laws containing any such limitation shall be reserved by the Governor-General for Her Majesty’s
pleasure.

But, the so called Australia Act
(doh comm law has just gone down from here)
purports to have removed appeals to *Lizzie Winza* and in effect altered the above. This change was not done by referendum pursuant to S128.

The change was done allegedly upon request of the australian guvment to the pommie guvment who did up the so called australia act, in their view trumping OUR CONSTITUTION and bypassing the req for referendum and s128. Thus, OUR CONSTITUTION, was never really a consitution at all, or alternatively, the australia act shld be overturned as bits of it are inconsistent with the CONSTITUTION, the so called supreme foundation stone upon which all other australian law sits.

CONSTITUTION overtrumps FEDERAL overtrumps STATE,to the extent of their respective inconsistencies and NO the pomms did not have the legal authority to change the Australian CON, at the behest of the slime in Canberra or otherwise.

And this. U may b familiar with the so called concept of
Terra Nullius (A land of no Human Beings)

Of course, everyone knew there were BlakFellas here.

But, according to their own law, they had to either declare WAR on the BlakFella or make a !TREATY!
(I luv the song)

But mayhaps they wanted not a war and to risk losing Oz in the manner that they lost n.america and mayhaps ordinary poms wanted not more GENOCIDE, as was inflicted on the indigenous n.americans leading to a bloodthirsty lot who turned on the crown,

AND they wanted not to share with the Original Australians.

So, instead, they classified the BlakFellas as animals and unleashed the convicts.
(Here again, "How the abused become the Abusers.)

(Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967
(No. 55 of 1967)- YES after the end of HITLER & WWII
Afterall, why bother counting them if u just want to slaughter, rape, enslave and pillage and risk a LEGAL CHALLENGE.

Now, MABO. And the High Court overturned "Terra Nullius" noting that yes indeed folks, the BlakFellas are Human Beings and we always knew it,

BUT

sh!t themselves at the point of applying relevant associated law from the time, that is TREATY or WAR and thus australia remains a
ROGUE STATE in my view.

And that is also why, hopefully, there remains a
BLAKFELLA EMBASSY and an ongoing CALL for TREATY or something which unites and is mutually acceptable to all of "Good Will."

So to hear these <snip> going on about their precious genocidal crown and their rule of law and how magnificent their predicated upon no money no justice legal system is;

is to me just a sick joke and makes me want to puke.

Even now, child abusers come in all colours. Why then only then micro manage those who are original australians pursuant to SS law and not ALL child abusers on SS.

I am happy that you would like to puke but if you even read the constitutional debates you would find there is much more information in there than a person giving you the standard doctrine of the government.

The australia act unconstitutional.

Now when you talk about a black fella is this a ridgy didge black fella or one that has other nationalities within.

I have seen people calling themselve black fellas and they are whiter than me.

So what it comes down to you can believe people like forrest gump who quotes government propoganda or you can check out the debates for yourself.

For a person to be in politics does not need to be a party twat, but a person who will stand up for the people of their communities and if you cant do that join a party and be dictated by party rule as we have now.

most are scared of standing up forthemselves and much just prefer to roll over.

I agree that the Australian Constitution with its explanations and preceipts should be taught at secondary school. That would mean "Australia" its powers and Government operations would be better understood and appreciated and less likley to abuse.

Philo

I completely agree but we all know that the governments and their parties just want to keep the people in the dark.

Look at public education,transport,health these are state responsibilities, and as i was talking to someone the other day they didnt know.

I asked him what where his policies after ihe asked me and i had to help him out with what was state and what was federal.

So what we have is a political dictatorship that has no thought for the people except for their own party policy.

Like all the people here just keep blabbing about how federal should fix these things when in fact they should be complaining and asking why the government is not giving the money back to the states and also how helping the banks out is unconstitutional.

But they will just wave their flags and pat themselves on the back for doing such.