Recently I discovered a cd titled,"The Voice of Australia". Although I had heard of THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION I knew very little about it.
Watching the cd has compelled me to research Our Constitution Further.
I am amazed at how much I am discovering.
Many of our Legal Rights have been hidden from us and we are constantly being dealt with unjustly.
The Australian Constitution is Common Law and Over Rules State Law and
Council By Laws & Ordinances.
THE RULES OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION APPLIES TO EVERYONE IN THE LAND AND THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS.
My Question is how many of us are aware of and understand the Constitution? in fact how many of us know of its existance?
I would be greatful for any imput and further knowledge and would be happy to share what I have already discovered.

Gypsy, I'll tell you something I've learnt about the Constitution.

All written constitutions are an attempt to limit the powers of government, because if you weren't trying to do that, there would be no need for a constitution. You could just give absolute power to government, and tell them to do whatever they want. The reason we don't do that, is because history has shown that the people in government will use their power to do what they want at everyone else's expense. They will abuse the power. Constitutions are an attempt to limit it.

The eternal problem is that the people in government often think they not should be constrained by the law. They find the law and the constitution restricts them (it was meant to). And since you have to work for a living to support them, and they have all day and every day living at your expense to work out how to expand their powers beyond the law, that's exactly what they do.

The problem with using a Constitution to limit the powers of government, is that all the so-called 'checks and balances' are arms of the government! It's Caesar appealing to Caesar.

In constitutional theory, government is divided into three arms, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. But in the Westminster system, the executive - Cabinet - has a critical influence in the legislature, thus greatly reducing Parliament's effectiveness as a check on the executive.

That leaves the judiciary, but these are all government officers, whose pay and prestige depend on government, and who are often ideologically committed to big and bigger government. For example in the Franklin Dam case, they decided that the federal government attracts to itself any power on any subject that it signs under the "Foreign Affairs' power. In doing so, they effectively neutered the section of the Constitution intended to limit the power of the Commonwealth.

And so governments assume more and more that they can do whatever they want, and less and less do we live in a free society.

I have only read parts of the Constitution (long time ago for study). It does make for heavy bedtime reading, which is probably why many people including me don't bother.

However you and Peter Hume raise some good points. The Constitution and parliamentary checks and balances are sadly lacking on many fronts.

It is surprising that more people don't utilise the Consitution in legal cases against the Government.

The Constitution is the only document that protects the people from their Governments but it's application is sorely missing even in pertinent legal cases. Many aspects are ignored in relation to distinguishing state and Commonwealth jurisdiction.

The Commonwealth is good at ignoring some important legal cases by claiming lack of jurisdiction when there are indeed many legal mechanisms that can be used in cases where a miscarriage of justice is perceived.

This is particularly with regard to police and justice matters; policing,police complaints and investigations are responsibilities of the States.

"It is surprising that more people don't utilise the Consitution in legal cases against the Government."

There are a number of good reasons why they don't. The first is that, no matter how plain the words of the Constitution are, the High Court has arrogated to itself the right of ultimate decision-making as to what the words mean.

And of course to find out what those wise heads think on any matter is prohibitively expensive. Anyone funding a High Court appeal from his own private funds is basically putting his house on the line.

The second is that the doctrine of precedent – ('stare decisis' : L. 'let the decision stand') - is interpreted precisely backwards, so that the newest cases have precedence over the oldest. Thus there is no way from precedent to know which way the Court will rule.

The High Court treats itself as a legislature, and its judges openly talk in those terms. They cherry-pick cases according to their policy implications, accepting those on which the judges think they will have greatest effect on national law.

Successive High Courts have interpreted the Constitution more and more so as to expand the powers of government; even if such interpretation makes a mockery of the entire idea of a Constitution. For example, the Franklin Dam case: - "Want more power than the Constitution gives you? No worries. Just go and sign a United Nations convention on any subject you want."

But of course, if the original intent of the Constitution was that the foreign affairs power could be indefinitely expanded at will, there would have been no point in stipulating that the powers of the government were limited, would there? Thus the High Court has deliberately and obviously subverted the whole Constitution.

Peter Spencer's case is a recent example of the gross abuse of the Constitution, and all Australians, by the High Court. The Constitution says that the powers of the Parliament are limited to, among other things, taking property "on just terms". Spencer argued that the government's taking of his property rights required just terms.

Spencer’s evidence was executive instruments, i.e. orders, signed by PM Howard. But the High Court refused to hear Spencer. They said that that the Constitution only said the Parliament (ie *the legislature*) could not make unjust acquisitions. In other words, he had not shown that the Constitution was intended to prevent *the executive* arm of government from stealing without authority from the Parliament.

But of course the Constitution was intended to prevent the executive arm of government from stealing without authority from the Parliament! If it were not, there would be no need for any limitation of the power of government. They could just do and take whatever they want. Their powers would be limitless. In history, the fundamental constitutional problem has always been to limit the power of the executive, because they are the pointy end: ultimately, they are the ones with the guns.

And if the Parliament were unable to take someone’s property without consent or payment, how could the act of the executive be in any better position because it lacks any authority in law? More deliberate and obvious subversion by the High Court.

So much for the great checks and balances of the Constitution. And the judiciary is supposed to be the “independent” arm.

So it is easy to see why people don’t choose to hazard their fortunes, or ruin their lives, trying to petition this behemoth for justice.

And thus we see that all arms of government tend inexorably toward an expansion of the powers, privileges, personnel and budget of government.

This great defect in constitutional law cannot be explained by constitutional law, with its theory of representative government, and checks and balances.

It is best explained by economic theory. Assuming only self-interest, a monopoly tends, with no competition, to serve the interests of the people running it, providing lower quality services at higher cost to the consumers. A government is a monopoly of ultimate decision-making. And so this theory predicts and explains exactly what we see, which the theory of representative government fails to explain.

The trouble is that we have an absolutely disgusting level of respect for the rule of law, from the average person on up through all manner of organisations to the highest level of government.

This means that in many cases, even when rules, regulations, guidelines, codes of conduct, acts of parliament and national constitutions are meticulously derived, agreed upon and set in stone… they then often get reinterpreted, misapplied, applied to some people and not to others or just ignored completely.

This has affected me greatly over the years in two areas – road rules and the really poor policing thereof, and the code of conduct in my workplace and the brazen infringements thereof by senior managerial staff.

My efforts to deal with both of these issues by upholding the rule of law have NOT WORKED and have earned me a bad reputation as an agitator rather than a good reputation of being a conscientious citizen who is concerned about road safety and a conscientious employee who is concerned about our conduct and professionalism.

Unfortunately, it seems that what is written in law and officially asserted as applying, and what actually applies are all too often quite different things.

The constitution is no exception. In fact, it sits totally within this quasi-legal paradigm. So, while it may contain some pretty good stuff in terms of personal rights, I don’t think any of us have got a hope in hell of getting it to become meaningful.

It's just a piece of paper held by a bunch of guys with a bigger stick than you. If you try to articulate the restrictions placed upon them by the words on that paper, they'll just pull out their guns, the same guns they took off you all those years ago and let you know who owns the words.

You can't beat the establishment with their own words and slowly, slowly, like a cancer, they'll progressively oppress you more and more. Land owners are just starting to find this out.

There are many websites and groups actively discussing these very issues everyday and have been for eons, hell we do it on this one all the time. I'm getting a bit tired really of the circulatory discussion around this topic; it's just another GHG adding to the warming. It's about time someone led the way to discussing how we might go about changing the status quo so that we the people end up holding the biggest stick again?

Constitution is social contract between government and citizens. Constitution provides with the minimum rights one can expect in this particular country. However it seems there is no relief (or so) provided for breach of the citizens’ rights "given" by the constitution which makes the rights more theoretical then practical.

It is surprising that more people don't utilise the Consitution in legal cases against the Government."
.........
The above is because not every court has power to decide on the constitutional matter. When someone goes to the court that starts in the inferior court (& lower costs) and then one can appeal to the court of higher jurisdiction. With constitutional matter person has usually to go directly to the court of higher jurisdiction (& higher costs). Obviously, the person prefers to resolve his own problems but not theoretical issues about the Constitution. Also what remedy person can have if he or she is not given all the rights promised by Constitution? Whereas fighting his or her rights under other law person might be entitled to monetary damages or so

According to the Constitution we all have legal rights and protection In watching the DVD the VOICE OF AUSTRLIA which runs for approximately 36 minutes made me aware of a number of illegal practices in the Magistrate Infringment Court System. I discovered that An Order by a Single Judge or Magistrate is not a Judiciary Order
It is illegal because it is a violation of common law in the Criminal Code Act 1995 Section26A10. In Victoria at the present time Robyn White the Sheriff, in conjunction with the Melbourne Magistrates Infringement Court and Civic Compliance are running a campaign via the media to get people to pay all outstanding infringement penalties.
Failure to pay before the 19th of March 2010 will incur the following,
your vehicle will be clamped, drivers license counciled, and property seized. Again this is illegal under the Criminal Code ACT Section 26A10 In fact under the Criminal Code ACT it would be deemed to be demanding money with menaces.
The Constitution is clear in its Statute Acts concerning Courts.
It states any person charged with an offence cannot be convicted by a judge alone because a single person is biased that is why we have a jury system. Any Penalty by a Judge alone is invalid and illegal.
on December 5th 2006 all 7 High Court Judges the highest court in the land stated unamously that the AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION REIGNS SUPREME and that all other rules and laws are subject to the Australian Constitution so if any laws conflict with the Constitution they are invalid and illegal.
Unfortunately we the people of Australia have done nothing to stop the misuse of illegal practices by governments, courts, councils or any other individuals who tamper with OUR CONSTITUTION, this could be due to not knowing of or understanding the Constition.
If anyone would like a copy of the DVD let me know and I will endeavour to send you a copy. Its very informative and easy to understand

Its hot and wet in Melbourne tonight. The Constitution is a wonderful document when it is understood exactly what it is. It is a compact between all denominations in Australia to ensure the Rule of Law applies to everyone without fear or favor. The ultimate Sovereign under Our Constitution is Almighty God and when we voted for it, or all the men voted for it in 1899 they were Anglican, other protestant and Roman Catholic, we confirmed that. Women did not vote in 1899.

It in fact establishes the form of government adopted from the Holy Bible by the English Catholics in 1297. Almighty God has as His delegate under the Constitution a modified Queen, modified by S 116 Constitution to be an inclusive God, and not an exclusive God, who even though slavery was abolished in 1810, continued to make Irish and Scottish slaves out of Roman Catholics by the convict system. The Australian Constitution is the abolition of that concept, but as you will realize, another form of slavery has been introduced by Atheists, called debt slavery.

You see Christians were forbidden to lend money at interest. Only Jews and Atheists could do that. Muslims are prohibited too, so they invest expecting a return. Equity is an essential element of Christianity. Law is law. Equity is justice. The Saviour of Australia will probably be the State of Victoria. It has some unwilling heroes, but the Magistrates Court in Victoria has been given enormous powers and currently does 95% of all legal work in Victoria. It is currently nobbled, by some illegal State legislation, illegal because it contradicts directly valid and effective federal Acts.

A wedge is being driven into the heart of the Atheist –Jewish Cartel, that has dominated Australian Law since 1970. This is because the Trade Practices Act 1974 is a real law, prohibits exclusive dealing, and cartel conduct. Despite KR and his sucking up to the States, his Government has introduced useful legislation. It will promote competition and set most Australians free of the oppression by the States as they rob and pillage to survive

Kevin was elected because he said he would govern under the Constitution. We believed him, because Howard was not doing so. What remains to be seen is whether Abbott wants the Lodge badly enough, to promise to do so and keep his promise. The pressure to ignore the Constitution is enormous, and Rudd has succumbed to the lobbyists who represents his State Mates, and failed to deliver on that core promise.

Section 79 Constitution states : the federal jurisdiction of any court shall be exercised by such number of judges as Parliament prescribes. My English says court is not Court, and judges is not Judge. Every court must exercise federal jurisdiction when an Australian is in the dock. We're not dual citizens in our own country.

In the High Court in 1915, the Crimes Act 1914 was confirmed as law, and it contains the guarantee that the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth will maintain its integrity in S 43. The penalty for a breach of S 43 is $33,000 a day for an individual and $165,000 a day for a corporation, and that penalty is what is being considered by lawyers in Victoria. Except for a few high flyers, most young barristers in Victoria are starving. They have worked hard to get a law degree, and most cannot get a mortgage, because the legal cartel restricts them by Victorian Law to being the slave of solicitors, and only the favoured few get the nod and prosper.

It is cartelized from Magistrate to High Court Judge, and they sell law. The poorer lawyers are now prepared to work outside the box, and hopefully share in the deep seam of wealth that the Penal action represents. If a Statute was broken, until 1970 in New South Wales anyone could sue for damages for breach. In Victoria they still can, and the law of the Commonwealth exercised by a Victorian Magistrate, covers the continent. If Kevin wants to retain the Lodge, he should put a Federal Policeman in every court, to ensure that only judges rule, and we get courts instead of Courts

That CD you are talking about was played at a Public Meeting in Melbourne recently, and the fifty people present broke into applause. If you want a copy, modern technology lets you download it from the Net. The link is here. http://www.larryhannigan.com/Constitution.htm

At the recent by election in Altona that resulted in a 12% swing against State Labor, 20,000 copies were distributed. It is a powerful document and could well decide the outcome of the next State and Federal election.

People all over Victoria are using their technology to copy and distribute this CD as any computer can. People are going to meetings to learn about their Constitution and their legal rights, and all sorts of people who are sadly put upon by their Banks and lending institutions draw hope from its contents.

People who are financially secure but under attack by oppressive State Laws, and jack booted State Police, are falling back on that document. The three hundred thousand Australians in Victoria at risk of losing their licences to drive are realizing that driving is a Commonwealth right, and cannot be denied by State Legislation. There is an outbreak of hope.

Paul Keating’s Government amended the Trade Practices Act 1974 to define all State Governments as a business, and extended its prohibitions to them. However while the Business of the High Court is currently artificially controlled by the Cartel and the Federal Court of Australia is no better, it is going to fall back on the criminal jurisdiction of a Magistrates Court in Victoria, to enforce S 43 and break the back of State thievery, from ordinary people.

There is a song at Hillsong, My chains are gone, I’ve been set free, the Lord my God has rescued me, and the Trade Practices Act 1974 is the bolt cutters, enacted by Keating, in a Parliament where they start each day, with the Lord’s prayer. It is at Matthew 6:9-13. A Judge, as representing Almighty God should never refuse a prayer, by reference to Matthew 7: 7-12 unless authorized to do so by a jury. Only judges should rule

Raw Mustard
Probably the only way that change can occur is to form a new Party representive of democratic principles. It probably wouldn't get up though unless there was a fair balance between the rights of property and other human rights.

The only way change can be made is to get involved in the political system.

constit is firstly not a "bill of rights", nor is it a "how to" guide. It is simply a high level set of rules essentially to oversee all other legislation and espec rules of court [see Harrington and Lowe] to stop dictator style judges ["or a majority of them"] from making rules that go beyong simple procedure.

but IMHO the Acts Interpretation Act [1901] which I believe was penned on the same good ship Lucinda as constit is just as important, because IF USED, it provides a most powerful check on the legislators, or in Howard's case, those who bully the Legislators.

One of the basic "rights" is right to "your day in court" and we have the Brandy case to show how simple it is for the High Court to explain to us how the const GIVES us that right.

but in the main lawyers will never argue either constit or AIAct [as it aint good for business].

the biggest abuse in recent time [apart from Smirks Future Fund which offends the constit] is the child support agency, judged in Luton and Lessels to be OK Brandy wise legislation wise albeit NOT in practice.

but howard hired the top lawyer Professor Parkinson to do a Fred and Ginger around all that to give the illusion that the day in court was removed from csa decisions.

but it would be simple to use the AIAct to "throw overboard" all those nasty tricks of howard/parky in HCA

But WHO would do such a brave thing? not lawyers thats for sure as most actually moonlight AT the csa

but nobody has ever denied the law is an ass

Thank you, Divorce Doctor, for excellent post. I wish you could given more comments and especially on the "your day in the court' right issue

Ours the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, Portrays to be the most important document in the land, it is the very fabric of Our Free Australian Society, that is if we let it, which most don't.
We the people of Australia can take control back from those who blatently disregard our Constitutional Rights, if we stand together as one, instead of having a defeatest attitude as individuals.
Our Parliarments, Courts, Governments, Local Councils etc. do not fear the Australian Constitution because they have done all within their power to keep it from us and they also know most people think with the attitude I am only a single person and could not defeat beauracratic organisations. Well we can if we unight, We can claim our legal and moral rights back. I have started an avenue to try and reclaim mine in a letter i've prepared to the sheriff of victoria, Melbourne magistrates court, civic compliance victoria, Victoria police traffic camera office and both citylink and eastlink toll roads authorities. Advising that unless i'm brought before a court to be judged by 12 of my peers any infringement notices are both invalid and illegal as documented in our Constitution, also Court Order Costs are invallid and illegal without my consent or the consent of a jury as stipulated by the CRIMINAL CODE ACT 995 SECTION 268.10 which states an order by a single judge is NOT A JUDICIARY ORDER, it is illegal because it is a violation of COMMON LAW
I will attempt to post further notes to keep anyone interested up to date on my progress. No I am not a lawyer or work in any legal system, in fact I know very little about our laws, but am beginning to understand my Comman Law Rights as written in Our Constitution

What do you think about suspension of driver’s license and registration of a vehicle in NSW because of non-payment of parking fees fine/ debt. Is it constitutional? Notice of Suspense of driver’s license and registration of vehicle will be issued without any order of the magistrate or court or any other single demerit point?

Tatiana my understanding of the commonwealth of australia constituion is State Legislation cannot change any laws without a referendom for the people to vote on if you click on the email address following you will see and understand what I am saying. Our Constitution overrules State Laws. This week I will be putting our constitution to the test,
declaring the new infringement penalties introduced in victoria invalid and illegal. I will endeavour to keep everyone informed of my progress. In the mean while check out the constitution at the address below
http://www.larryhannigan.com/Constitution.htm

God is good. God is Love. God is Light. If God be for you who can be against you. "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." "God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble." Therefore submit to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands you sinners; and purify your hearts, Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he will lift you up. Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another.
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.
Then the Lord appeared to Solomon by night, and said to him: "I have heard your prayer, and chosen this place for Myself as a house of sacrifice. When I shut up up heaven and there is no rain, or command the locusts to devour the land, or send pestilence among my people, if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and forgive their sin and heal their land.
Finely don't give up for he who endures to the end shall be saved.
God Bless Richie 10