as to wether it should be a fed election issue..look at the past referndumbs...nearly all have failed..for good reason..we the trust basiclly have been decieved..dont get taught the constitution/in schools

courts arnt constitutional..we cant plead guilty..[legally/ie magna carta]..but by making us sign forms..created by acts....declaring our birth place/date...as true/correct..we lie/commit fraud...UNDER OATH/..signed sealed

..and the law presumes..we wouldnt lie....except to seek advantage..lol

..thing is we dont know/as fact..the true details of our birth..[for we were children/at the time..but are required/told..legally to lie..to fall/under their acts..[acts..they stand under....not us

they need licences..to use commonwealth property..[see we dont need a licence to travel..only to do business,,[look the act..is under the transport act..[look up what transport mean..[it means basicly carry goods/passsengers..for proffit

dito a vehicle..needs regestration..but a vehicle..transport's goods[the definition again..is under the transport act...

worse..its under state acts..[when legislation..is a fed franchise!

see how there are two basic courts/criminal/..where there is an injured party..seeking damages..and civil...[ie contract law...we been conned into contract juristiction...via applying to fall under the act...ie by app-lie-ing tobe doing business..under acts..[acts that legislate safe business practices]..not population control/policing

yes its logical..to have licences/rego etc..but..there is no authority..under any constitution..for us to have them...!

..unless we are/fall under the act..ie/civil servant..or doing busines/trade...and then only via/a federal act..

states surrendered that right with federation..!

its so clever..lawyers writing laws..[for generous public-service super/pensions..that only..other lawyers..working for legal aid..or huge cash retainers..

under acts..only other lawyters can comprehend..and yet other lawyers...made judge to judge them...lol

WHERE IS THE SEPERATION OF POWERS?

over half/..of the elected reps..are..or were lawyers..!

OUG is asking some good questions, that deserve highly considered answers. One is that so many referendums have failed. Even though they failed, only six out of forty-six have succeeded, they confirm that we actually do have a Constitution and want it kept in all its glory.

One under God is what we should be. The present immunity from suit granted by Statute to Judges, so they cannot be sued in their own Court, is a serious breach of the separation of powers, and the introduction of Roman Law. Under Roman Law the Emperor was God, but he had numerous other Gods who ruled with him.

At Easter we should be reminded, and if you go to any Christian Church, you may be told that Jesus was offered Roman Citizenship, but because He had asked his Father, and been told NOT to have any other God than Almighty God himself, He refused. We are told that he refused the opiates offered, and suffered the full rigours of the Crucifixion. Getting killed like that was no picnic. We’re also told that a full eclipse of they sun occurred between twelve and three on that fateful day, an earthquake shook the area at 3 PM, and the curtain in the temple, that had hitherto been in place to keep ordinary people from God and justice, was ripped from top to bottom.

In under 300 years the Roman Empire collapsed. The Good Christian Leaders of England decided to adopt Christianity as their religion and constitution, and required the King to abide the Gospels. To keep the King or Queen available to everyone, and have justice available to everyone without fear or favor, English Law requires every Judge and Magistrate to be a delegate of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second. To be worthy of that honor, they are required to keep the trust. The Trust is unique to English Law. We are all beneficiarys of the Trust created that became the Commonwealth. Go to Church this Easter, and on Sunday celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Pray for the justice He brings to everyone

Were the English nutters, or is the Constitution they adopted straight out of the Holy Bible. I have an 1827 Bible published by Bagster, and dedicated to the English King, and a 1972 King James Version published in the United States with Black Stars opposite every Constitutional paragraph in the Old Testament.

The first is at Genesis 12 Verse 3, where Almighty God is talking to Abram: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curseth thee; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed. God passed that trust to Sarah, in Genesis 17 Verse 19; And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call him Isaac and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant , and with his seed after him. The Next Black Star is next to Genesis 49:10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. Shiloh is accepted by Biblical scholars as representing Jesus Christ. To Jesus Christ was the gathering of the people. The English took that to mean a gathering of twelve disciples one from each of the twelve tribes of Israel, and transformed it into a jury, a gathering of the people, as the ultimate Sovereign in English law.

The next Black Star is in Psalm 34:20 He keepeth all his bones, not one shall be broken. It was usual at a crucifixion to break the leg bones, to speed death. Jesus did not have his legs broken. Psalm 35:11 states False witnesses did rise up: they laid to my charge things that I knew not. Psalm 41:9, Yea mine own familiar friend in whom I trusted, which did eat my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me. Psalm 49:15 But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave; for he shall receive me. Selah. The Black Stars continue, but the English established the longest lasting government in history

Peter the Believer (or is it Peter Vexatious?) asks the question

"Should the Constitution be a federal election issue?"

There can be no doubt but that it SHOULD be, of necessity, given that Kevin Rudd has already proposed what amounts to a Commonwealth takeover of the States' health systems. As to whether it WILL be is at least in part dependent upon the willingness, and indeed fitness for public office, of representatives in the Parliament (and especially amongst the Opposition therein) to question whether the Commonwealth Parliament has the necessary power given it in the Constitution to legislate in this respect.

To all reports Tony Abbott, as leader of the Opposition, has indicated that the Opposition will co-operate with the government with regard to the passage of any legislation that may be necessary to effect this takeover.



There may, however, remain a problem, and it looks like its a Constitutional one.



Peter the Believer has stated in his post of Saturday, 3 April 2010 at 5:43:50 AM that "..., only six out of forty-six [referendums] have succeeded, ...". One of those six he claims is that referendum held in 1946, along with three others that failed on the same day, known as the 'Social Services' referendum. That referendum purported to permit the insertion into the Constitution of placitum xxiiiA to Section 51, a section of the Constitution that lists the powers of the Parliament.

Placitum xxiiiA to Section 51 says:

"The provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions,
child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness
and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but
not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription),
benefits to students and family allowances:"

It can be seen that legislation necessary to effect such takeover of the States' health systems as is proposed would depend upon the powers set out in placitum xxiiiA.



The problem is that the 1946 Social Services referendum has been incorrectly reported as having passed, when in the terms of Section 128 of the Constitution that sets out the conditions necessary for passage of referenda, it did not in fact do so.

I would like to talk about a limited change to the constitution as an election issue: Replace the current States (and state governments) and local councils with 25 new regions (3 Senators per region) across Australia. I am interested in what you think about my thoughts on this. I believe that there are 3 parts to such a discussion.
Firstly, 1.Why Change? Then 2.What changes would be needed? and then 3.What would the benefits be?

So to begin with the Why Change. I think that these are the drivers
1. Reduce the cost of government: a. remove the duplication across 5 state governments all having duplicated public service departments delivering the same basic services, b. Remove the duplication that occurs down through the current 3 levels of government within Australia, c. Reduce the number of politicians
2. Simplify and reduce the cost of the current governmental revenue raising and sharing process within Australia
3. Standardise legislation across Australia to make compliance easier. Eg standard road rules
4. Reduce the potential for corruption within government
5. Decentralise population growth away from the current capital cities. Eg high $ and environment cost of putting more than 3 million people into a coastal city such as Sydney
6. Protect and enhance the interests of all areas of Australia, not just the capital cities.
7. Abolish the current ‘Local council rates’ because it is not a ‘user pays’ system
8. Stop the continual high cost legal fights between states and federal government over National Resources

I will list the 2.What changes would be needed? and then 3.What would the benefits be? in a later post if people are interested.

i can agree with bill..that we need to rethink things..govt/AUTHORITIES/juristictions/..need to be rewritten..ammendments simply wont cut it..anymore

we need a federal legaslative body..that makes all laws..need to educate people of their god given rights..[like thou shalt not take oath..especially in writing..for light or transiant cause..and not under juress..[nor in ignorance]

that the courts need to be reassesed...according to proper juristictions/authorities..[ie retaining the importance of having 2/witness testify to personal injury/..or real public dangers/..including..but not limited to fraud/theft...assults

the states need to go...or be increased..[any big city becomes a state..and other compatible areas united...that oversee the acts of councils...who deliver services...all govt services..[from courts/prisons/police/hospitals/sewage/water/roads/social security/pensions]

big centralised govt is to be avoided..fed minesters basicly audit the lower levels..and provide funding..per capita..and as need reveals

the city size states..ideally should be half the total states..present size..and council's doubled..the fed is too bloated..but as things stand at present..do have the rights..to do anything states are constituted to do...if only via the higher/courts precedance..that has ruled that they can

the enphisis should be on service delivery/auditing/finance..not where govts lend from the fed...indeed states cant/shouldnt be allowed to borrow anything..

[we do have a sovereign debt...look at the states,...who have indebited their trust with enormous debt/so much so they are selling off the peoples assets/../while doubling the charges for their service's and selling them off

its...a huge scam..verging on treason..simply in serving their mates...they commit gross abuses...of course membership..of a party should be seen..as the treason it truelly is...party loyalty is it serving the people...or the party line?