The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Is The Australian Constitution Outdated?

Is The Australian Constitution Outdated?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Yes, I believe it is.
We need to remove the states and divide the state responsibilities
between local government and the Commonwealth.

It was fine at the end of the 19th century when it took three or four
weeks to attend a meeting in Perth.
The telegraph was only just available at that time.

I am not enarmoured of a republic after watching the operation of other
republics. Once you elect a President you have generated another power centre.
Imagine if you will someone like Paul Keeting or Mark Latham as President
and John Howard as Prime Minister.

There would be an almost immeadiate constitutional crisis.
This is the major advantage of the Monachy, it knows its power has
gone for good and can only advise, appooint and dismiss.
When it dismisses, it sends the problem to the people.
This is what happened in 1975 and the people changed the government.

It took just a couple of months to solve the deadlock.
Look how long it took to get rid of Nixon in the US, years !
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 4 June 2007 11:23:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenneth Chaw
I applaud your request for further information and if you log onto my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and forward me an email I can assist you considerably.(FREE OF CHARGE)

As a “constitutionalist” I am well aware how many are seeing the constitution through the colours of their eyes rather then what it stands for. Even con-job referendums such as the 1967 “Aboriginal DOOMSDAY” referendum was held upon misconceptions as to what the Constitution stands for. While many claim the Constitution is outdated, they obviously are not aware that the Australia act 1986 replaced the 1900 constitution with an identical worded constitution and by this turning a “constitutional parliament” into a Parliament that now is above the constitution. As such, when people talk about outdated constitution why then did the Federal Parliament recreate an identical worded constitution in 1986?
It is not the constitution (1900) that is the problem, it are the politicians and judges that have abused and misused their powers to such extend that few people are aware what the constitution really is about.
For example, “CITIZENSHIP” is a “POLITCAL RIGHT” nothing at all to do with “NATIONALITY” yet, most people understand that “Australia citizenship” is a nationality, albeit I succeeded on 19 July 2006 in court that it was not a nationality as the Commonwealth of Australia never had any constitutional powers to define/declare citizenship! As such, those who don’t even understand that Australians born or naturalised are in fact Subjects of the British Crown hardly then are in any position to clarify to you what is really applicable.
The Commonwealth of Australia is not a country but a LIMITED “political union” as like the European Union but even this most Australians never understood because they have been, so to say, brainwashed since childhood to belief otherwise.
See also;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
(ISBN 0-9580569-6-X prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Monday, 4 June 2007 1:26:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi RIKATI, Your comments were too kind and do not portray the actual die situation in all of the pretend courts of the States and the Commonwealth.
The Constitution of Aust is the one document they will never want us to have the capacity to understand but their day is coming. As I have stated on many other occasions if the originating process is not sealed with the SEAL of the court required to be applied in accordance with the legislation, the Court has not been constituted and does not exist and the individual, who just happens to be appointed as a judge, does deal with the dispute placed before him/her but it is not a statutory court, it is THEIR " court " , the rules do not apply and the dispute resolution process required to be compatible with Chapter 111 of the Australian Constitution has not been provided due to the blatant fraud and forgery of Her Majesty's Court process.
An understanding of this may be gained by reading paragraphs 14-16 in the High Court reasons for the decision in Kable v The DPPNSW by JBrennan and his statements below are very interesting.

Para16. In my opinion, Ch III does not operate in any of those ways. The test of incompatibility advanced by the submission is taken from the majority judgment in Grollo v Palmer (19), a case which was not concerned with the jurisdiction or powers of a court but with the powers that might be conferred on individuals - personae designatae - who were judges of a Ch III Court.
The incompatibility qualification applied to the persona designata doctrine has no counterpart in the context of possible limitations on the power of a State Parliament to invest courts of the State with non-judicial powers or the power of the Commonwealth Parliament to select whichever State courts it sees fit to invest with federal judicial power. No case has hitherto considered whether Ch III has any of the postulated operations. The absence of such a case
indicates that the proposition has never before been advanced.
Posted by Young Dan, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 12:34:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Politicians and judges only can get away with their rot if we let them!
I am not going to give up on “OUR” Constitution and what it stands for and as long as other neither do so we must succeed.
Sure, it does take a lot of time and effort but we will.

The High Court of Australia as a Court of Disputed Returns, as such without judicial powers as a Court of law, but as a “persona designata” on behalf of the politicians declare the Australia Act 1986 to be valid with its substitution of the constitution. Yes, pull the other leg will you!
No matter what politicians and judges may fancy as long as We, the People, object to it and do not concede to their unconstitutional conduct we have not lost!
When I succeeded after a 5-year legal battle on 19-July-2006 against the Federal Government lawyers UNCHALLENGED on all constitutional grounds it was because I persisted to push for my constitutional rights.
Likewise if other did so they may just discover we can turn it around and return the powers to the People!
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 2:32:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now RIKATI,
I don’t quite see where your going with your statement but I know one thing, in the matter of a dispute in the Federal Electorate of Leichhardt after the last Federal election, the documents were sent to the Registry of the High Court for the purpose of filing and when they were returned they were not sealed with the SEAL of the High Court of Australia.
The High Court Justice did hear the matter in Brisbane and sent it on to the Federal Court. These originating process documents do not display on their face either the High Court SEAL or the Federal Court SEAL as required by the rules.
Are you suggesting that the individual, personae designatae - who was judge of a Ch III Court and who eventually heard this matter, of a dispute on the result of the election, sat as a judge in the Federal Court of Australia in which the individual was not bound by his judicial oath of office when he had no evidence before him that the matter was filed and issued to the Federal Court as the originating process was not signed, sealed filed and issued to the High Court or the Federal Court of Australia. You have got to be pulling your own leg. We have put this to the test in the Qld Supreme Court and after six hearings conducted by a self litigant he is still there and going back to deal with the Chief Judge of the Qld Supreme Court as all hearings have been adjourned when questions have been asked about the non use of the SEAL and the judges judicial oath of office. No seal on the documents as required by the legislative provisions of the Act passed by the Qld Parliament, NO COURT OF LAW EXISTS and no authorised exercise of judicial power without the consent of both parties. If you were to serve the invitation, a properly signed, sealed, filed and issued document called the originating process, then you have provided your consent to his authorised exercise of judicial power as a judge
Posted by Young Dan, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 3:40:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey, thanks a lot to everyone for taking the time and effort to post your opinions. I appreciate it a lot! Honestly, this is my first research and I still need to learn a lot regarding this subject. But yes, your opinions have helped me a lot!

I'm not too sure about certain terms that were used, but basically, what I catch here is that the Australian Constitution is outdated mainly because the judges shift the state's power to the federal government throught the process of interpretation.

Hence, the state's power should be codified in the constitution and not just remain as a residual power. Also, Australia is not ready for a republic until democratic rights are assured. Otherwise, too much power will be concentrated on the president, and will rule more like a dictatorship.

About that multicultural thing... I think electing an Australian Head of State will allow for better understanding of the growing needs of a multicultural society instead of a British Governor General, who grew up at Britain. I hope that answers your question...

I still hope to be hearing more from all you guys! Thanks again and have an awesome day!
Posted by Kenneth Chaw, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 1:50:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy