Dear Josephus,

You write;

“No person should be in Parliament unless they have fully understood our constitution and with sincere heart intends to follow it. The only way the constitution can be changed is by referendum. Those that intending changing the constitution should not hold office under the constitution.”

That is one of the more inane utterances I have ever heard from you and that is saying something.

People who swear to uphold the laws of the land can have no role in changing them? How preposterous is that. Parliament is literally our law making body in our democracy.

Dear Is Mise,

You write;

“The issue is that certain members of Parliament lied, under oath, that they give allegiance to the Queen, simple as that.”

I have already taken the pains to explain to you the pivotal part of the equation is 'according to law'. You have reverted to a mantra without addressing the point I put to you.

I would have thought you started the thread to get the opinion of others on your contention. It seems instead you were just after affirmation. Well old chap, you have come to the wrong place. This isn't a strictly royalist site.

So in future do try and restrict what you post to issues that you are prepared to have tested. It makes for far better conversation.

Paul, no Christian is expected under pain of death to support the
ancient texts in the bible. This not the case with the koran.
To dispute the Koran is blasphemy punished by death and is CURRENT practise.

Steele,

You quoted,
"Rule According to Law

The rule of law requires the government to exercise its power in accordance with well-established and clearly written rules, regulations, and legal principles. .."

That is the rule of law ref. Government, surely the rule of law ref. the Members is that they swear an oath required by law, and that they mean what they swear.

Anyone who swears allegiance to the Queen whilst engaged publicly (or privately) in subverting that allegiance is a liar and a perjurer and is thus not a fit person to sit in Parliament; or do you condone such perjury?

Dear Is Mise,

When I was conscripted, I was forced to make an oath of allegiance, which was clearly against my conscience.

As there was not enough time to let each conscript say the full oath, we were made to stand in line then pass one-by-one in front of our officer, saying just the words, "I swear".

So I did, and after saying "I swear" loudly, I added quietly so no one could hear, "that I am not a cat"!

Yuyutsu,

No one is conscripted into Federal Parliament, all the Members go there willingly and allow big bucks to be spent in the process.

They are not forced to swear the Oath, they do so willingly and those that know that they will not uphold it are liars and perjurers.

There is a law against perjury and it should be upheld.

When you were conscripted, I presume in Australia, all that you needed to do was refuse, on religious grounds, to take the oath and you'd have been back in civvy street in a flash.

I advised a young bloke to grow a beard and when he was called up to tell them that he had made a binding religious vow not to shave but that he was happy and willing to serve but must keep his beard. OUT!

Dear Is Mise,

Good god man why is this such a struggle for you. These are our elected representatives who are the interface between the people and the government. They are the law makers. They are different to public servants, or to the military.

It is part of what makes our democracy alive and adaptive to changes.

You are now being thick. Time to reboot old chap.

Otherwise in your world the only possibility of advancing to a republic would be through revolution. Is that really what you want?

Let it go.