Australian Constitution

[expires]

But laws only exist to the extent that they are enforceable and “the vote” only exists within a context of a monopoly of violence by the state (no point having “the vote” if the next nation along can just come and visit and murder all the voters, for instance).

Yeah. That's what I reckon. The Indonesians are the bad guys.

 

[telsor]

When is that child considered signed up to this nation is the question I am trying to ask?

A child becomes a citizen at birth.

 

[expires]

A child becomes a citizen at birth.

So is the signature of a parent/doctor on a birth certificate any part of that "becomes"?

In right to life debates, it is not the rights of a citizen that is being debated then?

Also what is your source? And thanks.

 

[tandino]

the Australian constitution was an act of the british parliament.

Not was, is.

 

[expires]

Not was, is.

Think it would be was. The enabling act removed the ability of the British parliament to alter or revoke its own legislation. Making it a was. The Australia act would be the end for sure.

 

[tandino]

Think it would be was. The enabling act removed the ability of the British parliament to alter or revoke its own legislation. Making it a was. The Australia act would be the end for sure.

Doesn't mean it just disappears.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/63-64/12/contents

 

[expires]

Doesn't mean it just disappears.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/63-64/12/contents

You may notice that UK legislation does not include subsequent alterations to our constitution. Which says 'was' more than 'is' if its not updating its self. (the UK version has a section 127. Ours doesn't for instance.)

Anybody got an opinion about our constitution.

I find its method of change to restrictive. But can never quite nail a better way of going about it.

 

[Power Raid]

Interesting.

Did you sign up to the Australian system of government? I know I didn't.

As far as I know none of us are part of it through choice. Just wondering where and when we legally become part of it all in the eyes of the constitution. My assessment is nobody knows. It is just something we all go along with.

Just say you were a hig court judge. What answer would you give if you had to explain why the individual is answerable to government.

the constitution is the empowerment and limitation of our government not our people. this power was provided to the federal government by a vote and varied over time again by vote.

 

[Taylor]

Your citizenship is bestowed by the rights of your parents, those before them and those beyond you until such time as the king or any by another name remove it.

And it is all forged by violence.

 

[telsor]

Think it would be was. The enabling act removed the ability of the British parliament to alter or revoke its own legislation. Making it a was. The Australia act would be the end for sure.

I suppose it still is, but we've made clear that any amendments they might make will be considered invalid and thus ignored by us, making it a moot point.

 

[expires]

the constitution is the empowerment and limitation of our government not our people. this power was provided to the federal government by a vote and varied over time again by vote.

It's a set of rules by which the country is run. It's the individuals relationship to the rules is what I am inquiring about.

 

[expires]

Will change the original question.

Make it :- Have astronomers a duty to our constitution?

 

[Power Raid]

It's a set of rules by which the country is run. It's the individuals relationship to the rules is what I am inquiring about.

we don't have a relationship to the constitution. the constitution is there to provide power to the government and we in turn have a relationship with the government and the rules they then create through parliament and through the courts.

that said the constitution is a very important document is it is the primary document that protects citizens from its government.

 

[Power Raid]

Will change the original question.

Make it :- Have astronomers a duty to our constitution?

no

 

[expires]

we don't have a relationship to the constitution. the constitution is there to provide power to the government and we in turn have a relationship with the government and the rules they then create through parliament and through the courts.

that said the constitution is a very important document is it is the primary document that protects citizens from its government.

It's removed from beyond 1900 human conscience.

no

In my opinion they do.

 

[Power Raid]

In my opinion they do.

why?

because the federal government may or may not exercise their power in this area?

surely you would look at the purpose of the constitution and not the elements "mentioned"

 

[telsor]

Will change the original question.

Make it :- Have astronomers a duty to our constitution?

No.

That section of the constitution outlines the commonwealths powers (mostly vis a vis the states). The only way an astronomer would have an obligation is if the commonwealth employed them to act of their behalf in order to fulfill these powers/obligations, and if that were the case, the astronomers involved would be obligated to act in accordance within their employment contract, not the constitution.

 

[Long Live HFC]

In my opinion they do.

lol. you clearly dont understand the document.

 

[Bradesmaen]

The only people that have a duty to the constitution is the Parliament of Australia. People can challenge anything they do to the high court if they believe it is against the constitution which is the supreme law of Australia. The Constitution defines what the Parliament of Australia can/can't do and what they enact is the law and legislation on which it's citizens who elected them must abide by. I fail to see how this is hard to understand. If you are born in this country and have a birth certificate in this country you are a citizen of this country. If you wish to renounce the citizenship then it is your choice, but that leaves you stateless unless you have another one. However you do not have to be a citizen of a country to have to abide by it's law.

Seriously WTF is going on?

 

[expires]

The only people that have a duty to the constitution is the Parliament of Australia. People can challenge anything they do to the high court if they believe it is against the constitution which is the supreme law of Australia. The Constitution defines what the Parliament of Australia can/can't do and what they enact is the law and legislation on which it's citizens who elected them must abide by. I fail to see how this is hard to understand. If you are born in this country and have a birth certificate in this country you are a citizen of this country. If you wish to renounce the citizenship then it is your choice, but that leaves you stateless unless you have another one. However you do not have to be a citizen of a country to have to abide by it's law.

Seriously WTF is going on?

Think you mean Australian Parliamentarians in your first sentence. Parliament isn't a person. And parliamentarians are individuals. Think you would have to add judges of the high court to that. At some level an individiual has to have a duty to the constitution. Otherwise it wouldn't work.

Think you can probably stand aside from your citizenship to if you so chose.

No.

That section of the constitution outlines the commonwealths powers (mostly vis a vis the states). The only way an astronomer would have an obligation is if the commonwealth employed them to act of their behalf in order to fulfill these powers/obligations, and if that were the case, the astronomers involved would be obligated to act in accordance within their employment contract, not the constitution.

Don't really think it is as simple as that. But, as you say, I would be fairly sure the reason that section and sub section appears is to give the Commonwealth the final say.

lol. you clearly dont understand the document.

That remark is unconstitutional.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Think you mean Australian Parliamentarians in your first sentence. Parliament isn't a person. And parliamentarians are individuals. Think you would have to add judges of the high court to that. At some level an individiual has to have a duty to the constitution. Otherwise it wouldn't work.

Think you can probably stand aside from your citizenship to if you so chose.


Don't really think it is as simple as that. But, as you say, I would be fairly sure the reason that section and sub section appears is to give the Commonwealth the final say.


That remark is unconstitutional.

Are you high? serious question.

 

[expires]

Are you high? serious question.

Idiot question really. Just finding out views on certain matters. You do realize you are confusing parliament and parliamentarians?

 

[CM86]

Idiot question really. Just finding out views on certain matters. You do realize you are confusing parliament and parliamentarians?

A duty. Which could be characterized as a positive obligation.

If you believed the Australian parliament was breaking the Australian constitution in spirit, you would say not my business?

We get it, you're a third year law student, and you think you're a genius.

When your lecturer tried to explain that you were just wrong, it wasn't because he/she didn't understand... It's because you're just wrong...

 

[Bradesmaen]

Idiot question really. Just finding out views on certain matters. You do realize you are confusing parliament and parliamentarians?

Same s**t. If you believe the Australian Parliament was breaking the Australian Constitution one would file a legal claim to the High Court of Australia, ala The Castle. It's pretty ******* obvious.

 

[expires]

Same s**t. If you believe the Australian Parliament was breaking the Australian Constitution one would file a legal claim to the High Court of Australia, ala The Castle. It's pretty ******* obvious.

How does one go about that? Thanks.