Australian Constitution

[expires]

Has the individual a duty to the Australian Constitution?

 

[ralphmalph]

Has the individual a duty to the Australian Constitution?

As in a positive obligation?

In my opinion, no - but I guess you have a reason for asking?

 

[expires]

As in a positive obligation?

In my opinion, no - but I guess you have a reason for asking?

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?

 

[ralphmalph]

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?

In spirit? Which section, how so?

What do you say it is doing that is inconsistent with the constitution?

 

[expires]

In spirit? Which section, how so?

What do you say it is doing that is inconsistent with the constitution?

Chapter 1 part V section 51 sub section v111 is not going down well.

The inconsistency is the parliament funding the teaching of a astronomical concept that said section has moved on from.

 

[Power Raid]

Chapter 1 part V section 51 sub section v111 is not going down well.

The inconsistency is the parliament funding the teaching of a astronomical concept that said section has moved on from.

Can you explain further?

 

[telsor]

Chapter 1 part V section 51 sub section v111 is not going down well.

The inconsistency is the parliament funding the teaching of a astronomical concept that said section has moved on from.

Section 51 – Legislative powers of the Parliament
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:-

(viii.) Astronomical and metereological observations:



What are they doing or not doing that contravenes this?

 

[expires]

Section 51 – Legislative powers of the Parliament
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:-

(viii.) Astronomical and metereological observations:



What are they doing or not doing that contravenes this?

The other side of the issue is where or when does the individual become bound to our constitution. At conception, with a parent’s signature on a birth certificate, our first pay slip or when?

To answer your question "they" are appropriating money for the teaching of an earth orbiting a fixed sun. Astronomical observations say the sun is moving. Not a clear cut contravention. The parliament is not compelled by the sonstitution to make laws for peace, order and good government.

In spirit, though, it is a clear cut contravention. The school yard in general is oblivious to the motion of the sun. And if broken in spirit, when it comes to constitutional matters, also broken in deed is the general rule.

 

[Long Live HFC]

The other side of the issue is where or when does the individual become bound to our constitution. At conception, with a parent’s signature on a birth certificate, our first pay slip or when?

To answer your question "they" are appropriating money for the teaching of an earth orbiting a fixed sun. Astronomical observations say the sun is moving. Not a clear cut contravention. The parliament is not compelled by the sonstitution to make laws for peace, order and good government.

In spirit, though, it is a clear cut contravention. The school yard in general is oblivious to the motion of the sun. And if broken in spirit, when it comes to constitutional matters, also broken in deed is the general rule.

I think I speak for everyone here when I say, WTF?

 

[expires]

I think I speak for everyone here when I say, WTF?

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.

 

[Long Live HFC]

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

? did you "sign up" for legislation outlawing murder or theft?

As far as I know none of us are part of it through choice.

none of us a part of it per se. it's a piece of legislation that sets out the rules for government, not citizens.

Just wondering where and when we legally become part of it all in the eyes of the constitution.

as above, we're not part of it. it doesn't set out rules for individuals.

My assessment is nobody knows. It is just something we all go along with.

my assessment is you're a bit strange.

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.

well again, we don't answer to the constitution, we answer to the statutes created underneath it. and we are "answerable" to them because that's how civil society functions.

 

[Affidavit]

What have you been charged with....

 

[expires]

well again, we don't answer to the constitution, we answer to the statutes created underneath it. and we are "answerable" to them because that's how civil society functions.

It's just a question, HFC, not an argument. If you look again, answerable to the constitution wasn't said. The question was (using your words) why are we legally answerable to the statutes created underneath it.

none of us a part of it per se. it's a piece of legislation that sets out the rules for government, not citizens.

The Australian consitution is not legislation as you say. It's the framework of our nation. It can be altereed by a tedious referendum process but calling it legislation is not right.

Don't worry about it.

 

[Long Live HFC]

The Australian consitution is not legislation as you say.

the Australian constitution was an act of the british parliament.

 

[expires]

What have you been charged with....

Nothing. I once (years ago) informed the tax office I wasn't paying tax over said issue. Was fould guilty of not filing tax returns. On appeal the tax office withdrew their case. And I took a different approach.

Probably not articulating the point very well. A child will be born in 12 months time. At this stage that child isn't conceived.

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

 

[expires]

the Australian constitution was an act of the british parliament.

As you say.

was

And that's sort of the point if you replace 'was' with 'is'. The power of the Australian government over the individual traces back to the acceptance of democracy by our European ancestors would be the answer.

 

[Long Live HFC]

please let me know when you start making sense.

 

[pazza]

Not sure exactly what the premise is here.

 

[expires]

please let me know when you start making sense.

Nah thanks to you HFC

Got the answer I was looking for. The power of government over the individual traces to an original acceptance of democracy. And the soil the individual is standing on to, of course.

Good work.

Now any advance on does the individual have a duty to the constitution? Ralphmalphs answer wasn't very JFKish.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Got the answer I was looking for. The power of government over the individual traces to an original acceptance of democracy.

but that's hardly accurate. the "government" held power over the individual well before democracy. authority gains its power through force and acceptance.

Now any advance on does the individual have a duty to the constitution?

I still don't get what you're banging on about.

 

[expires]

but that's hardly accurate. the "government" held power over the individual well before democracy. authority gains its power through force and acceptance.



I still don't get what you're banging on about.

Gees hfc, the one time I didn't put Australian in front of government.

Look I'm happy with the answer but for sake of debate, does power through force have a legal basis?

If you can't understand the original question, you need shooting at dawn.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Look I'm happy with the answer but for sake of debate, does power through force have a legal basis?

why wouldn't it? it's those that have the power through force that make the laws to begin with?

 

[expires]

why wouldn't it? it's those that have the power through force that make the laws to begin with?

Law is supposed to be based upon the vote though. Not the six shooter.

 

[Mofra]

It's the constitution.
It's Mabo.
It's the vibe of the thing.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Law is supposed to be based upon the vote though. Not the six shooter.

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).