I just saw him say in QT that over the weekend he had taken 'pronto' steps to renounce..................................................HIS NZ CITIZENSHIP!!!!!!!

It seems to me that is an outright admission that he did indeed have NZ Citizenship which disqualifies him from eligibility to be elected as a MP.

Get out of there Joyce!

It depends on what the High Court says. And then it may be he will be eligible to run in a new election. ;)

lee wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 2:56pm:

It depends on what the High Court says. And then it may be he will be eligible to run in a new election. ;)

Sure....but until then....because Joyce admits to the threshold point (foreign citizenship) ....but holds to possible defences.....until those defences are tested in the High Court.....HE OUGHT GET OUT OF CABINET AND NOT BLOODY VOTE IN THE HOUSE.

Far cough Joyce!

"Justices of the High Court are, by nature of their appointment, some of the wisest legal minds in the land. So supposing how they may rule is fraught.

But if the High Court was to start saying everyone entitled to foreign citizenship was ineligible, it would wipe out a swathe of our MPs and senators who have never tried to claim allegiance to any other county.

Surely the Court would have to take into account the practical effect of making that judgment, and the ensuing chaos it would cause.
Could you be a dual citizen without realising?

There are multiple ways you can get citizenship, and the rules are confusing.

Case law too suggests the need to act on any eligibility."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-28/citizenship-grey-area-in-constitution-tripping-up-mps-senators/8754586

Your ABC wouldn't lie; would it?

Aussie wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 3:00pm:

Sure....but until then....because Joyce admits to the threshold point (foreign citizenship) ....but holds to possible defences.....until those defences are tested in the High Court.....HE OUGHT GET OUT OF CABINET AND NOT BLOODY VOTE IN THE HOUSE.

Until it is tested he is an elected member of the House.

I don't believe he ever was a Kiwi citizen. He was born here and never actively sought Kiwi citizenship, nor did anyone on his behalf. Only that he was eligible to apply if he wished to do so due to a parental link with NZ. There's no record of him on any roll as a NZ citizen. In any case, we can all move on now. The government will remain, thankfully. It's now Shorten's turn to squirm, as up to seven - that's right, seven (7) - Labor MPs are now under scrutiny over their allegiance to Australia.

Quote:

I don't believe he ever was a Kiwi citizen.

Then you believe there are fairies at the bottom of your garden.

Aussie wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 3:12pm:

Quote: I don't believe he ever was a Kiwi citizen. Then you believe there are fairies at the bottom of your garden.

Is that where you hide? ;)

If the drunken idiot renounced his NZ citizenship he was clearly in breach of the dual citizenship provision of the constitution.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 3:15pm:

If the drunken idiot renounced his NZ citizenship he was clearly in breach of the dual citizenship provision of the constitution.

You can't renounce something you never possessed. Clearly, he's renounced any right to claim NZ citizenship. Poor wording on the part of the DT.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 3:15pm:

If the drunken idiot renounced his NZ citizenship he was clearly in breach of the dual citizenship provision of the constitution.

Can you tell us how you would renounce any citizenship - before you became aware of it? ::)

I did it when swearing allegiance to Australia forsaking allegiance to all other powers.

Dastiary et al managed to renounce other allegiances.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 3:20pm:

I did it when swearing allegiance to Australia forsaking allegiance to all other powers. Dastiary et al managed to renounce other allegiances.

So only by being born overseas? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Shortarse has been accused of colluding with the New Zealand MPs over Joyce's citizenship issue, according to Your ABC.  ;D ;D

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-15/bill-shorten-accused-colluding-nz-mps-barnaby-joyce-citizenship/8807610

That seems to catch out the coalition clowns.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 3:16pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 3:15pm: If the drunken idiot renounced his NZ citizenship he was clearly in breach of the dual citizenship provision of the constitution. You can't renounce something you never possessed. Clearly, he's renounced any right to claim NZ citizenship. Poor wording on the part of the DT.

No....In Parliament today during QT......Joyce said that over the week-end he had taken steps to renounce his NZ citizenship......NOT his entitlement to it.

lee wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 3:01pm:

"Justices of the High Court are, by nature of their appointment, some of the wisest legal minds in the land. So supposing how they may rule is fraught. But if the High Court was to start saying everyone entitled to foreign citizenship was ineligible, it would wipe out a swathe of our MPs and senators who have never tried to claim allegiance to any other county. Surely the Court would have to take into account the practical effect of making that judgment, and the ensuing chaos it would cause. Could you be a dual citizen without realising? There are multiple ways you can get citizenship, and the rules are confusing. Case law too suggests the need to act on any eligibility." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-28/citizenship-grey-area-in-constitution-tripping-up-mps-senators/8754586 Your ABC wouldn't lie; would it?

I think the high court will rule on a point of law not try and predict the future  of it's  decisions

Francis wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 3:56pm:

lee wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 3:01pm: "Justices of the High Court are, by nature of their appointment, some of the wisest legal minds in the land. So supposing how they may rule is fraught. But if the High Court was to start saying everyone entitled to foreign citizenship was ineligible, it would wipe out a swathe of our MPs and senators who have never tried to claim allegiance to any other county. Surely the Court would have to take into account the practical effect of making that judgment, and the ensuing chaos it would cause. Could you be a dual citizen without realising? There are multiple ways you can get citizenship, and the rules are confusing. Case law too suggests the need to act on any eligibility." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-28/citizenship-grey-area-in-constitution-tripping-up-mps-senators/8754586 Your ABC wouldn't lie; would it? I think the high court will rule on a point of law not try and predict the future  of it's  decisions

You are correct.  The High Court will have zero regard for the consequences of how they rule on the Law.

They will try to make sense of Section 44 and I reckon that is simple....the Constitution requires that a MP have ONE loyalty....that is, to Australia...and not (even without knowing at a particular time.......that is far too easy to claim.......) have either citizenship or entitlement to citizenship of a foreign power.

I say they must have an honest and reasonable belief that their only entitlement/citizenship was to Australia.

I say that, given Joyce knew his Old Man was a Kiwi, therefore he had a positive obligation to make full enquiry about his position and then deal with it by renunciation.

Putting head in sand/ignoring/blind eye is not good enough.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 3:16pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 3:15pm: If the drunken idiot renounced his NZ citizenship he was clearly in breach of the dual citizenship provision of the constitution. You can't renounce something you never possessed. Clearly, he's renounced any right to claim NZ citizenship. Poor wording on the part of the DT.

Hang on criticising the Telegraph? WHo are you and what have you done with the real Armchair politician.

Hi Aussie, could he mount a defense that the GG or Australian people failed in its duty of care by not ensuring  he was suitable to be a MP?

If I  apply  for a job fraudulently  and I'm  hired.  That's actually  partly the business  fault is it not?

I am not sure why he would know he was a NZ citz in their eyes..he was born here   and lived here all his life..

why wouldnt he think he was just a citz of Australia...

just because another crazy country has weird ideas on citizenship.....why is it the persons fault who is caught up in it......

I have Australian citzship...but I was born in England  so if need be I would need to renounce that....I can understand why I am still a citz of England  as far as a registry is concerned...

but my family are all born here....it wouldnt occur to me they are registered anywhere else...or them for that matter    why would it?..

Francis wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 4:12pm:

Hi Aussie, could he mount a defense that the GG or Australian people failed in its duty of care by not ensuring  he was suitable to be a MP? If I  apply  for a job fraudulently  and I'm  hired.  That's actually  partly the business  fault is it not?

No....it is his obligation to comply with S 44 and when he nominates for an election, he signs off that he is not disqualified by S 44.

Link.

cods wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 4:14pm:

I am not sure why he would know he was a NZ citz in their eyes..he was born here   and lived here all his life.. why wouldnt he think he was just a citz of Australia... just because another crazy country has weird ideas on citizenship.....why is it the persons fault who is caught up in it...... I have Australian citzship...but I was born in England  so if need be I would need to renounce that....I can understand why I am still a citz of England  as far as a registry is concerned... but my family are all born here....it wouldnt occur to me they are registered anywhere else...or them for that matter    why would it?..

I should have occurred to Joyce (or any reasonable person) that he may have had some rights....because his Old Man is a Kiwi.

cods wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 4:14pm:

I am not sure why he would know he was a NZ citz in their eyes..he was born here   and lived here all his life.. why wouldnt he think he was just a citz of Australia... just because another crazy country has weird ideas on citizenship.....why is it the persons fault who is caught up in it...... I have Australian citzship...but I was born in England  so if need be I would need to renounce that....I can understand why I am still a citz of England  as far as a registry is concerned... but my family are all born here....it wouldnt occur to me they are registered anywhere else...or them for that matter    why would it?..

It is a bunch of nonsense ... I caught (accidentally) some Airhead on one of the News Channels mentioning  "even if you are a 5 Generation Australian" that you could still be ineligible to be a Politician.  I almost wet myself laughing. How many 5 Generation Aussies do we have, those that were shipped here for stealing a loaf of bread? Is having an ancestor who was "sent" here a crime now?  Mine came out in 1852 to search for GOLD!

Absolute rubbish and it is no wonder I do NOT watch TV News ... I check the online newspapers where I can pick and choose which article I WILL read.

Aussie wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 4:27pm:

cods wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 4:14pm: I am not sure why he would know he was a NZ citz in their eyes..he was born here   and lived here all his life.. why wouldnt he think he was just a citz of Australia... just because another crazy country has weird ideas on citizenship.....why is it the persons fault who is caught up in it...... I have Australian citzship...but I was born in England  so if need be I would need to renounce that....I can understand why I am still a citz of England  as far as a registry is concerned... but my family are all born here....it wouldnt occur to me they are registered anywhere else...or them for that matter    why would it?.. I should have occurred to Joyce (or any reasonable person) that he may have had some rights....because his Old Man is a Kiwi.

Give it a break!  Men don't even think about their ancestry until they "retire" ... he was born in TAMWORTH .... he's an Aussie and I doubt that he knew that having a Dad born in NZ was of any concern.

This is becoming really really stupid.

The High Court has to sort this out, pronto.  ;D

Hi cods,  before becoming a member of  parliament  they complete necessary  paperwork and one of the questions is are they a dual citizen.
It's  expected  they take  the time too find out.  Some still  believe it's a important  job and respect  our laws.

Others it would seem do not

Obviously  events  are showing  they can't  be trusted  and we need independent  audited background  checks before  we let anyone  in

Neferti wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 4:32pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 4:27pm: cods wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 4:14pm: I am not sure why he would know he was a NZ citz in their eyes..he was born here   and lived here all his life.. why wouldnt he think he was just a citz of Australia... just because another crazy country has weird ideas on citizenship.....why is it the persons fault who is caught up in it...... I have Australian citzship...but I was born in England  so if need be I would need to renounce that....I can understand why I am still a citz of England  as far as a registry is concerned... but my family are all born here....it wouldnt occur to me they are registered anywhere else...or them for that matter    why would it?.. I should have occurred to Joyce (or any reasonable person) that he may have had some rights....because his Old Man is a Kiwi. Give it a break!  Men don't even think about their ancestry until they "retire" ... he was born in TAMWORTH .... he's an Aussie and I doubt that he knew that having a Dad born in NZ was of any concern. This is becoming really really stupid. The High Court has to sort this out, pronto.  ;D

I agree... we would have just about every bloody australian gueuing up at every Embassy/consulate  wondering if their name is on someone elses list of citizens    it doesnt make any sense at all...



sure they should have Australian citizenship.....but crikey ..how far back are we going...

it took Obama a while to come up with his birth cert...but didnt he have parents born overseas... ::) ::)... wonder if they checked that out.

Perhaps I should call myself Scottish since that is where my ancestors came from, 165 years ago.  ;D ;D

Francis wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 4:35pm:

Hi cods,  before becoming a member of  parliament  they complete necessary  paperwork and one of the questions is are they a dual citizen. It's  expected  they take  the time too find out.  Some still  believe it's a important  job and respect  our laws. Others it would seem do not Obviously  events  are showing  they can't  be trusted  and we need independent  audited background  checks before  we let anyone  in

honestly francis I disagree if I was born ion Tamworth   and had not applied for citizenship of any other country... I would automatically say NO to that question...


why on earth would you think otherwise.....


my youngest grandson was born in NZ to Australian parents.....they immediately had him made and Australian citiz     is he also classified as a NZ citz....if he ever went for parliament he would have to look wouldnt he..


its ridiculous....our rules are not francis....

what I am saying is for another country to just do that without notifying any one.....is bizarre..

Neferti wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 4:42pm:

Perhaps I should call myself Scottish since that is where my ancestors came from, 195 years ago.  ;D ;D

if you plan to throw your hat in the ring down the road next election I suggest you check it out... :D :D :D

cods wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 4:43pm:

Francis wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 4:35pm: Hi cods,  before becoming a member of  parliament  they complete necessary  paperwork and one of the questions is are they a dual citizen. It's  expected  they take  the time too find out.  Some still  believe it's a important  job and respect  our laws. Others it would seem do not Obviously  events  are showing  they can't  be trusted  and we need independent  audited background  checks before  we let anyone  in honestly francis I disagree if I was born ion Tamworth   and had not applied for citizenship of any other country... I would automatically say NO to that question... why on earth would you think otherwise..... my youngest grandson was born in NZ to Australian parents.....they immediately had him made and Australian citiz     is he also classified as a NZ citz....if he ever went for parliament he would have to look wouldnt he.. its ridiculous....our rules are not francis.... what I am saying is for another country to just do that without notifying any one.....is bizarre..

Rubbish, cods.  You are a POM.  Do you reckon it has never dawned on your kids that, as a consequence, they may have some (whatever slender) right to UK citizenship?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 3:15pm:

If the drunken idiot renounced his NZ citizenship he was clearly in breach of the dual citizenship provision of the constitution.

You're wrong.
The constitution talked about being a British subject not an Australian citizen.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 4:46pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 3:15pm: If the drunken idiot renounced his NZ citizenship he was clearly in breach of the dual citizenship provision of the constitution. You're wrong. The constitution talked about being a British subject not an Australian citizen.

Really, Bobby?  Can you tell me the Section of the Constitution?

Cods  you must  take responsibility for your actions.  If you say you aren't a dual citizen and it's proven you are.  It is no ones fault but your own.

Aussie wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 4:47pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 4:46pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 3:15pm: If the drunken idiot renounced his NZ citizenship he was clearly in breach of the dual citizenship provision of the constitution. You're wrong. The constitution talked about being a British subject not an Australian citizen. Really, Bobby?  Can you tell me the Section of the Constitution?

It's indirectly here:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html

At the time there were no Australian citizens.
Even now all the pollys swear allegiance to the the Queen of England & Australia.

The definition of citizen is the problem.



A constitution is a set of rules by which a country or state is run. The Australian Constitution was drafted at a series of constitutional conventions held in the 1890s. It was passed by the British Parliament as part of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 and took effect on 1 January 1901.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_nationality_law

Australian nationality law determines who is and who is not an Australian citizen. The status of Australian nationality or Australian citizenship was created by the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948,[1] (in 1973 renamed the Australian Citizenship Act 1948) which came into force on 26 January 1949. The 1948 Act was amended many times, notably in 1973, 1984, 1986 and 2002. The Australian Citizenship Act 2007,[2] replaced the 1948 Act, commencing on 1 July 2007


Therefore -
in 1901 there was no such thing as an Australian citizen.

And nowhere in the Constitution does it refer to Australians being British Citizens as you asserted.

Your point is irrelevant.

Too Late Bro.   Saw you at the Fotty

---

Aussie wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 5:14pm:

And nowhere in the Constitution does it refer to Australians being British Citizens as you asserted. Your point is irrelevant.

But the concept of an Australian citizen didn't exist before 1948
so how could the 1901 laws have meant anything other than a British subject?

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 6:53pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 5:14pm: And nowhere in the Constitution does it refer to Australians being British Citizens as you asserted. Your point is irrelevant. But the concept of an Australian citizen didn't exist before 1948 so how could the 1901 laws have meant anything other than a British subject?

Go, find Section 44 of the Constitution and post it here.

1901
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 44
Disqualification

                   Any person who:

                      (i)  is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or

                     (ii)  is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer; or

                    (iii)  is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or

                    (iv)  holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth; or

                     (v)  has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons;

shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

                   But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen's Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queen's navy or army, or to the receipt of pay as an officer or member of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 7:10pm:

1901 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 44 Disqualification                    Any person who:                       (i)  is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or                      (ii)  is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer; or                     (iii)  is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or                     (iv)  holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth; or                      (v)  has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons; shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.                    But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen's Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queen's navy or army, or to the receipt of pay as an officer or member of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth.

Good.

Now, do you see the words British Citizen there?  Do you see the words British Colony there?  Do you see the words 'A Country which is part of the British Empire' there?

Do you see the words 'foreign power?'

Is NZ NOW a foreign power?  Is Canada NOW a foreign power.  Is India NOW a foreign power.....etc etc etc??????

Vic wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 6:23pm:

Too Late Bro.   Saw you at the Fotty

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Aussie wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 7:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 7:10pm: 1901 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 44 Disqualification                    Any person who:                       (i)  is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or                      (ii)  is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer; or                     (iii)  is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or                     (iv)  holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth; or                      (v)  has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons; shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.                    But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen's Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queen's navy or army, or to the receipt of pay as an officer or member of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth. Good. Now, do you see the words British Citizen there?  Do you see the words British Colony there?  Do you see the words 'A Country which is part of the British Empire' there? Do you see the words 'foreign power?' Is NZ NOW a foreign power?  Is Canada NOW a foreign power.  Is India NOW a foreign power.....etc etc etc??????

Aussie,
We all have the same Queen - both Australia & NZ.
All the pollies swear allegiance to her.

It will be interesting to see if I'm right when the High Court decides.

I'll be the greatest bush lawyer ever to be posting on Ozpolitic.

Well, I have no idea what your position is (and why) Bobby.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 7:33pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 7:17pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 7:10pm: 1901 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 44 Disqualification                    Any person who:                       (i)  is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or                      (ii)  is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer; or                     (iii)  is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or                     (iv)  holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth; or                      (v)  has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons; shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.                    But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen's Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queen's navy or army, or to the receipt of pay as an officer or member of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth. Good. Now, do you see the words British Citizen there?  Do you see the words British Colony there?  Do you see the words 'A Country which is part of the British Empire' there? Do you see the words 'foreign power?' Is NZ NOW a foreign power?  Is Canada NOW a foreign power.  Is India NOW a foreign power.....etc etc etc?????? Aussie, We all have the same Queen - both Australia & NZ. All the pollies swear allegiance to her. It will be interesting to see if I'm right when the High Court decides. I'll be the greatest bush lawyer ever to be posting on Ozpolitic.

You know, Bobby, I actually agree with you on this one.

Our Constitution is an Act of the British Parliament; our head of state is the Queen. Britain has a special status for Commonwealth citizens because we're not considered foreign.

Unfortunately, this whole issue has been resolved by our American High Court in Sue vs. Hill, where the similar arguments I made were struck down by our republican and Americanised High Court.

The High Court has completely exceeded its bounds here.

lee wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 3:02pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 3:00pm: Sure....but until then....because Joyce admits to the threshold point (foreign citizenship) ....but holds to possible defences.....until those defences are tested in the High Court.....HE OUGHT GET OUT OF CABINET AND NOT BLOODY VOTE IN THE HOUSE. Until it is tested he is an elected member of the House.

Yes but one without any integrity.

Aussie wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 7:35pm:

Well, I have no idea what your position is (and why) Bobby.

NZ is not a foreign power.
It's part of the same Commonwealth as us.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 7:43pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 7:35pm: Well, I have no idea what your position is (and why) Bobby. NZ is not a foreign power. It's part of the same Commonwealth as us.

Well said. Totally agree.

Any citizen of any one of 16 Commonwealth Realm nations is not a citizen of a foreign power.

Auggie wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 7:36pm:

You know, Bobby, I actually agree with you on this one. Our Constitution is an Act of the British Parliament; our head of state is the Queen. Britain has a special status for Commonwealth citizens because we're not considered foreign. Unfortunately, this whole issue has been resolved by our American High Court in Sue vs. Hill, where the similar arguments I made were struck down by our republican and Americanised High Court. The High Court has completely exceeded its bounds here.

Thanks - it will be so interesting to see what the High Court determines.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 7:43pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 7:35pm: Well, I have no idea what your position is (and why) Bobby. NZ is not a foreign power. It's part of the same Commonwealth as us.

So is India.  Is it a foreign power, Bobby/Caesar?

Quote:

Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship

Too little too late.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 7:44pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 7:36pm: You know, Bobby, I actually agree with you on this one. Our Constitution is an Act of the British Parliament; our head of state is the Queen. Britain has a special status for Commonwealth citizens because we're not considered foreign. Unfortunately, this whole issue has been resolved by our American High Court in Sue vs. Hill, where the similar arguments I made were struck down by our republican and Americanised High Court. The High Court has completely exceeded its bounds here. Thanks - it will be so interesting to see what the High Court determines.

The High Court will rule that NZ is considered a foreign power because it the High Court is too PC and anti-monarchist.

BTW, the High Court has already rule on this issue.

Auggie wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 7:43pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 7:43pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 7:35pm: Well, I have no idea what your position is (and why) Bobby. NZ is not a foreign power. It's part of the same Commonwealth as us. Well said. Totally agree. Any citizen of any one of 16 Commonwealth Realm nations is not a citizen of a foreign power.

Our only lawyer - Aussie - can't see that.
It will be a real win for me if I have determined this correctly
instead of him. :)

Aussie wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 7:46pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 7:43pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 7:35pm: Well, I have no idea what your position is (and why) Bobby. NZ is not a foreign power. It's part of the same Commonwealth as us. So is India.  Is it a foreign power, Bobby/Caesar?

Aussie, you are conflating the Commonwealth Realm with the Commonwealth of Nations.

I have only ever said that a citizen of the 16 Commonwealth Realm nations is not considered a foreign power.

A Commonwealth Realm nation is one whose Head of State is the Queen.

India's Head of State is not the Queen - it is a republic within the Commonwealth.

Therefore, India is considered a foreign power.

NZ and Canada are Commonwealth Realm nations - they are different.

Bobby:


Quote:

NZ is not a foreign power. It's part of the same Commonwealth as us.

So is India a part of the Commonwealth.  Is it a foreign power Bobby.

Caesar, would you like a little wager that the High Court will not state that New Zealand is not a foreign power?

I say it is, and the High Court decision will reflect that fact.

What will happen if the high court  finds against  him?
Will he be forced  to resign?
Will he be asked  to repay  his wages?
Surely he will not be entitled to have a parliament pension after being illegally a MP all these years?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/barnaby-joyce-baarnabys-citizen-pains-spread-to-new-zealand-politicians/news-story/6518bf330ec6aa32c37be1b813fa2697


FOREIGN Affairs Minister Julie Bishop today accused Labor Senator Penny Wong of being “up to her neck in it” over New Zealand’s probe into Barnaby Joyce’s citizenship status.

“She orchestrated what New Zealand Labour themselves call wrong and unacceptable conduct, conduct that should never have happened,” Ms Bishop told Sky News.

The Government is now moving to censure Senator Wong in the upper house


The government is ­refusing to budge on Barnaby Joyce’s parliamentary future given the Deputy Prime Minister’s dual New Zealand citizenship as the ongoing debacle sparked a war of words across the Tasman.

Ms Bishop took aim at Senator Wong this morning after it was revealed her chief of staff Marcus Ganley had spoken to the New Zealand Labour MP whose questions to the NZ Parliament sparked the probe into Mr Joyce’s citizenship status.

“Today we find that Penny Wong was up to her neck in it,” Ms Bishop told Sky News.



OOOOOPPPSS..

Aussie wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 7:54pm:

Caesar, would you like a little wager that the High Court will not state that New Zealand is not a foreign power? I say it is, and the High Court decision will reflect that fact.

I think I said before that the high court WILL rule that NZ is a foreign power.

Aussie wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 7:53pm:

Bobby: Quote: NZ is not a foreign power. It's part of the same Commonwealth as us. So is India a part of the Commonwealth.  Is it a foreign power Bobby.

India is part of the commonwealth of nations but it's not a commonwealth Realm nation. They are two different things.

What time is the hangi being served ?

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 11:49am:

Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 7:53pm: Bobby: Quote: NZ is not a foreign power. It's part of the same Commonwealth as us. So is India a part of the Commonwealth.  Is it a foreign power Bobby. India is part of the commonwealth of nations but it's not a commonwealth Realm nation. They are two different things.

Commonwealth Realm Nations are 100% irrelevant to this discussion, except in your head.  Best you acknowledge that, I reckon.

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:09pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 11:49am: Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 7:53pm: Bobby: Quote: NZ is not a foreign power. It's part of the same Commonwealth as us. So is India a part of the Commonwealth.  Is it a foreign power Bobby. India is part of the commonwealth of nations but it's not a commonwealth Realm nation. They are two different things. Commonwealth Realm Nations are 100% irrelevant to this discussion, except in your head.  Best you acknowledge that, I reckon.

Ah no, they're not irrelevant.

You asked if India was considered a foreign power because it's a member of the Commonwealth. I then replied by saying that there are two classes of Commonwealth nations.

The argument that Bobby and I have made repeatedly is that NZ, Canada, UK and the other 13 Realm nations are not, in our opinion,  considered 'foreign powers' because we all share the same Head of State; all of our laws are empowered by our Constitutions, which are in turn Acts of the British Parliament, and derive force legally from said Parliament.

If our Head of State was the American President, and had a similar situation in which we were self-governing; and our Constitution was an Act of Congress, would America be considered to be a foreign power?
----
Therefore, Commonwealth Realm are not irrelevant to this discussion.

Australia is not an independent nation; we are a self-governing dominion under Britain, whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, then write a letter to the PM asking for a republican referendum, and vote yes. Until that time, Best you acknowledge that, I reckon.

Quote:

UK and the other 13 Realm nations are not, in our opinion,  considered 'foreign powers' because we all share the same Head of State

You have already conceded (not that you had any choice) that NZ is a foreign power and will be confirmed as such when the High Court deals with these Section 44 matter.

There endeth the lesson.

https://s22.postimg.org/yy9rzfa8t/20800228_1556413814380960_8301744397007744795_n.jpg

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:41pm:

Quote: UK and the other 13 Realm nations are not, in our opinion,  considered 'foreign powers' because we all share the same Head of State You have already conceded (not that you had any choice) that NZ is a foreign power and will be confirmed as such when the High Court deals with these Section 44 matter. There endeth the lesson.

No, I did not say that NZ was a foreign power. I said that the High Court would rule it was.

What I'm saying is that I disagree with the High Court and believe that they are wrong.

You can believe the Earth is flat if you like....but I don't, and neither does the High Court.

There is no point double guessing the place where the buck stops.

Face and accept reality.

Posting theories (as you have) based on rubbish fundamentals is disingenuous and while it might make blokes like Bobby feel all warm and fuzzy, it is pipe dream fantasy crap.

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 2:05pm:

You can believe the Earth is flat if you like....but I don't, and neither does the High Court. There is no point double guessing the place where the buck stops. Face and accept reality. Posting theories (as you have) based on rubbish fundamentals is disingenuous and while it might make blokes like Bobby feel all warm and fuzzy, it is pipe dream fantasy crap.

Am I not entitled to an opinion? Am I not allowed to state what I believe 'should' be the case?

I respect the decision of the High Court, but I don't agree with it.

The 'reality' you are talking about is what exactly? That the High Court has the ultimate say on the issue. I've always known that.

I just don't agree with the decision.

Again, am I not entitled to an opinion?

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 2:09pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:05pm: You can believe the Earth is flat if you like....but I don't, and neither does the High Court. There is no point double guessing the place where the buck stops. Face and accept reality. Posting theories (as you have) based on rubbish fundamentals is disingenuous and while it might make blokes like Bobby feel all warm and fuzzy, it is pipe dream fantasy crap. Am I not entitled to an opinion? Am I not allowed to state what I believe 'should' be the case? I respect the decision of the High Court, but I don't agree with it. The 'reality' you are talking about is what exactly? That the High Court has the ultimate say on the issue. I've always known that. I just don't agree with the decision. Again, am I not entitled to an opinion?

Of course you are and I am entitled to identify it for what it is.  Pure rubbish totally divorced from legal reality.

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 2:20pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:09pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:05pm: You can believe the Earth is flat if you like....but I don't, and neither does the High Court. There is no point double guessing the place where the buck stops. Face and accept reality. Posting theories (as you have) based on rubbish fundamentals is disingenuous and while it might make blokes like Bobby feel all warm and fuzzy, it is pipe dream fantasy crap. Am I not entitled to an opinion? Am I not allowed to state what I believe 'should' be the case? I respect the decision of the High Court, but I don't agree with it. The 'reality' you are talking about is what exactly? That the High Court has the ultimate say on the issue. I've always known that. I just don't agree with the decision. Again, am I not entitled to an opinion? Of course you are and I am entitled to identify it for what it is.  Pure rubbish totally divorced from legal reality.

It's always easy to win an argument when you say "that's the reality of it" against someone who's providing an alternative. Bobby and I are talking in prescriptive language; you're talking in 'descriptive' language. We're not on the same page.

We're talking about what 'should' be the case. If you don't want to talk on the 'should' level, then just say so; but if you are willing to do so, then you're gonna have to do better than 'pure rubbish'.

Neither Bobby or I have ever disputed reality.

Poverty exists in the world, but I don't think it 'should' exist.

Augustus is a pastafarian,

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f6971d504a6d894cb7944de3d383c26c5c6bb869/c=0-0-533-401&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/11/16/USATODAY/USATODAY/635832629836260197-635832586303218816-WireAP-c98b8c9c7086451c987a17bec330ccf5-16x9-1600.jpg

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 12:52pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 12:41pm: Quote: UK and the other 13 Realm nations are not, in our opinion,  considered 'foreign powers' because we all share the same Head of State You have already conceded (not that you had any choice) that NZ is a foreign power and will be confirmed as such when the High Court deals with these Section 44 matter. There endeth the lesson. No, I did not say that NZ was a foreign power. I said that the High Court would rule it was. What I'm saying is that I disagree with the High Court and believe that they are wrong.

What exactly do you believe N.Z is than ? Is it a state of Fiji, a breed of dog, a type of car?

I'm honestly interested?

Francis wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 2:44pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 12:52pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 12:41pm: Quote: UK and the other 13 Realm nations are not, in our opinion,  considered 'foreign powers' because we all share the same Head of State You have already conceded (not that you had any choice) that NZ is a foreign power and will be confirmed as such when the High Court deals with these Section 44 matter. There endeth the lesson. No, I did not say that NZ was a foreign power. I said that the High Court would rule it was. What I'm saying is that I disagree with the High Court and believe that they are wrong. What exactly do you believe N.Z is than ? Is it a state of Fiji, a breed of dog, a type of car? I'm honestly interested?

Augustus is a pastafarian,

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f6971d504a6d894cb7944de3d383c26c5c6bb869/c=0-0-533-401&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/11/16/USATODAY/USATODAY/635832629836260197-635832586303218816-WireAP-c98b8c9c7086451c987a17bec330ccf5-16x9-1600.jpg

He can't accept if he's out of Noodles that it's his fault and he should just go and buy some more!

He will run around all day trying to blame everyone else but it's actually been his fault all along!

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 2:28pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:20pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:09pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:05pm: You can believe the Earth is flat if you like....but I don't, and neither does the High Court. There is no point double guessing the place where the buck stops. Face and accept reality. Posting theories (as you have) based on rubbish fundamentals is disingenuous and while it might make blokes like Bobby feel all warm and fuzzy, it is pipe dream fantasy crap. Am I not entitled to an opinion? Am I not allowed to state what I believe 'should' be the case? I respect the decision of the High Court, but I don't agree with it. The 'reality' you are talking about is what exactly? That the High Court has the ultimate say on the issue. I've always known that. I just don't agree with the decision. Again, am I not entitled to an opinion? Of course you are and I am entitled to identify it for what it is.  Pure rubbish totally divorced from legal reality. It's always easy to win an argument when you say "that's the reality of it" against someone who's providing an alternative. Bobby and I are talking in prescriptive language; you're talking in 'descriptive' language. We're not on the same page. We're talking about what 'should' be the case. If you don't want to talk on the 'should' level, then just say so; but if you are willing to do so, then you're gonna have to do better than 'pure rubbish'. Neither Bobby or I have ever disputed reality. Poverty exists in the world, but I don't think it 'should' exist.

Here's a new thing for you to consider.


'If only pigs could fly.'

Discuss.

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 2:58pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:28pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:20pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:09pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:05pm: You can believe the Earth is flat if you like....but I don't, and neither does the High Court. There is no point double guessing the place where the buck stops. Face and accept reality. Posting theories (as you have) based on rubbish fundamentals is disingenuous and while it might make blokes like Bobby feel all warm and fuzzy, it is pipe dream fantasy crap. Am I not entitled to an opinion? Am I not allowed to state what I believe 'should' be the case? I respect the decision of the High Court, but I don't agree with it. The 'reality' you are talking about is what exactly? That the High Court has the ultimate say on the issue. I've always known that. I just don't agree with the decision. Again, am I not entitled to an opinion? Of course you are and I am entitled to identify it for what it is.  Pure rubbish totally divorced from legal reality. It's always easy to win an argument when you say "that's the reality of it" against someone who's providing an alternative. Bobby and I are talking in prescriptive language; you're talking in 'descriptive' language. We're not on the same page. We're talking about what 'should' be the case. If you don't want to talk on the 'should' level, then just say so; but if you are willing to do so, then you're gonna have to do better than 'pure rubbish'. Neither Bobby or I have ever disputed reality. Poverty exists in the world, but I don't think it 'should' exist. Here's a new thing for you to consider. 'If only pigs could fly.' Discuss.

Then air travel would be cheaper.

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 2:47pm:

Francis wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:44pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 12:52pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 12:41pm: Quote: UK and the other 13 Realm nations are not, in our opinion,  considered 'foreign powers' because we all share the same Head of State You have already conceded (not that you had any choice) that NZ is a foreign power and will be confirmed as such when the High Court deals with these Section 44 matter. There endeth the lesson. No, I did not say that NZ was a foreign power. I said that the High Court would rule it was. What I'm saying is that I disagree with the High Court and believe that they are wrong. What exactly do you believe N.Z is than ? Is it a state of Fiji, a breed of dog, a type of car? I'm honestly interested? Augustus is a pastafarian, https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f6971d504a6d894cb7944de3d383c26c5c6bb869/c=0-0-533-401&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/11/16/USATODAY/USATODAY/635832629836260197-635832586303218816-WireAP-c98b8c9c7086451c987a17bec330ccf5-16x9-1600.jpg He can't accept if he's out of Noodles that it's his fault and he should just go and buy some more! He will run around all day trying to blame everyone else but it's actually been his fault all along!

Should NZ be considered a foreign power?

Yes or no?

Yes.....and it is.

Francis wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 2:44pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 12:52pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 12:41pm: Quote: UK and the other 13 Realm nations are not, in our opinion,  considered 'foreign powers' because we all share the same Head of State You have already conceded (not that you had any choice) that NZ is a foreign power and will be confirmed as such when the High Court deals with these Section 44 matter. There endeth the lesson. No, I did not say that NZ was a foreign power. I said that the High Court would rule it was. What I'm saying is that I disagree with the High Court and believe that they are wrong. What exactly do you believe N.Z is than ? Is it a state of Fiji, a breed of dog, a type of car? I'm honestly interested?

NZ, as is Australia, is a self-governing dominion under the crown of the UK. It is a constituent country within the greater Commonwealth realm.

It is not a Foreign Power. The latter indicates loyalty to anything other than the Crown. That is what it meant in 1901 and 1907 and that is what it's meant now.

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 3:09pm:

Yes.....and it is.

Because the high court says so, or because you have come to that conclusion by yourself?

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 3:08pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:47pm: Francis wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:44pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 12:52pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 12:41pm: Quote: UK and the other 13 Realm nations are not, in our opinion,  considered 'foreign powers' because we all share the same Head of State You have already conceded (not that you had any choice) that NZ is a foreign power and will be confirmed as such when the High Court deals with these Section 44 matter. There endeth the lesson. No, I did not say that NZ was a foreign power. I said that the High Court would rule it was. What I'm saying is that I disagree with the High Court and believe that they are wrong. What exactly do you believe N.Z is than ? Is it a state of Fiji, a breed of dog, a type of car? I'm honestly interested? Augustus is a pastafarian, https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f6971d504a6d894cb7944de3d383c26c5c6bb869/c=0-0-533-401&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/11/16/USATODAY/USATODAY/635832629836260197-635832586303218816-WireAP-c98b8c9c7086451c987a17bec330ccf5-16x9-1600.jpg He can't accept if he's out of Noodles that it's his fault and he should just go and buy some more! He will run around all day trying to blame everyone else but it's actually been his fault all along! Should NZ be considered a foreign power? Yes or no?

Are forcing me to answer questions now? Have you been talking to big ol about the protocols that allow you to use firearms through the interwebs?

You're a wack job buddy  ;) ;)

Who says they beleive in democracy and then the very next sentence in the same post admits he doesn't? Yeh, you!

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f6971d504a6d894cb7944de3d383c26c5c6bb869/c=0-0-533-401&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/11/16/USATODAY/USATODAY/635832629836260197-635832586303218816-WireAP-c98b8c9c7086451c987a17bec330ccf5-16x9-1600.jpg

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 3:13pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 3:08pm: TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:47pm: Francis wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:44pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 12:52pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 12:41pm: Quote: UK and the other 13 Realm nations are not, in our opinion,  considered 'foreign powers' because we all share the same Head of State You have already conceded (not that you had any choice) that NZ is a foreign power and will be confirmed as such when the High Court deals with these Section 44 matter. There endeth the lesson. No, I did not say that NZ was a foreign power. I said that the High Court would rule it was. What I'm saying is that I disagree with the High Court and believe that they are wrong. What exactly do you believe N.Z is than ? Is it a state of Fiji, a breed of dog, a type of car? I'm honestly interested? Augustus is a pastafarian, https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f6971d504a6d894cb7944de3d383c26c5c6bb869/c=0-0-533-401&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/11/16/USATODAY/USATODAY/635832629836260197-635832586303218816-WireAP-c98b8c9c7086451c987a17bec330ccf5-16x9-1600.jpg He can't accept if he's out of Noodles that it's his fault and he should just go and buy some more! He will run around all day trying to blame everyone else but it's actually been his fault all along! Should NZ be considered a foreign power? Yes or no? Are forcing me to answer questions now? Have you been talking to big ol about the protocols that allow you to use firearms through the interwebs? You're a wack job buddy  ;) ;) Who says they beleive in democracy and then the very next sentence in the same post admits he doesn't? Yeh, you! https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f6971d504a6d894cb7944de3d383c26c5c6bb869/c=0-0-533-401&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/11/16/USATODAY/USATODAY/635832629836260197-635832586303218816-WireAP-c98b8c9c7086451c987a17bec330ccf5-16x9-1600.jpg

Should NZ be defined as a foreign power?

Yes or no?

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 3:16pm:

Should NZ be defined as a foreign power? Yes or no?

of course it should. It's crazy to suggest otherwise.

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 3:16pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 3:13pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 3:08pm: TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:47pm: Francis wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:44pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 12:52pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 12:41pm: Quote: UK and the other 13 Realm nations are not, in our opinion,  considered 'foreign powers' because we all share the same Head of State You have already conceded (not that you had any choice) that NZ is a foreign power and will be confirmed as such when the High Court deals with these Section 44 matter. There endeth the lesson. No, I did not say that NZ was a foreign power. I said that the High Court would rule it was. What I'm saying is that I disagree with the High Court and believe that they are wrong. What exactly do you believe N.Z is than ? Is it a state of Fiji, a breed of dog, a type of car? I'm honestly interested? Augustus is a pastafarian, https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f6971d504a6d894cb7944de3d383c26c5c6bb869/c=0-0-533-401&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/11/16/USATODAY/USATODAY/635832629836260197-635832586303218816-WireAP-c98b8c9c7086451c987a17bec330ccf5-16x9-1600.jpg He can't accept if he's out of Noodles that it's his fault and he should just go and buy some more! He will run around all day trying to blame everyone else but it's actually been his fault all along! Should NZ be considered a foreign power? Yes or no? Are forcing me to answer questions now? Have you been talking to big ol about the protocols that allow you to use firearms through the interwebs? You're a wack job buddy  ;) ;) Who says they beleive in democracy and then the very next sentence in the same post admits he doesn't? Yeh, you! https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f6971d504a6d894cb7944de3d383c26c5c6bb869/c=0-0-533-401&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/11/16/USATODAY/USATODAY/635832629836260197-635832586303218816-WireAP-c98b8c9c7086451c987a17bec330ccf5-16x9-1600.jpg Should NZ be defined as a foreign power? Yes or no?

Do your own homework whackjob  :D

John Smith wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 3:17pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 3:16pm: Should NZ be defined as a foreign power? Yes or no? of course it should. It's crazy to suggest otherwise.

It's not the issue: it's a strawman!

John Smith wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 3:17pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 3:16pm: Should NZ be defined as a foreign power? Yes or no? of course it should. It's crazy to suggest otherwise.

Why should it be defined as such? Their head of state is the queen. Their constitution is an act of the British parliament.

Australias head of state is the queen. Our constitution is an act of the British parliament. Australia's and NZ's legal authority both derive from the same place - the British parliament.

Australian armed forces and NZ armed forces swear allegiance to the Queen. All politicians swear an oath to the Sovereign in Australia and NZ.

How is NZ a foreign power to us when we share allegiance to the same sovereign, have the same institutions?

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 3:20pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 3:17pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 3:16pm: Should NZ be defined as a foreign power? Yes or no? of course it should. It's crazy to suggest otherwise. It's not the issue: it's a strawman!

So if our head of state was the President of the United States would we be a foreign power to America?

A foreign power is defined as any nation or state whose legal authority is derived from a separate and distinct entity. The legal authority of NZ and Australia are derived from the same authority.

Therefore NZ is not a foreign power to Australia and vice-versa. It was never construed to mean anyhthing else. A foreign power in our context is a country who's allegiance is NOT to the Sovereign.

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 3:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 3:17pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 3:16pm: Should NZ be defined as a foreign power? Yes or no? of course it should. It's crazy to suggest otherwise. Why should it be defined as such? Their head of state is the queen. Their constitution is an act of the British parliament. Australias head of state is the queen. Our constitution is an act of the British parliament. Australia's and NZ's legal authority both derive from the same place - the British parliament. Australian armed forces and NZ armed forces swear allegiance to the Queen. All politicians swear an oath to the Sovereign in Australia and NZ. How is NZ a foreign power to us when we share allegiance to the same sovereign, have the same institutions?

You're berko buddy  ;)

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 3:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 3:17pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 3:16pm: Should NZ be defined as a foreign power? Yes or no? of course it should. It's crazy to suggest otherwise. Why should it be defined as such? Their head of state is the queen. Their constitution is an act of the British parliament. Australias head of state is the queen. Our constitution is an act of the British parliament. Australia's and NZ's legal authority both derive from the same place - the British parliament. Australian armed forces and NZ armed forces swear allegiance to the Queen. All politicians swear an oath to the Sovereign in Australia and NZ. How is NZ a foreign power to us when we share allegiance to the same sovereign, have the same institutions?

that argument will only serve to bring on the republic. WHy don't you suggest it to the mainstream media, maybe they can run with it and hopefully speed up the process.

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 2:05pm:

You can believe the Earth is flat if you like....but I don't, and neither does the High Court. There is no point double guessing the place where the buck stops. Face and accept reality. Posting theories (as you have) based on rubbish fundamentals is disingenuous and while it might make blokes like Bobby feel all warm and fuzzy, it is pipe dream fantasy crap.

Hi Aussie,
& if I'm proven correct - with my bush lawyer skills -
will you apologise to me?

*

they are both reported to be owned ,occupied and run by the slave trading queen .. but not for much longer

http://www.australianflag.net.au/images/stories/frontpagecentre/AustralianFlag.png

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0714/1883/products/NZ_2b0f38b6-78c5-4f8f-95c4-e1f167ed236b_large.jpg

:D :D :D :D :D

Buggar!  He jumped the wrong way.... and we had such high hopes....

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 3:23pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 3:17pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 3:16pm: Should NZ be defined as a foreign power? Yes or no? of course it should. It's crazy to suggest otherwise. Why should it be defined as such? Their head of state is the queen. Their constitution is an act of the British parliament. Australias head of state is the queen. Our constitution is an act of the British parliament. Australia's and NZ's legal authority both derive from the same place - the British parliament. Australian armed forces and NZ armed forces swear allegiance to the Queen. All politicians swear an oath to the Sovereign in Australia and NZ. How is NZ a foreign power to us when we share allegiance to the same sovereign, have the same institutions? You're berko buddy  ;)

Right let me clarify: yore saying that NZ head of state is not the same as Australia's?

If all of our courts are filled with such founts of wisdom and knowledge - why doe they have such a desperate need to surround themselves with such high fences of costs and 'need' to employ highest-flying barristers to put a simple case?

Are we somehow supposed to beleive that these learned judges are not in possession of the facts and laws of a case beforehand, but must rely solely on the 'skill' and  artifice with which a case is posted?

I ask a simple question - should Joyce stand down since it has been shown he has NZ citizenship, same as others have done already?

"That'll be $15000 lodgement fee....  there are fees attached to every aspect of your application which must be absolutely phrsed correctly or it will be rejected and a further application fee will arise ... you'll need to acquire documents from us at $25 a page including thousands of pages of past judgements pertaining to the issue .... and you'll need a QC to present your case and that will cost you $25000 a day... if you're lucky.. please send your initial check and deposit of $150,000..."

it_is_the_light wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 3:38pm:

they are both reported to be owned ,occupied and run by the slave trading queen .. but not for much longer http://www.australianflag.net.au/images/stories/frontpagecentre/AustralianFlag.png https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0714/1883/products/NZ_2b0f38b6-78c5-4f8f-95c4-e1f167ed236b_large.jpg :D :D :D :D :D

Hi master Light,
the Chinese own us now:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1502227564/90#96

Bobby. wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 3:35pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:05pm: You can believe the Earth is flat if you like....but I don't, and neither does the High Court. There is no point double guessing the place where the buck stops. Face and accept reality. Posting theories (as you have) based on rubbish fundamentals is disingenuous and while it might make blokes like Bobby feel all warm and fuzzy, it is pipe dream fantasy crap. Hi Aussie, & if I'm proven correct - with my bush lawyer skills - will you apologise to me?

Have you taken a position and explained why?

Quote:

that argument will only serve to bring on the republic. WHy don't you suggest it to the mainstream media, maybe they can run with it and hopefully speed up the process.

You know, John Smith, I actually agree with you on this point. We would've become a Republic much sooner if the High Court had declared what I said 20 or so years ago. The High Court's decision to assert Australia as an independent nation has actually slowed down the republic process.

The facts are the facts: we are not an independent nation until we become a republic.

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 4:09pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 3:35pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:05pm: You can believe the Earth is flat if you like....but I don't, and neither does the High Court. There is no point double guessing the place where the buck stops. Face and accept reality. Posting theories (as you have) based on rubbish fundamentals is disingenuous and while it might make blokes like Bobby feel all warm and fuzzy, it is pipe dream fantasy crap. Hi Aussie, & if I'm proven correct - with my bush lawyer skills - will you apologise to me? Have you taken a position and explained why?

Yes: because Australia's Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II; NZ's Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II. NZ's Constitution is an Act of the British Parliament, promulgated by the Queen; Australia's Constitution is an Act of the British Parliament, promulgated by the Queen.

Australia and NZ's legal authority derives from the same source: the Sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Those are the facts, whether you or the High Court likes them or not.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 3:47pm:

If all of our courts are filled with such founts of wisdom and knowledge - why doe they have such a desperate need to surround themselves with such high fences of costs and 'need' to employ highest-flying barristers to put a simple case? Are we somehow supposed to beleive that these learned judges are not in possession of the facts and laws of a case beforehand, but must rely solely on the 'skill' and  artifice with which a case is posted? I ask a simple question - should Joyce stand down since it has been shown he has NZ citizenship, same as others have done already? "That'll be $15000 lodgement fee....  there are fees attached to every aspect of your application which must be absolutely phrsed correctly or it will be rejected and a further application fee will arise ... you'll need to acquire documents from us at $25 a page including thousands of pages of past judgements pertaining to the issue .... and you'll need a QC to present your case and that will cost you $25000 a day... if you're lucky.. please send your initial check and deposit of $150,000..."

The question is whether or not possession of NZ citizenship should exclude him from being a member of Parliament. Is NZ considered a foreign power? They have sworn allegiance to the Queen, and so have we.

How is NZ a foreign power?

I believe  you make  a strong  argument and may be correct. I would  assume  this will  be Barnaby legal  argument. If we both pledge  to the same queen  NZ may not be a foreign nation. But than why are the liberals attacking labor over interfering in a foreign nation government  (NZ)?

The plot thickens  :o

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 4:21pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 4:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 3:35pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:05pm: You can believe the Earth is flat if you like....but I don't, and neither does the High Court. There is no point double guessing the place where the buck stops. Face and accept reality. Posting theories (as you have) based on rubbish fundamentals is disingenuous and while it might make blokes like Bobby feel all warm and fuzzy, it is pipe dream fantasy crap. Hi Aussie, & if I'm proven correct - with my bush lawyer skills - will you apologise to me? Have you taken a position and explained why? Yes: because Australia's Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II; NZ's Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II. NZ's Constitution is an Act of the British Parliament, promulgated by the Queen; Australia's Constitution is an Act of the British Parliament, promulgated by the Queen. Australia and NZ's legal authority derives from the same source: the Sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Those are the facts, whether you or the High Court likes them or not.

I was asking Bobby.

(And yes....those are the facts....just like it is a fact that New Zealand is a foreign power, and that will be confirmed in the High Court...yet again.)

Francis wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 5:00pm:

I believe  you make  a strong  argument and may be correct. I would  assume  this will  be Barnaby legal  argument. If we both pledge  to the same queen  NZ may not be a foreign nation. But than why are the liberals attacking labor over interfering in a foreign nation government  (NZ)? The plot thickens  :o

Barnaby today called them a 'friendly foreign nation': so they are all carefully watching their words.

It's all words and conspiracy theories being thrown around wildly like schoolchildren and meanwhile the kids get saddled with copper internet in the asian century this country actually built!

Yay, go the once allegedly clever country that let BARNABY-NET make the children pay for it's fathers sins,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K65_spUU05s

QUESTION TIME!

Boy Scouts Jamboree more like.

Watching the MPs that WE elected in GOOD FAITH acting like a bunch of children, is beyond the pale.

The SENATE is a bunch of misfits ... USELESS ... why don't we just do a POLL on various LEGISLATION. Huh?

Australia is not what WE wanted for our children and grandchildren.

Perhaps Trump will cause WW3 .. that might actually be a GOOD thing .... unless you are religious and think otherwise.

Neferti wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 5:17pm:

QUESTION TIME! Boy Scouts Jamboree more like. Watching the MPs that WE elected in GOOD FAITH acting like a bunch of children, is beyond the pale. The SENATE is a bunch of misfits ... USELESS ... why don't we just do a POLL on various LEGISLATION. Huh? Australia is not what WE wanted for our children and grandchildren. Perhaps Trump will cause WW3 .. that might actually be a GOOD thing .... unless you are religious and think otherwise.

...it's time for another election: BARNABY-NET is not what our children deserve!

Neferti wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 5:17pm:

QUESTION TIME! Boy Scouts Jamboree more like. Watching the MPs that WE elected in GOOD FAITH acting like a bunch of children, is beyond the pale. The SENATE is a bunch of misfits ... USELESS ... why don't we just do a POLL on various LEGISLATION. Huh? Australia is not what WE wanted for our children and grandchildren. Perhaps Trump will cause WW3 .. that might actually be a GOOD thing .... unless you are religious and think otherwise.

...it's time for another election: BARNABY-NET is not what our children deserve!

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 5:01pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 4:21pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 4:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 3:35pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:05pm: You can believe the Earth is flat if you like....but I don't, and neither does the High Court. There is no point double guessing the place where the buck stops. Face and accept reality. Posting theories (as you have) based on rubbish fundamentals is disingenuous and while it might make blokes like Bobby feel all warm and fuzzy, it is pipe dream fantasy crap. Hi Aussie, & if I'm proven correct - with my bush lawyer skills - will you apologise to me? Have you taken a position and explained why? Yes: because Australia's Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II; NZ's Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II. NZ's Constitution is an Act of the British Parliament, promulgated by the Queen; Australia's Constitution is an Act of the British Parliament, promulgated by the Queen. Australia and NZ's legal authority derives from the same source: the Sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Those are the facts, whether you or the High Court likes them or not. I was asking Bobby. (And yes....those are the facts....just like it is a fact that New Zealand is a foreign power, and that will be confirmed in the High Court...yet again.)

So, NZ swears allegiance to the same Sovereign as Australia...

Yet, they're a foreign power....

That's biggest contradiction you've ever made.

Francis wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 5:00pm:

I believe  you make  a strong  argument and may be correct. I would  assume  this will  be Barnaby legal  argument. If we both pledge  to the same queen  NZ may not be a foreign nation. But than why are the liberals attacking labor over interfering in a foreign nation government  (NZ)? The plot thickens  :o

The issue here is that we in Australia want to assert that we're an independent nation like America or France is (never mind they've been through wars to secure their nationhood). It's also true that legally we're not independent.

We are an independent nation in the sense that we are self-governing in all matters; and so when we say 'interfering in the affairs of NZ a foreign country' we're essentially saying that we're interfering in their self-governance.

The High Court made the decision in Sue vs. Hill that citizens of the UK were considered to be that of a foreign power, not because of the Constitution, but because the High Court wishes to assert Australia's independence from UK. The High Court was being extremely political correct. If they had just come out and said: "look folks, UK is not a foreign power because the Framers of the Constitution were British and never meant to construe it as being a foreign power.... and that we are united by common allegiance to the Crown.... I don't like it.... but those are the facts," I bet your bottom dollar the outrage that would've caused would've made us a republic by now.

Let's not claim to be something we're not.

Quote:

So, NZ swears allegiance to the same Sovereign as Australia... Yet, they're a foreign power.... That's biggest contradiction you've ever made.

No...not at all.  NZ is a foreign power as are all of those 12 Nations who also have The Queen as their Head of State.

Even a simple dictionary definition makes NZ a foreign power to any other Nation, even though the Queen is a common factor.

The High Court has decided the issue, and you can hold your breath and go as blue in the face as much as you like......NZ is a foreign power.

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 6:42pm:

Quote: So, NZ swears allegiance to the same Sovereign as Australia... Yet, they're a foreign power.... That's biggest contradiction you've ever made. No...not at all.  NZ is a foreign power as are all of those 12 Nations who also have The Queen has their Head of State. Even a simple dictionary definition makes NZ a foreign power to any other Nation, even though the Queen is a common factor. The High Court has decided the issue, and you can hold your breath and go as blue in the face as much as you like......NZ is a foreign power.

Again, are you talking about what 'is' or what it 'should' be.

You've yet to make a convincing argument as to why NZ should be considered a foreign power. You can blue in the face and keep telling me what the High Court says; I know what they've said; I've quoted the case.

The question here is: should NZ be considered a foreign power?

Yes, because it should be and is, even by a simple dictionary definition.

The question also precedes on the basis that the High Court has made the wrong ruling?

Has the High Court made the wrong ruling?

These are the questions I'm asking you to engage in, not what the has already been done.

These are philosophical questions.

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 6:48pm:

Yes, because it should be and is, even by a simple dictionary definition.

What is the simple dictionary definition, pray tell?

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 6:49pm:

The question also precedes on the basis that the High Court has made the wrong ruling? Has the High Court made the wrong ruling? These are the questions I'm asking you to engage in, not what the has already been done. These are philosophical questions.

In which I am not interested.  We have a Philosophy Section at OzPol, you know.

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 6:50pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 6:48pm: Yes, because it should be and is, even by a simple dictionary definition. What is the simple dictionary definition, pray tell?

You don't have a dictionary?

lee wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 3:01pm:

"Justices of the High Court are, by nature of their appointment, some of the wisest legal minds in the land. So supposing how they may rule is fraught. But if the High Court was to start saying everyone entitled to foreign citizenship was ineligible, it would wipe out a swathe of our MPs and senators who have never tried to claim allegiance to any other county. Surely the Court would have to take into account the practical effect of making that judgment, and the ensuing chaos it would cause. Could you be a dual citizen without realising? There are multiple ways you can get citizenship, and the rules are confusing. Case law too suggests the need to act on any eligibility." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-28/citizenship-grey-area-in-constitution-tripping-up-mps-senators/8754586 Your ABC wouldn't lie; would it?

High Court was to start saying everyone entitled to foreign citizenship was ineligible


it isn't that he is entitled to foreign citizenship, he is a foreign citizen. He is specifically ruled out on Australian politics. He was never legitimately elected.

Do you suggest that Ludlam and Waters should be recalled, they were both in exactly the same position and all the people supporting Baaarnaby wanted them out, that included Australia's Prime Hypocrite Turnbull.

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 4:21pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 4:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 3:35pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:05pm: You can believe the Earth is flat if you like....but I don't, and neither does the High Court. There is no point double guessing the place where the buck stops. Face and accept reality. Posting theories (as you have) based on rubbish fundamentals is disingenuous and while it might make blokes like Bobby feel all warm and fuzzy, it is pipe dream fantasy crap. Hi Aussie, & if I'm proven correct - with my bush lawyer skills - will you apologise to me? Have you taken a position and explained why? Yes: because Australia's Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II; NZ's Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II. NZ's Constitution is an Act of the British Parliament, promulgated by the Queen; Australia's Constitution is an Act of the British Parliament, promulgated by the Queen. Australia and NZ's legal authority derives from the same source: the Sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Those are the facts, whether you or the High Court likes them or not.

Correct -
& Barnaby will get out of this thanks to the High Court ruling in his favor.

Aussie will then apologise to me for excellent legal advice
that went unheeded.

lee wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 3:02pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 3:00pm: Sure....but until then....because Joyce admits to the threshold point (foreign citizenship) ....but holds to possible defences.....until those defences are tested in the High Court.....HE OUGHT GET OUT OF CABINET AND NOT BLOODY VOTE IN THE HOUSE. Until it is tested he is an elected member of the House.

Under section 44 he was never legally elected - he was never entitled to stand for election. He is not and never has been an elected representative.

On what basis will the High Court rule in his favour Bobby?  I have asked you that previously, and you ignored the question.

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 7:23pm:

On what basis will the High Court rule in his favour Bobby?  I have asked you that previously, and you ignored the question.

Now I have to repeat myself.

In 1901 there was no such thing as an Australian citizen -
that didn't happen till 1948.

*

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 3:16pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 3:15pm: If the drunken idiot renounced his NZ citizenship he was clearly in breach of the dual citizenship provision of the constitution. You can't renounce something you never possessed. Clearly, he's renounced any right to claim NZ citizenship. Poor wording on the part of the DT.

Incorrect it has nothing to do with a right to claim citizenship. He is a citizen of NZ and has been since birth.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 7:25pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 7:23pm: On what basis will the High Court rule in his favour Bobby?  I have asked you that previously, and you ignored the question. Now I have to repeat myself. In 1901 there was no such thing as an Australian citizen - that didn't happen till 1948.

And that......will be why the High Court will let Joyce go?

Dnarever wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 7:26pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 3:16pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 3:15pm: If the drunken idiot renounced his NZ citizenship he was clearly in breach of the dual citizenship provision of the constitution. You can't renounce something you never possessed. Clearly, he's renounced any right to claim NZ citizenship. Poor wording on the part of the DT. Incorrect it has nothing to do with a right to claim citizenship. He is a citizen of NZ and has been since birth.

Cast your mind back to the days of internment.  You can imagine being able to escape that by pleading ~ "No...let me go.....I did not know I was Japanese....even though my Old man is and I knew it."

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 7:27pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 7:25pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 7:23pm: On what basis will the High Court rule in his favour Bobby?  I have asked you that previously, and you ignored the question. Now I have to repeat myself. In 1901 there was no such thing as an Australian citizen - that didn't happen till 1948. And that......will be why the High Court will let Joyce go?

Yes the constitution is just plainly out of date from 1901.
It needs to be interpreted according to Australian citizenship
which was only handed out after 1948.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 7:31pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 7:27pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 7:25pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 7:23pm: On what basis will the High Court rule in his favour Bobby?  I have asked you that previously, and you ignored the question. Now I have to repeat myself. In 1901 there was no such thing as an Australian citizen - that didn't happen till 1948. And that......will be why the High Court will let Joyce go? Yes the constitution is just plainly out of date from 1901. It needs to be interpreted according to Australian citizenship which was only handed out after 1948.

Well, Bobby...you are in for a disappointment.  If that point had any validity, it would have been argued in prior cases....and guess what?

It wasn't.  Lawyers do not like being laughed at by those on the Bench.

So, If the High Court lets Joyce out on that ground.....yes, I'll acknowledge you predicted it.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 7:25pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 7:23pm: On what basis will the High Court rule in his favour Bobby?  I have asked you that previously, and you ignored the question. Now I have to repeat myself. In 1901 there was no such thing as an Australian citizen - that didn't happen till 1948.

That would have helped Baaarnaby in 1947 unfortunately for him it is now much later than that.

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 7:37pm:

Well, Bobby...you are in for a disappointment.  If that point had any validity, it would have been argued in prior cases....and guess what? It wasn't.  Lawyers do not like being laughed at by those on the Bench. So, If the High Court lets Joyce out on that ground.....yes, I'll acknowledge you predicted it.

Thanks.

Quote:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 44 Disqualification                    Any person who:                       (i)  is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 45 Vacancy on happening of disqualification                    If a senator or member of the House of Representatives:                       (i)  becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the last preceding section; or

44 is saying that a citizen of anywhere else is not eligible to stand for election anybody in this position is disqualified.

45 is saying that if anyone is or becomes a foreign citizen their seat becomes vacant.

This is about as black and white as you can get, there is absolutely no wiggle room here.

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 6:51pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 6:49pm: The question also precedes on the basis that the High Court has made the wrong ruling? Has the High Court made the wrong ruling? These are the questions I'm asking you to engage in, not what the has already been done. These are philosophical questions. In which I am not interested.  We have a Philosophy Section at OzPol, you know.

Then what do you like to talk about? As things are? When you made this thread, what was the purpose?

Dnarever wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 7:41pm:

Quote: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 44 Disqualification                    Any person who:                       (i)  is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 45 Vacancy on happening of disqualification                    If a senator or member of the House of Representatives:                       (i)  becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the last preceding section; or 44 is saying that a citizen of anywhere else is not eligible to stand for election anybody in this position is disqualified. 45 is saying that if anyone is or becomes a foreign citizen their seat becomes vacant. This is about as black and white as you can get, there is absolutely no wiggle room here.

Dnarever, NZ is not a foreign power. We think it is, because we like to think that we're an independent nation. The problem is that Australia is an inheritor of the British model of governance for its colonies (thanks to the Durham Report).

The term 'foreign power' in the Constitution was never meant to be construed as referring to UK, NZ, Canada etc.

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 8:00pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 6:51pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 6:49pm: The question also precedes on the basis that the High Court has made the wrong ruling? Has the High Court made the wrong ruling? These are the questions I'm asking you to engage in, not what the has already been done. These are philosophical questions. In which I am not interested.  We have a Philosophy Section at OzPol, you know. Then what do you like to talk about? As things are? When you made this thread, what was the purpose?

To ensure everyone was aware that Joyce HAD NZ Citizenship.....and was not merely entitled to it.

Quote:

The term 'foreign power' in the Constitution was never meant to be construed as referring to UK, NZ, Canada etc.

And yet.....the High Court has found that S 44 related to the UK and described it as a foreign power.  [Sue v Hill (1999)]

Get your Monarchist head out of the sand and smell the roses, Ceasar!

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 8:19pm:

Quote: The term 'foreign power' in the Constitution was never meant to be construed as referring to UK, NZ, Canada etc. And yet.....the High Court has found that S 44 related to the UK and described it as a foreign power.  [Sue v Hill (1999)] Get your Monarchist head out of the sand and smell the roses, Ceasar!

The High Court can rule anything, Aussie, and it's final, even if it's blatantly wrong.

Get your Status-Quo head of the sand and open your eyes.

You've been brainwashed, Aussie.

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 8:21pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 8:19pm: Quote: The term 'foreign power' in the Constitution was never meant to be construed as referring to UK, NZ, Canada etc. And yet.....the High Court has found that S 44 related to the UK and described it as a foreign power.  [Sue v Hill (1999)] Get your Monarchist head out of the sand and smell the roses, Ceasar! The High Court can rule anything, Aussie, and it's final, even if it's blatantly wrong. Get your Status-Quo head of the sand and open your eyes.

It stops hurting when you cease bashing your head against a brick wall, Caesar.  You ought to try it.

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 8:04pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 7:41pm: Quote: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 44 Disqualification                    Any person who:                       (i)  is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 45 Vacancy on happening of disqualification                    If a senator or member of the House of Representatives:                       (i)  becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the last preceding section; or 44 is saying that a citizen of anywhere else is not eligible to stand for election anybody in this position is disqualified. 45 is saying that if anyone is or becomes a foreign citizen their seat becomes vacant. This is about as black and white as you can get, there is absolutely no wiggle room here. Dnarever, NZ is not a foreign power. We think it is, because we like to think that we're an independent nation. The problem is that Australia is an inheritor of the British model of governance for its colonies (thanks to the Durham Report). The term 'foreign power' in the Constitution was never meant to be construed as referring to UK, NZ, Canada etc.

The high court has ruled that you are wrong: Irrespective of if you are correct or not it is the current legally accepted position and the vast majority are happy for it to stay that way.


Quote:

22. In the 1999 case of Sue v Hill (1999) 199 CLR 462, the High Court found Ms Hill not duly elected because she held dual citizenship of Australia and the United Kingdom. The Court held that the United Kingdom is classified as a foreign power, within the meaning of s. 44(i) of the Constitution.

[quote]The high court has ruled that you are wrong: Irrespective of if you are correct or not it is the current legally accepted position and the vast majority are happy for it to stay that way.

This is fundamentally a question of the 'rule of law'. It's disconcerting that the High Court has the power to interpret the Constitution in such a broad manner. The reason why the High Court made this decision is because the majority of them believed that the provision in question was outdated and irrelevant. But, shouldn't that be a question for a people? Do you think it's right that the High Court has the power all matters of the Constitution without limits and without scrutiny? They have essentially encroached on the legislative branch's powers.

This is what I'm concerned about. It's plainly obvious to anyone who looks at the foundation of our country and its legal institutions that NZ, etc. isn't a foreign power in the way that many people today see it.

The High Court made the ruling because it wanted to impose its interpretation of what Australia is on the people, and that's wrong.

Only Australians can determine what Australia is: the issue of our status being a self-governing dominion within the Crown is a issue for the people, not for the High Court to impose its arbitrary decision.

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 8:29pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 8:21pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 8:19pm: Quote: The term 'foreign power' in the Constitution was never meant to be construed as referring to UK, NZ, Canada etc. And yet.....the High Court has found that S 44 related to the UK and described it as a foreign power.  [Sue v Hill (1999)] Get your Monarchist head out of the sand and smell the roses, Ceasar! The High Court can rule anything, Aussie, and it's final, even if it's blatantly wrong. Get your Status-Quo head of the sand and open your eyes. It stops hurting when you cease bashing your head against a brick wall, Caesar.  You ought to try it.

I'm not in pain.

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 8:43pm:

[quote]The high court has ruled that you are wrong: Irrespective of if you are correct or not it is the current legally accepted position and the vast majority are happy for it to stay that way. This is fundamentally a question of the 'rule of law'. It's disconcerting that the High Court has the power to interpret the Constitution in such a broad manner. The reason why the High Court made this decision is because the majority of them believed that the provision in question was outdated and irrelevant. But, shouldn't that be a question for a people? Do you think it's right that the High Court has the power all matters of the Constitution without limits and without scrutiny? They have essentially encroached on the legislative branch's powers. This is what I'm concerned about. It's plainly obvious to anyone who looks at the foundation of our country and its legal institutions that NZ, etc. isn't a foreign power in the way that many people today see it. The High Court made the ruling because it wanted to impose its interpretation of what Australia is on the people, and that's wrong. Only Australians can determine what Australia is: the issue of our status being a self-governing dominion within the Crown is a issue for the people, not for the High Court to impose its arbitrary decision.

That part of the constitution is there to ensure that only Australians are eligible to hold political office in Australia. The outcome was reasonable and correct.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 8:48pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 8:43pm: [quote]The high court has ruled that you are wrong: Irrespective of if you are correct or not it is the current legally accepted position and the vast majority are happy for it to stay that way. This is fundamentally a question of the 'rule of law'. It's disconcerting that the High Court has the power to interpret the Constitution in such a broad manner. The reason why the High Court made this decision is because the majority of them believed that the provision in question was outdated and irrelevant. But, shouldn't that be a question for a people? Do you think it's right that the High Court has the power all matters of the Constitution without limits and without scrutiny? They have essentially encroached on the legislative branch's powers. This is what I'm concerned about. It's plainly obvious to anyone who looks at the foundation of our country and its legal institutions that NZ, etc. isn't a foreign power in the way that many people today see it. The High Court made the ruling because it wanted to impose its interpretation of what Australia is on the people, and that's wrong. Only Australians can determine what Australia is: the issue of our status being a self-governing dominion within the Crown is a issue for the people, not for the High Court to impose its arbitrary decision. That part of the constitution is there to ensure that only Australians are eligible to hold political office in Australia. The outcome was reasonable and correct.

No, that part of the Constitution was to ensure that all British subjects were eligible to hold political office in Australia. In another section of the Constitution, it says that any person who is a 'subject of the Queen' may be a member of the House of Representatives. That clearly indicates that section 44 did not prohibit persons across the Commonwealth Realm from holding political office in Australia (subject to residential requirements).

Quote:

22. In the 1999 case of Sue v Hill (1999) 199 CLR 462, the High Court found Ms Hill not duly elected because she held dual citizenship of Australia and the United Kingdom. The Court held that the United Kingdom is classified as a foreign power, within the meaning of s. 44(i) of the Constitution.

Well if the High Court follows that precedent then my theory goes out the window -
and we'll be in for a new election as Turnbull will
lose in a vote of no confidence.

The GG will have to rip all of Malcolm's buttons off.  ;D

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 8:43pm:

[quote]The high court has ruled that you are wrong: Irrespective of if you are correct or not it is the current legally accepted position and the vast majority are happy for it to stay that way. This is fundamentally a question of the 'rule of law'. It's disconcerting that the High Court has the power to interpret the Constitution in such a broad manner. The reason why the High Court made this decision is because the majority of them believed that the provision in question was outdated and irrelevant. But, shouldn't that be a question for a people? Do you think it's right that the High Court has the power all matters of the Constitution without limits and without scrutiny? They have essentially encroached on the legislative branch's powers. This is what I'm concerned about. It's plainly obvious to anyone who looks at the foundation of our country and its legal institutions that NZ, etc. isn't a foreign power in the way that many people today see it. The High Court made the ruling because it wanted to impose its interpretation of what Australia is on the people, and that's wrong. Only Australians can determine what Australia is: the issue of our status being a self-governing dominion within the Crown is a issue for the people, not for the High Court to impose its arbitrary decision.

Ya see, Ceasar that is where you become irrelevant.  You are using this 'Joyce' drama to push a Monarchist barrow you have been floggin here pretty much since you have been here.

All that is fine by me and I'm certainly not trying to silence you, but there comes a time where you have to realise that doing this....


https://media.giphy.com/media/iG36A36bKIgM/giphy.gif


.........is just a silly idea, and is part of your own fantasy Utopia very few wish to share with you.

The UK (etc) may not have been a foreign power in 1901, but it is now.

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 8:53pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 8:43pm: [quote]The high court has ruled that you are wrong: Irrespective of if you are correct or not it is the current legally accepted position and the vast majority are happy for it to stay that way. This is fundamentally a question of the 'rule of law'. It's disconcerting that the High Court has the power to interpret the Constitution in such a broad manner. The reason why the High Court made this decision is because the majority of them believed that the provision in question was outdated and irrelevant. But, shouldn't that be a question for a people? Do you think it's right that the High Court has the power all matters of the Constitution without limits and without scrutiny? They have essentially encroached on the legislative branch's powers. This is what I'm concerned about. It's plainly obvious to anyone who looks at the foundation of our country and its legal institutions that NZ, etc. isn't a foreign power in the way that many people today see it. The High Court made the ruling because it wanted to impose its interpretation of what Australia is on the people, and that's wrong. Only Australians can determine what Australia is: the issue of our status being a self-governing dominion within the Crown is a issue for the people, not for the High Court to impose its arbitrary decision. Ya see, Ceasar that is where you become irrelevant.  You are using this 'Joyce' drama to push a Monarchist barrow you have been floggin here pretty much since you have been here. All that is fine by me and I'm certainly not trying to silence you, but there comes a time where you have to realise that doing this.... https://media.giphy.com/media/iG36A36bKIgM/giphy.gif .........is just a silly idea, and is part of your own fantasy Utopia very few wish to share with you. The UK (etc) may not have been a foreign power in 1901, but it is now.

If the Australian people vote to become a Republic, then I'll shut up, but we seem to be happy burying our heads in the sand and pretending that we're a republic when we're really not.

This is about 'rule of law'.

Here's a question: why didn't the High Court just speak the facts, and let the people the decide?

Quote:

why didn't the High Court just speak the facts, and let the people the decide?

You'll have to clarify that.

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:03pm:

Quote: why didn't the High Court just speak the facts, and let the people the decide? You'll have to clarify that.

The High Court could have said that Sue or Hill? (whichever one it was) was eligible because Britain wasn't, isn't and will never be a foreign power under the current Constitution.

That decision would've spurred national debate on the subject of our sovereignty. It would've provided context for a republican debate.

Instead, the High Court decided to 'get with the times' and make amend the Constitution without actually going through the process.

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:08pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Quote: why didn't the High Court just speak the facts, and let the people the decide? You'll have to clarify that. The High Court could have said that Sue or Hill? (whichever one it was) was eligible because Britain wasn't, isn't and will never be a foreign power under the current Constitution. That decision would've spurred national debate on the subject of our sovereignty. It would've provided context for a republican debate. Instead, the High Court decided to 'get with the times' and make amend the Constitution without actually going through the process.

And where does a 'people decision' fit in there?

A declaration that the UK is/was a foreign power would not require any Constitutional amendment.

....and it is not the function of the High Court to do what you say.   Its function is to interpret the Constitution, not manipulate the political agenda.

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:14pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:08pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Quote: why didn't the High Court just speak the facts, and let the people the decide? You'll have to clarify that. The High Court could have said that Sue or Hill? (whichever one it was) was eligible because Britain wasn't, isn't and will never be a foreign power under the current Constitution. That decision would've spurred national debate on the subject of our sovereignty. It would've provided context for a republican debate. Instead, the High Court decided to 'get with the times' and make amend the Constitution without actually going through the process. And where does a 'people decision' fit in there? A declaration that the UK is/was a foreign power would not require any Constitutional amendment.

In order for it to be legally binding, yes, it would.

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:16pm:

....and it is not the function of the High Court to do what you say.   Its function is to interpret the Constitution, not manipulate the political agenda.

That's what it precisely does, all the time. The High Court has a consistent record of manipulating the political agenda.

If you don't realize this, then you're extremely naive.

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:17pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:14pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:08pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Quote: why didn't the High Court just speak the facts, and let the people the decide? You'll have to clarify that. The High Court could have said that Sue or Hill? (whichever one it was) was eligible because Britain wasn't, isn't and will never be a foreign power under the current Constitution. That decision would've spurred national debate on the subject of our sovereignty. It would've provided context for a republican debate. Instead, the High Court decided to 'get with the times' and make amend the Constitution without actually going through the process. And where does a 'people decision' fit in there? A declaration that the UK is/was a foreign power would not require any Constitutional amendment. In order for it to be legally binding, yes, it would.

Are you suggesting that Section 44 be amended?  If so, exactly how?

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:18pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:16pm: ....and it is not the function of the High Court to do what you say.   Its function is to interpret the Constitution, not manipulate the political agenda. That's what it precisely does, all the time. The High Court has a consistent record of manipulating the political agenda. If you don't realize this, then you're extremely naive.

Cite the cases.

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:24pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:17pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:14pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:08pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Quote: why didn't the High Court just speak the facts, and let the people the decide? You'll have to clarify that. The High Court could have said that Sue or Hill? (whichever one it was) was eligible because Britain wasn't, isn't and will never be a foreign power under the current Constitution. That decision would've spurred national debate on the subject of our sovereignty. It would've provided context for a republican debate. Instead, the High Court decided to 'get with the times' and make amend the Constitution without actually going through the process. And where does a 'people decision' fit in there? A declaration that the UK is/was a foreign power would not require any Constitutional amendment. In order for it to be legally binding, yes, it would. Are you suggesting that Section 44 be amended?  If so, exactly how?

By a referendum.

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:25pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:18pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:16pm: ....and it is not the function of the High Court to do what you say.   Its function is to interpret the Constitution, not manipulate the political agenda. That's what it precisely does, all the time. The High Court has a consistent record of manipulating the political agenda. If you don't realize this, then you're extremely naive. Cite the cases.

Engineers case
ABC case regarding free speech ; Lange vs ABC

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:30pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:24pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:17pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:14pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:08pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Quote: why didn't the High Court just speak the facts, and let the people the decide? You'll have to clarify that. The High Court could have said that Sue or Hill? (whichever one it was) was eligible because Britain wasn't, isn't and will never be a foreign power under the current Constitution. That decision would've spurred national debate on the subject of our sovereignty. It would've provided context for a republican debate. Instead, the High Court decided to 'get with the times' and make amend the Constitution without actually going through the process. And where does a 'people decision' fit in there? A declaration that the UK is/was a foreign power would not require any Constitutional amendment. In order for it to be legally binding, yes, it would. Are you suggesting that Section 44 be amended?  If so, exactly how? By a referendum.

Exactly how will your Section 44(i) read........is what I meant!!!!!!!!!!!

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:32pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:25pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:18pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:16pm: ....and it is not the function of the High Court to do what you say.   Its function is to interpret the Constitution, not manipulate the political agenda. That's what it precisely does, all the time. The High Court has a consistent record of manipulating the political agenda. If you don't realize this, then you're extremely naive. Cite the cases. Engineers case ABC case regarding free speech ; Lange vs ABC

What was the 'political agenda' the High Court was pushing in each case?

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:34pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:30pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:24pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:17pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:14pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:08pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Quote: why didn't the High Court just speak the facts, and let the people the decide? You'll have to clarify that. The High Court could have said that Sue or Hill? (whichever one it was) was eligible because Britain wasn't, isn't and will never be a foreign power under the current Constitution. That decision would've spurred national debate on the subject of our sovereignty. It would've provided context for a republican debate. Instead, the High Court decided to 'get with the times' and make amend the Constitution without actually going through the process. And where does a 'people decision' fit in there? A declaration that the UK is/was a foreign power would not require any Constitutional amendment. In order for it to be legally binding, yes, it would. Are you suggesting that Section 44 be amended?  If so, exactly how? By a referendum. Exactly how will your Section 44(i) read........is what I meant!!!!!!!!!!!

"If a person shall hold the citizenship of any foreign country, including that of the United Kingdom, or any other nation of the Commonwealth Realm that person shall not be eligible to hold any political office in Australia: notwithstanding he or she is a dual citizen."

Or

"For the purposes of this section, the definition of a foreign power shall extend to include the United Kingdom and any other nation whose head of state is the queen of e United Kingdom".

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:37pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:32pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:25pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:18pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:16pm: ....and it is not the function of the High Court to do what you say.   Its function is to interpret the Constitution, not manipulate the political agenda. That's what it precisely does, all the time. The High Court has a consistent record of manipulating the political agenda. If you don't realize this, then you're extremely naive. Cite the cases. Engineers case ABC case regarding free speech ; Lange vs ABC What was the 'political agenda' the High Court was pushing in each case?

In the first case, the court was attempting to expand the scope of the power of the commonwealth and to abrogate existing theories about a narrow definition of powers for the commonwealth.

In the second case, the court was trying to establish that the constitution implicitly contained a bill of rights in order to check government power.

Quote:

In the first case, the court was attempting to expand the scope of the power of the commonwealth and to abrogate existing theories about a narrow definition of powers for the commonwealth. In the second case, the court was trying to establish that the constitution implicitly contained a bill of rights in order to check government power.

Not sure I agree with your comments....but to 'go' with them.....neither involve a political agenda.  Both are well within matters of interpretation of the Constitution.

You mark my words....we will hear plenty about 'broad' and 'narrow' interpretations in the Joyce case.

The Constitution contains no implicit right to free speech or to free anything. This was the court trying to expand its power and push an agenda to check the government - something it has no power to do.

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:49pm:

Quote: In the first case, the court was attempting to expand the scope of the power of the commonwealth and to abrogate existing theories about a narrow definition of powers for the commonwealth. In the second case, the court was trying to establish that the constitution implicitly contained a bill of rights in order to check government power. Not sure I agree with your comments....but to 'go' with them.....neither involve a political agenda.  Both are well within matters of interpretation of the Constitution. You mark my words....we will hear plenty about 'broad' and 'narrow' interpretations in the Joyce case.

The political agenda is giving Canberra more power - that's the agenda.

Auggie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:41pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:34pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:30pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:24pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:17pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:14pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:08pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Quote: why didn't the High Court just speak the facts, and let the people the decide? You'll have to clarify that. The High Court could have said that Sue or Hill? (whichever one it was) was eligible because Britain wasn't, isn't and will never be a foreign power under the current Constitution. That decision would've spurred national debate on the subject of our sovereignty. It would've provided context for a republican debate. Instead, the High Court decided to 'get with the times' and make amend the Constitution without actually going through the process. And where does a 'people decision' fit in there? A declaration that the UK is/was a foreign power would not require any Constitutional amendment. In order for it to be legally binding, yes, it would. Are you suggesting that Section 44 be amended?  If so, exactly how? By a referendum. Exactly how will your Section 44(i) read........is what I meant!!!!!!!!!!! "If a person shall hold the citizenship of any foreign country, including that of the United Kingdom, or any other nation of the Commonwealth Realm that person shall not be eligible to hold any political office in Australia: notwithstanding he or she is a dual citizen." Or "For the purposes of this section, the definition of a foreign power shall extend to include the United Kingdom and any other nation whose head of state is the queen of e United Kingdom".

Damned if I can see why....when it is obvious that they are all 'foreign powers' without any need to name them.

Australia is a sovereign nation.......stands alone....and is bound to no other Country except by Treaty, and is not joined at the national hip with any other sovereign nation.

Aussie wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:53pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:41pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:34pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:30pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:24pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:17pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:14pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:08pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Quote: why didn't the High Court just speak the facts, and let the people the decide? You'll have to clarify that. The High Court could have said that Sue or Hill? (whichever one it was) was eligible because Britain wasn't, isn't and will never be a foreign power under the current Constitution. That decision would've spurred national debate on the subject of our sovereignty. It would've provided context for a republican debate. Instead, the High Court decided to 'get with the times' and make amend the Constitution without actually going through the process. And where does a 'people decision' fit in there? A declaration that the UK is/was a foreign power would not require any Constitutional amendment. In order for it to be legally binding, yes, it would. Are you suggesting that Section 44 be amended?  If so, exactly how? By a referendum. Exactly how will your Section 44(i) read........is what I meant!!!!!!!!!!! "If a person shall hold the citizenship of any foreign country, including that of the United Kingdom, or any other nation of the Commonwealth Realm that person shall not be eligible to hold any political office in Australia: notwithstanding he or she is a dual citizen." Or "For the purposes of this section, the definition of a foreign power shall extend to include the United Kingdom and any other nation whose head of state is the queen of e United Kingdom". Damned if I can see why....when it is obvious that they are all 'foreign powers' without any need to name them. Australia is a sovereign nation.......stands alone....and is bound to no other Country except by Treaty, and is not joined at the national hip with any other sovereign nation.

Question: who is Australia's Head of State?

HI ALL
is now gone hews
Joyce should not be there at all? Just because the British citizenship is now gone does not mean that he was not over all other elections he has been through.

8-)

Quote:

Question: who is Australia's Head of State?

Do you seriously not know?

Aussie wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 11:18am:

Quote: Question: who is Australia's Head of State? Do you seriously not know?

I know. Do you?

You said that Australia is sovereign nation, not joined to any other nation by hip.

Is having the same Head of State as another country not joined at the hip?

Is the fact that our founding law the constitution is an act of the British parliament not indicate that we are joined at the hip? What about the fact that we have the Westminster system of government? Or use common law? Do neither of these things indicate a 'joining of the hip?'

It is anachronistic.  Simple as that.

Convention long ago overtook the literal narrow position you want to foist on Australia.  She is the last vestige we will shrug off....soon enough.

Auggie wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 12:58pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 17th, 2017 at 11:18am: Quote: Question: who is Australia's Head of State? Do you seriously not know? I know. Do you? You said that Australia is sovereign nation, not joined to any other nation by hip. Is having the same Head of State as another country not joined at the hip? Is the fact that our founding law the constitution is an act of the British parliament not indicate that we are joined at the hip? What about the fact that we have the Westminster system of government? Or use common law? Do neither of these things indicate a 'joining of the hip?'

Doesnt look like you do. Try again.

Aussie wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 1:37pm:

It is anachronistic.  Simple as that. Convention long ago overtook the literal narrow position you want to foist on Australia.  She is the last vestige we will shrug off....soon enough.

I have no doubt we will shrug it off. Until then let's not pretend to be something we're not.

You know, you should blame the High Court for the delay in referendum. As I said, if they'd come out and told it how it is, we would've been a republic now. Or maybe the high court is secretly monarchist?

rhino wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 1:40pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 17th, 2017 at 12:58pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 17th, 2017 at 11:18am: Quote: Question: who is Australia's Head of State? Do you seriously not know? I know. Do you? You said that Australia is sovereign nation, not joined to any other nation by hip. Is having the same Head of State as another country not joined at the hip? Is the fact that our founding law the constitution is an act of the British parliament not indicate that we are joined at the hip? What about the fact that we have the Westminster system of government? Or use common law? Do neither of these things indicate a 'joining of the hip?' Doesnt look like you do. Try again.

Our head of state is Queen Elizabeth II.

Don't tell me you're going to espouse the bullshit that the GG is our head of state. That's just simply not true.

Auggie wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 1:41pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 17th, 2017 at 1:37pm: It is anachronistic.  Simple as that. Convention long ago overtook the literal narrow position you want to foist on Australia.  She is the last vestige we will shrug off....soon enough. I have no doubt we will shrug it off. Until then let's not pretend to be something we're not. You know, you should blame the High Court for the delay in referendum. As I said, if they'd come out and told it how it is, we would've been a republic now. Or maybe the high court is secretly monarchist?

Well, just because a few kooks want a new flag to wage a war with no help under doesn't mean everyone does!

Make me Head of State.

Auggie wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 1:43pm:

rhino wrote on Aug 17th, 2017 at 1:40pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 17th, 2017 at 12:58pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 17th, 2017 at 11:18am: Quote: Question: who is Australia's Head of State? Do you seriously not know? I know. Do you? You said that Australia is sovereign nation, not joined to any other nation by hip. Is having the same Head of State as another country not joined at the hip? Is the fact that our founding law the constitution is an act of the British parliament not indicate that we are joined at the hip? What about the fact that we have the Westminster system of government? Or use common law? Do neither of these things indicate a 'joining of the hip?' Doesnt look like you do. Try again. Our head of state is Queen Elizabeth II. Don't tell me you're going to espouse the bullshit that the GG is our head of state. That's just simply not true.

Actually it is true.  I will cut to the chase.

Quote:

Thus the Constitution, the High Court, the Parliament, and current constitutional practice speak with one voice. The governor-general is our head of state, and the High Court and Viscount Haldane confirm the status of the Queen as our sovereign. This article was originally published in the Australian Law Journal, December 2015, 89 ALJ 857. By December 2016 there had been no response by any constitutional lawyer or republican. That is, twelve months after publication it remained unchallenged and uncontradicted.

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2017/04/australias-head-state-definitive-judgment/

These disqualified senators are supposed to represent the Australian people with honestly and integrity and have in effect committed fraud against the Australian people.

Francis wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 7:41pm:

These disqualified senators are supposed to represent the Australian people with honestly and integrity and have in effect committed fraud against the Australian people.

Many of these people were not aware of their citizenship problem. While the rule is simple and the outcome certain it isn't really fraud as it seems mostly to have been done in ignorance, not sure about the case today though.

IMO there is a big problem with the incompetence of the AEC. They should have been thoroughly checking the status of all candidates.

None of these people met the basic requirement's to stand in any Australian election, they should have been checked and disqualified at stage one.

This is what the AEC are paid to do, they are a huge failure. They should not allow unqualified people to stand for election.

Imagine if these careless incompetent dopes were employing doctors ?

I totally  agree about  the AEC.  Serious  questions  need to be asked  how they have  allowed  our parliament  into a time of disreput.

Dreadful business this.

it was up to these people to know and abide by the law, they all need to resign or be sacked. Alleging ignorance is no excuse, ignorance of the law has never been an excuse. GG needs to take action in my opinion if resignations are not forthcoming.

Dood, where is my system of Government?

Hoss wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 6:12am:

HI ALL is now gone hews Joyce should not be there at all? Just because the British citizenship is now gone does not mean that he was not over all other elections he has been through.8-)

Considering that Australia is still British colony with British flag and head of state, British citizenship should be allowed for Australian politicians.
British citizens shouldn't be discriminated in their own colony.

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 18^th, 2017 at 1:59am:

Dood, where is my system of Government?

:) ;) :D

The deputy PM is in breach of the Constitution

rhino wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 2:11pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 17th, 2017 at 1:43pm: rhino wrote on Aug 17th, 2017 at 1:40pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 17th, 2017 at 12:58pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 17th, 2017 at 11:18am: Quote: Question: who is Australia's Head of State? Do you seriously not know? I know. Do you? You said that Australia is sovereign nation, not joined to any other nation by hip. Is having the same Head of State as another country not joined at the hip? Is the fact that our founding law the constitution is an act of the British parliament not indicate that we are joined at the hip? What about the fact that we have the Westminster system of government? Or use common law? Do neither of these things indicate a 'joining of the hip?' Doesnt look like you do. Try again. Our head of state is Queen Elizabeth II. Don't tell me you're going to espouse the bullshit that the GG is our head of state. That's just simply not true. Actually it is true.  I will cut to the chase. [quote]Thus the Constitution, the High Court, the Parliament, and current constitutional practice speak with one voice. The governor-general is our head of state, and the High Court and Viscount Haldane confirm the status of the Queen as our sovereign. This article was originally published in the Australian Law Journal, December 2015, 89 ALJ 857. By December 2016 there had been no response by any constitutional lawyer or republican. That is, twelve months after publication it remained unchallenged and uncontradicted.

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2017/04/australias-head-state-definitive-judgment/[/quote]

Again, this is another example of so called legal jurists trying to claim that we're something we're not. The GG is not our head of state, never has been nor will ever be.

The Constitution says 'a GG who is the Queen's representive'. Clearly the Queen is our head of state. Just because a few legal jurists says its so, doesn't mean that it is.

The Queen is our head of state: there is no disputing this.