The American Supreme court is better than our High court of Australia.

They can actually change the law!
see here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/10/justice/landmark-scotus-cases/index.html
15 Supreme Court cases that changed America.


We have a High Court that seems to only be allowed to interpret the law.

In the case of the laws around politicians like Barnaby Joyce
it seems that as his Father was a New Zealander,
that he might be kicked out of parliament even though
he didn't know that he had automatic NZ citizenship.

If we had a Supreme court like America they could change the law.
The law could then be a living document and change
as absurdities & needs arose.

We have a poor system that needs to be changed.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 10:03am:

The American Supreme court is better than our High court of Australia. They can actually change the law! see here: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/10/justice/landmark-scotus-cases/index.html 15 Supreme Court cases that changed America. We have a High Court that seems to only be allowed to interpret the law. In the case of the laws around politicians like Barnaby Joyce it seems that as his Father was a New Zealander, that he might be kicked out of parliament even though he didn't know that he had automatic NZ citizenship. If we had a Supreme court like America they could change the law. The law could then be a living document and change as absurdities & needs arose. We have a poor system that needs to be changed.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America is not actually permitted to change the law.

It only has the ability to interpret/define the law in such a way that might be contrary/different than previous interpretations, which in itself may be or may not be diametrically opposed to prior interpretations......effectually this gives the false impression that they changed the law, when in reality they only changed the Court's standing interpretation of the law....& not the law itself.

Whatever the SCOTUS interprets a law to be, it will remain as the law until either another SCOTUS interprets that law differently, or the American People set out & succeeds in Amending the Constitution via the Amendment Process set fourth within the Constitution itself (extremely difficult, but possible).

BTW.....The US Constitution belongs to the American People, & not the US Government.

The US Constitution is the People's Document.  ;)

As set fourth in the Preamble:


Quote:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 10:03am:

The American Supreme court is better than our High court of Australia. They can actually change the law! see here: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/10/justice/landmark-scotus-cases/index.html 15 Supreme Court cases that changed America. We have a High Court that seems to only be allowed to interpret the law. In the case of the laws around politicians like Barnaby Joyce it seems that as his Father was a New Zealander, that he might be kicked out of parliament even though he didn't know that he had automatic NZ citizenship. If we had a Supreme court like America they could change the law. The law could then be a living document and change as absurdities & needs arose. We have a poor system that needs to be changed.

Why it is a problem now and not a few months ago when anyone caught was expected to resign ?

How unfair is it if they were to change the law now just because it is Barnaby caught out when every one else in the same circumstance was expelled.

Neither Barnaby or Nash are legally elected representatives, this fact is not in question. There is nothing to appeal.

Quote:

American Supreme Court is better ....

I would say that the 2000 Bush election pretty much proves that statement far from factual.

Every layer of the US court system voted along political lines. Doubt that there is a less honest or less corrupt political system on the planet. Judges are political appointments and they have no option other than to toe the political line.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 1:46pm:

Quote: American Supreme Court is better .... I would say that the 2000 Bush election pretty much proves that statement far from factual. Every layer of the US court system voted along political lines. Doubt that there is a less honest or less corrupt political system on the planet. Judges are political appointments and they have no option other than to toe the political line.

Not exactly so, but as the American Founding Fathers intended, the Supreme Court of the United States is a result of a political process, exercised by political representatives....employees of the American People.

And yes, they are political appointments of the President......lifetime appointments, & therefore not obligated to partisanship.  ;)

Panther wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 1:31pm:

The Supreme Court of the United States of America is not actually permitted to change the law. It only has the ability to interpret/define the law in such a way that might be contrary/different than previous interpretations, which in itself may be or may not be diametrically opposed to prior interpretations......effectually this gives the false impression that they changed the law, when in reality they only changed the Court's standing interpretation of the law....& not the law itself. Whatever the SCOTUS interprets a law to be, it will remain as the law until either another SCOTUS interprets that law differently, or the American People set out & succeeds in Amending the Constitution via the Amendment Process set fourth within the Constitution itself (extremely difficult, but possible). BTW.....The US Constitution belongs to the American People, & not the US Government. The US Constitution is the People's Document.  ;) As set fourth in the Preamble: Quote: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Thanks for your link -
it says:


Quote:

although the courts reserve to themselves the final authority to determine the Constitution's meaning.[16] However, this focus on historical understandings of the Constitution is sometimes in tension with the changed circumstances of modern society from the late 18th century society that drafted the Constitution; courts have ruled that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of these changed circumstances.[17] All of these considerations of the political theory behind the Constitution have prompted the Supreme Court to articulate a variety of special rules of construction and principles for interpreting it.[18] For example, the Court's rendering of the purposes behind the Constitution have led it to express a preference for broad interpretations of individual freedoms.

It appears that the law can be changed because of changed circumstances.

Panther wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 2:00pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 1:46pm: Quote: American Supreme Court is better .... I would say that the 2000 Bush election pretty much proves that statement far from factual. Every layer of the US court system voted along political lines. Doubt that there is a less honest or less corrupt political system on the planet. Judges are political appointments and they have no option other than to toe the political line. Not exactly so, but as the American Founding Fathers intended, the Supreme Court of the United States is a result of a political process, exercised by political representatives....employees of the American People.  ;)

And yet it is a fact that the 2000 election was decided by 5 votes to 4 in the high court and that virtually every decision on the path to the high court was aligned with political appointments.

The US 2000 election was decided on political allegiance in the court system, that is a fact.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 2:07pm:

Panther wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 1:31pm: The Supreme Court of the United States of America is not actually permitted to change the law. It only has the ability to interpret/define the law in such a way that might be contrary/different than previous interpretations, which in itself may be or may not be diametrically opposed to prior interpretations......effectually this gives the false impression that they changed the law, when in reality they only changed the Court's standing interpretation of the law....& not the law itself. Whatever the SCOTUS interprets a law to be, it will remain as the law until either another SCOTUS interprets that law differently, or the American People set out & succeeds in Amending the Constitution via the Amendment Process set fourth within the Constitution itself (extremely difficult, but possible). BTW.....The US Constitution belongs to the American People, & not the US Government. The US Constitution is the People's Document.  ;) As set fourth in the Preamble: Quote: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Thanks for your link - it says: [quote]although the courts reserve to themselves the final authority to determine the Constitution's meaning.[16] However, this focus on historical understandings of the Constitution is sometimes in tension with the changed circumstances of modern society from the late 18th century society that drafted the Constitution; courts have ruled that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of these changed circumstances.[17] All of these considerations of the political theory behind the Constitution have prompted the Supreme Court to articulate a variety of special rules of construction and principles for interpreting it.[18] For example, the Court's rendering of the purposes behind the Constitution have led it to express a preference for broad interpretations of individual freedoms.

It appears that the law can be changed because of changed circumstances.[/quote]

Or kept the same over hundreds of years by interpreting via  "Original Intent" (link).

In the end, the lifetime members of the court are free to interpret the Constitution as they see as fitting to their personal beliefs.

Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision

https://www.thoughtco.com/roe-v-wade-overview-3528244


Quote:

by Jone Johnson Lewis Updated August 04, 2017 On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down its historic decision in Roe v. Wade. This significant court case overturned a Texas interpretation of abortion law and made abortion legal in the United States. It is seen as a turning point in women's reproductive rights. The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without legal restriction, based on the right to privacy. In later trimesters, state restrictions could be applied. The Effect of the Roe v. Wade Decision Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States, which was not legal at all in many states and was limited by law in others. All state laws limiting women's access to abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy were invalidated by the Roe v. Wade decision. State laws limiting such access during the second trimester were upheld only when the restrictions were for the purpose of protecting the health of the pregnant woman.

The law was changed by the Supreme Court.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 2:18pm:

Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision https://www.thoughtco.com/roe-v-wade-overview-3528244 Quote: by Jone Johnson Lewis Updated August 04, 2017 On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down its historic decision in Roe v. Wade. This significant court case overturned a Texas interpretation of abortion law and made abortion legal in the United States. It is seen as a turning point in women's reproductive rights. The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without legal restriction, based on the right to privacy. In later trimesters, state restrictions could be applied. The Effect of the Roe v. Wade Decision Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States, which was not legal at all in many states and was limited by law in others. All state laws limiting women's access to abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy were invalidated by the Roe v. Wade decision. State laws limiting such access during the second trimester were upheld only when the restrictions were for the purpose of protecting the health of the pregnant woman. The law was changed by the Supreme Court.

Think you will find that they can not change the Law but they can interpret it in the opposite way ?

It is the same with their gun laws, they have interpreted it vastly differently from the original meanings and expectations.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 2:18pm:

Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision https://www.thoughtco.com/roe-v-wade-overview-3528244 Quote: by Jone Johnson Lewis Updated August 04, 2017 On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down its historic decision in Roe v. Wade. This significant court case overturned a Texas interpretation of abortion law and made abortion legal in the United States. It is seen as a turning point in women's reproductive rights. The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without legal restriction, based on the right to privacy. In later trimesters, state restrictions could be applied. The Effect of the Roe v. Wade Decision Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States, which was not legal at all in many states and was limited by law in others. All state laws limiting women's access to abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy were invalidated by the Roe v. Wade decision. State laws limiting such access during the second trimester were upheld only when the restrictions were for the purpose of protecting the health of the pregnant woman. The law was changed by the Supreme Court.

Bobby.....The law never said that Abortion was illegal, the Supreme Court merely interpreted the existing law, which neither made abortion legal or illegal, as saying Women had the Right to Choose to have an Abortion or not.

That's not changing.....that's interpreting. ;)

Panther wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 2:25pm:

The law never said that Abortion was illegal, the Supreme Court merely interpreted the existing law, which neither made abortion legal or illegal, as saying Women had the Right to Choose to have an Abortion or not.

Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States, which was not legal at all in many states

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 2:27pm:

Panther wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 2:25pm: The law never said that Abortion was illegal, the Supreme Court merely interpreted the existing law, which neither made abortion legal or illegal, as saying Women had the Right to Choose to have an Abortion or not. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States, which was not legal at all in many states

So, the law which they interpreted NEVER said abortion was legal, or illegal......but the Supreme Courts in the Roe v. Wade decision....their interpretation......gave women a specific right never defined before.....the law they interpreted, from that moment on, gave women the right to choose if they wished to have an abortion or not.

As you said:

Quote:

The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without legal restriction, based on the right to privacy.

A Right to Privacy primarily inferred by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

All inferior laws.....State laws.....that said otherwise, would no longer be valid (Constitutional) simply because ALL LAW in the United States has to be in line with the US Constitution as defined/interpreted by the Supreme Court

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 10:03am:

The American Supreme court is better than our High court of Australia. They can actually change the law! see here: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/10/justice/landmark-scotus-cases/index.html 15 Supreme Court cases that changed America. We have a High Court that seems to only be allowed to interpret the law. In the case of the laws around politicians like Barnaby Joyce it seems that as his Father was a New Zealander, that he might be kicked out of parliament even though he didn't know that he had automatic NZ citizenship. If we had a Supreme court like America they could change the law. The law could then be a living document and change as absurdities & needs arose. We have a poor system that needs to be changed.

Well, as always, you are dead wrong, not onoly factually but in your opinion.

The Supreme court CANNOT change law and nor can our High court.  But because Americans are republicans or democrats long before they are citizens, the SCOTUS becomes deeply political which is a bad thing. The 2000 election proved that when a poltiical decision was made to put GWB into office and to literally refuse to count the votes.

Why would anyone - even a stupid drongo like booby - want an unelected, unscrutinised lifetime appointment body like a High Court to be able to make law? 

Brighter people that you long ago worked out that it would be a very bad thing although to be fair, you dont have to be very bright to work that out.

So panther... how you handling the US Senate not going on recess so that Trump cant make recess appointments???  That was my prediction and I was right while your prediction was.... WRONG.


get used to it. It is a precedent.

You never learn do ya LW58. http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/taunt.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/taunt.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/taunt.gif

You're on my "Personal Ignore" list, where I see nothing that you post except that you posted, & there you will stay until I say otherwise.....  ;D ;D ;D   ;)


https://vgy.me/xMvlN9.png

@Sir Bobby.....Now, knowing what the American Supreme Court does, I completely agree with you, that the American Supreme Court is better than the Australian High Court.......

I also would agree that A Constitutional Republic is a far, far better form of Government than is a Constitutional Monarchy, primarily because it contains a Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments) which does not bestow any rights, it simply defends the existing natural rights of the people from the abuses of government/queen/king/etc..... by forbidding government from trampling on the natural rights of the people it exists to serve.

In America the government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified & legal when consented to by the people as clearly written in it's Constitution..... ;)

Dnarever wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 1:36pm:

Neither Barnaby or Nash are legally elected representatives, this fact is not in question. There is nothing to appeal.

Read today that Nick Xenophons british citizenship was confirmed. That rules him out too.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 3:09pm:

Well, as always, you are dead wrong, not only factually but in your opinion. The Supreme court CANNOT change law and nor can our High court.  But because Americans are republicans or democrats long before they are citizens, the SCOTUS becomes deeply political which is a bad thing. The 2000 election proved that when a poltiical decision was made to put GWB into office and to literally refuse to count the votes. Why would anyone - even a stupid drongo like bobby - want an unelected, unscrutinised lifetime appointment body like a High Court to be able to make law?  Brighter people that you long ago worked out that it would be a very bad thing although to be fair, you dont have to be very bright to work that out.

Longy - you're wrong -

before Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal in many states.

Panther wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 3:38pm:

@Sir Bobby.....Now, knowing what the American Supreme Court does, I completely agree with you, that the American Supreme Court is better than the Australian High Court....... I also would agree that A Constitutional Republic is a far, far better form of Government than is a Constitutional Monarchy, primarily because it contains a Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments) which does not bestow any rights, it simply defends the existing natural rights of the people from the abuses of government/queen/king/etc..... by forbidding government from trampling on the natural rights of the people it exists to serve. In America the government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified & legal when consented to by the people as clearly written in it's Constitution..... ;)

Thanks Panther,
yes - our High Court is inferior.

Barnaby Joyce wasn't even aware of the law in NZ.

Just because of an obscure law in another country that hardly anyone knew about
our Government could be overthrown by our High Court -

that's if they take section 44 literally.




Quote:

44. Any person who - (i.) Is under any acknowledgement 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 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.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 4:04pm:

Panther wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 3:38pm: @Sir Bobby.....Now, knowing what the American Supreme Court does, I completely agree with you, that the American Supreme Court is better than the Australian High Court....... I also would agree that A Constitutional Republic is a far, far better form of Government than is a Constitutional Monarchy, primarily because it contains a Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments) which does not bestow any rights, it simply defends the existing natural rights of the people from the abuses of government/queen/king/etc..... by forbidding government from trampling on the natural rights of the people it exists to serve. In America the government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified & legal when consented to by the people as clearly written in it's Constitution..... ;) Thanks Panther, yes - our High Court is inferior. Barnaby Joyce wasn't even aware of the law in NZ. Just because of an obscure law in another country that hardly anyone knew about our Government could be overthrown by our High Court - that's if they take section 44 literally. Quote: 44. Any person who - (i.) Is under any acknowledgement 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 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.

Now, this is extremely important, what was the "Original Intent" of the framers of that section of law?

Was it intended to be taken completely literal, regardless of circumstance?

~~  OR  ~~

Was it instituted so that no external foreign government or power could call upon allegiance of it's citizens in Australia, to itself, to offset & override the sovereign will of Australia?

If all this insanity hadn't come to pass in the first place, Barnaby Joyce would have probably never known he was a defacto citizen of New Zealand simply because or due to the location of his father's birth & not his own.

Panther wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 4:25pm:

Now, this is extremely important, what was the "Original Intent" of the framers of that section of law? Was it intended to be taken completely literal, regardless of circumstance? ~~  OR  ~~ Was it instituted so that no external foreign government or power could call upon allegiance of it's citizens in Australia, to itself, to offset & override the sovereign will of Australia? If all this insanity hadn't come to pass in the first place, Barnaby Joyce would have probably never known he was a defacto citizen of New Zealand simply because or due to the location of his father's birth & not his own.

The original writers of the constitution could not have foreseen this circumstance.
According to Aussie - our only lawyer on Ozpolitic -
Joyce is finished as the High Court can't change the law as it's written.

This is why the Supreme Court of the USA is better.
We need to have a new law which allows our High Court to
re-write our law when there are unintended consequences.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 4:42pm:

Panther wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 4:25pm: Now, this is extremely important, what was the "Original Intent" of the framers of that section of law? Was it intended to be taken completely literal, regardless of circumstance? ~~  OR  ~~ Was it instituted so that no external foreign government or power could call upon allegiance of it's citizens in Australia, to itself, to offset & override the sovereign will of Australia? If all this insanity hadn't come to pass in the first place, Barnaby Joyce would have probably never known he was a defacto citizen of New Zealand simply because or due to the location of his father's birth & not his own. The original writers of the constitution could not have foreseen this circumstance. According to Aussie - our only lawyer on Ozpolitic - Joyce is finished as the High Court can't change the law as it's written. This is why the Supreme Court of the USA is better. We need to have a new law which allows our High Court to re-write our law when there are unintended consequences.

Or, not a new law but a simple interpretation of that old law, that doesn't change it one bit, along the lines of my second paragraph, that the law was designed to protect Australia so that no external foreign government or power could call upon allegiance of it's citizens within Australia, unto itself, to offset & override the sovereign will of Australia.

Does that not seem more reasonable to a reasonable people not out to bring down Australia?

Panther wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 4:54pm:

Or, not a new law but a simple interpretation of that old law, that doesn't change it one bit, along the lines of my second paragraph, that the law was designed to protect Australia so that no external foreign government or power could call upon allegiance of it's citizens within Australia, unto itself, to offset & override the sovereign will of Australia. Does that not seem more reasonable to a reasonable people not out to bring down Australia?

Yes of course - but if our high Court takes it literally then our
Govt. will be overthrown.


Labor will be back & shortarse will be the new PM.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 4:57pm:

Panther wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 4:54pm: Or, not a new law but a simple interpretation of that old law, that doesn't change it one bit, along the lines of my second paragraph, that the law was designed to protect Australia so that no external foreign government or power could call upon allegiance of it's citizens within Australia, unto itself, to offset & override the sovereign will of Australia. Does that not seem more reasonable to a reasonable people not out to bring down Australia? Yes of course - but if our high Court takes it literally then our Govt. will be overthrown. Labor will be back & shortarse will be the new PM.

That's only if the Australian Patriots stand by & do nothing.....letting it happen without recourse, legally or otherwise.

A lot of people can't understand why Americans insist on keeping the Second Amendment.....9,000+ lives a year give or take........no, it's not only to protect their families from criminals & others wishing them physical harm....to hunt game, or for sport. 

No it's to protect them from a government that doesn't respect their will & their rights.....not just to shoot all their representatives, senators, & judges....no not just that.....that's an absolute last resort, but to have leverage.... to give their government something to think about, to wonder when, & if, the American People would use those firearms on them as their Founding Fathers envisioned might someday be necessary......That's leverage.

Panther wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 5:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 4:57pm: Panther wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 4:54pm: Or, not a new law but a simple interpretation of that old law, that doesn't change it one bit, along the lines of my second paragraph, that the law was designed to protect Australia so that no external foreign government or power could call upon allegiance of it's citizens within Australia, unto itself, to offset & override the sovereign will of Australia. Does that not seem more reasonable to a reasonable people not out to bring down Australia? Yes of course - but if our high Court takes it literally then our Govt. will be overthrown. Labor will be back & shortarse will be the new PM. That's only if the Australian Patriots stand by & do nothing.....letting it happen without recourse, legally or otherwise. A lot of people can't understand why Americans keep the Second Amendment.....it's not only to protect their families from criminals & others wishing them physical harm.... No it's to protect them from a government that doesn't respect their will & their rights.....not just to shoot all their representatives, senators, & judges....no not just that.....that's an absolute last resort, but to have leverage.... to give their government something to think about, to wonder when, & if, the American People would use those firearms on them as their Founding Fathers envisioned might someday be necessary......That's leverage.

This could get as big as 1975 & Whitlam.
The GG might have to step in.

Quote:

According to Aussie - our only lawyer on Ozpolitic - Joyce is finished as the High Court can't change the law as it's written.

I have never said that.....and I am not the only the only lawyer here.

Aussie wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 5:22pm:

Quote: According to Aussie - our only lawyer on Ozpolitic - Joyce is finished as the High Court can't change the law as it's written. I have never said that.....and I am not  the only lawyer here.

Aussie,
Not directly but you implied it:


http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1502772343/90

Aussie
Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #102 - Aug 16th, 2017 at 5:01pm

Quote:

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.

And also in many other parts of that thread.
Do I have to copy & paste everything?

Aussie,

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1502772343/15

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #17 - Aug 15th, 2017 at 4:05pm

Quote:

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.

That NZ is a foreign power is just part of the deal, Bobby.  There is also whether Joyce took all reasonable steps to renounce, and there are several aspects of that.

Aussie wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 5:36pm:

That NZ is a foreign power is just part of the deal, Bobby.  There is also whether Joyce took all reasonable steps to renounce, and there are several aspects of that.

Aussie,
all I'm saying is that I now agree with your summation -
Joyce is going to get his arse kicked out.

It's crazy & it means that our High Court is inferior to the American Supreme Court.
The Yanks can change bad laws there - we can't here.

Aussie,

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1502772343/15

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #17 - Aug 15th, 2017 at 4:05pm

Quote:

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.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 4:00pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 3:09pm: Well, as always, you are dead wrong, not only factually but in your opinion. The Supreme court CANNOT change law and nor can our High court.  But because Americans are republicans or democrats long before they are citizens, the SCOTUS becomes deeply political which is a bad thing. The 2000 election proved that when a poltiical decision was made to put GWB into office and to literally refuse to count the votes. Why would anyone - even a stupid drongo like bobby - want an unelected, unscrutinised lifetime appointment body like a High Court to be able to make law?  Brighter people that you long ago worked out that it would be a very bad thing although to be fair, you dont have to be very bright to work that out. Longy - you're wrong - before Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal in many states.

Do you understand the diference between MAKING law and INTERPRETING AND RULING ON LAW???

of course you dont, because you a low-watt bulb.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 5:38pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 5:36pm: That NZ is a foreign power is just part of the deal, Bobby.  There is also whether Joyce took all reasonable steps to renounce, and there are several aspects of that. Aussie, all I'm saying is that I now agree with your summation - Joyce is going to get his arse kicked out. It's crazy & it means that our High Court is inferior to the American Supreme Court. The Yanks can change bad laws there - we can't here.

you are a stupid, stupid person.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 5:41pm:

you are a stupid, stupid person.

So all you have are Ad Hominem attacks?

Try & do better Longy.

It is Sunday - your day of worship & goodwill to all men.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 5:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 5:41pm: you are a stupid, stupid person. So all you have are Ad Hominem attacks? Try & do better Longy. It is Sunday - your day of worship & goodwill to all men.

Maybe if you didnt post such stupid drivel like WANTING an unelected all-of-life group making laws that you have no say and no recourse over.  Dictators come to power and remain there because of twits like you who literally want it.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 5:53pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 5:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 5:41pm: you are a stupid, stupid person. So all you have are Ad Hominem attacks? Try & do better Longy. It is Sunday - your day of worship & goodwill to all men. Maybe if you didnt post such stupid drivel like WANTING an unelected all-of-life group making laws that you have no say and no recourse over.  Dictators come to power and remain there because of twits like you who literally want it.

More Ad Hominem attacks.

The Yanky Supreme Court can change stupid laws -
our High Court can't.
Wait until Shorty becomes PM over this & you'll change your tune.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 5:56pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 5:53pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 5:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 5:41pm: you are a stupid, stupid person. So all you have are Ad Hominem attacks? Try & do better Longy. It is Sunday - your day of worship & goodwill to all men. Maybe if you didnt post such stupid drivel like WANTING an unelected all-of-life group making laws that you have no say and no recourse over.  Dictators come to power and remain there because of twits like you who literally want it. More Ad Hominem attacks. The Yanky Supreme Court can change stupid laws - our High Court can't. Wait until Shorty becomes PM over this & you'll change your tune.

this is why so many people think you are a mental midget retard.  the SCOTUS cannot change law at all and if you had half a brain... oh yeah... there's the problem

idiot

Longy - you're wrong -

before Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal in many states.

Just started a new poll.

Is the USA Supreme Court better than our High Court?

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 6:11pm:

Longy - you're wrong - before Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal in many states.

I know you think you are making some kind of powerful argument, but you are not in fact making a point at all. Do you even realise that Roe v Wade was a CONSTITUTIONAL issue and not a legislative one? Do you even know the difference?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 6:23pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 6:11pm: Longy - you're wrong - before Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal in many states. I know you think you are making some kind of powerful argument, but you are not in fact making a point at all. Do you even realise that Roe v Wade was a CONSTITUTIONAL issue and not a legislative one? Do you even know the difference?

My understanding is that abortion was illegal in many states &
the Supreme court made it legal -
it acted to it override state laws.

( and that is only one example )

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 6:29pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 6:23pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 6:11pm: Longy - you're wrong - before Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal in many states. I know you think you are making some kind of powerful argument, but you are not in fact making a point at all. Do you even realise that Roe v Wade was a CONSTITUTIONAL issue and not a legislative one? Do you even know the difference? My understanding is that abortion was illegal in many states & the Supreme court made it legal - it acted to it override state laws. ( and that is only one example )

then your understanding is WRONG. VERY WRONG.  The SCOTUS rules on issues of the Constitution and it ruled that laws banning abortion were UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  it did not 'decide' that it liked abortion. it ruled on a matter of constitutional law and ruled that the law banning it was INVALID.

Our own High Court does the exact same thing. It has on several occasions ruled that laws passed by parliament were contrary to the Australian Constitution and were therefore invalid.

the court does NOT 'make law' and no one should want that.

Longy,
I don't think you're right.
Show us an Australian example.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx


Quote:

The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part, from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government. The United States has demonstrated an unprecedented determination to preserve and protect its written Constitution, thereby providing the American "experiment in democracy" with the oldest written Constitution still in force. The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society’s need for order and the individual’s right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government. The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 6:29pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 6:23pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 6:11pm: Longy - you're wrong - before Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal in many states. I know you think you are making some kind of powerful argument, but you are not in fact making a point at all. Do you even realise that Roe v Wade was a CONSTITUTIONAL issue and not a legislative one? Do you even know the difference? My understanding is that abortion was illegal in many states & the Supreme court made it legal - it acted to it override state laws. ( and that is only one example )

I can't see what LW58 usually posts, that is unless someone quotes him. I'm still waiting for that to be fixed by my friend....might have to light a fire on that.....but I can see LW's post because you quoted him....not your fault though.

Bobby.... I really hate this more than you could ever realize. but I have to be truthful, & give credit where due regarding this matter.....

LW58 is correct in this matter.....

The US Supreme Court did not change, I repeat, did not change any law in their Roe v. Wade decision, they just interpreted the Constitution (the American Law of the Land....on which all lower laws must be based) that Women have the   'Right to Choose'   an abortion as a matter of privacy based on the 14th Amendment's 'due process' provisions.

Personally, I think Abortion is Murder, & pray for the day this decision is revisited & reversed by another Supreme Court, made up of justices with deeper right wing convictions.

LW58 is rarely correct, but in this ever so rare case, he is spot on.   >:( >:( >:( :-X

Panther wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 6:56pm:

I can't see what LW58 usually posts, that is unless someone quotes him. I'm still waiting for that to also be ignored....might have to light a fire on that.....but I can see LW's post because you quoted him....not your fault. Bobby.... I really hate this more than you could ever realize. but I have to be truthful, & give credit where due regarding this matter..... LW58 is correct in this matter..... The US Supreme Court did not change, I repeat, did not change any law in their Roe v. Wade decision, they just interpreted the Constitution (the American Law of the Land....on which all lower laws must be based) that Women have the   'Right to Choose'   an abortion as a matter of privacy based on the 14th Amendment's 'due process' provisions. Personally, I think Abortion is Murder, & pray for the day this decision is revisited & reversed. LW58 is rarely correct, but in this ever so rare case, he is spot on.   >:( >:( >:( :-X

Yes Longy might be right:

http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/closer-look/the-australian-constitution/the-constitution-and-the-high-court.html


Quote:

The High Court can invalidate any legislation or parts of legislation that it finds to be unconstitutional.

However - what about Barnaby Joyce?

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 7:02pm:

Panther wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 6:56pm: I can't see what LW58 usually posts, that is unless someone quotes him. I'm still waiting for that to be fixed by my friend....might have to light a fire on that.....but I can see LW's post because you quoted him....not your fault though. Bobby.... I really hate this more than you could ever realize. but I have to be truthful, & give credit where due regarding this matter..... LW58 is correct in this matter..... The US Supreme Court did not change, I repeat, did not change any law in their Roe v. Wade decision, they just interpreted the Constitution (the American Law of the Land....on which all lower laws must be based) that Women have the   'Right to Choose'   an abortion as a matter of privacy based on the 14th Amendment's 'due process' provisions. Personally, I think Abortion is Murder, & pray for the day this decision is revisited & reversed by another Supreme Court, made up of justices with deeper right wing convictions. LW58 is rarely correct, but in this ever so rare case, he is spot on.   >:( >:( >:( :-X Yes Longy might be right: http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/closer-look/the-australian-constitution/the-constitution-and-the-high-court.html Quote: The High Court can invalidate any legislation or parts of legislation that it finds to be unconstitutional. However - what about Barnaby Joyce?

He will survive ONLY if the High Court rules that the "spirit of the law"......it's "original intent" was not to criminalize the conditions related to him. It was meant to thwart corruption from other governments, not a totally innocent Australian Citizen who becomes a citizen of another country because of the birth of another....based on a foreign law he was totally unaware of, & least of all, that it might pertain to him, an full blooded Australian by birth.

Panther wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 7:33pm:

He will survive ONLY if the High Court rules that the "spirit of the law"......it's "original intent" was not to criminalize the conditions related to him. It was meant to thwart corruption from other governments, not a totally innocent Australian Citizen who becomes a citizen of another country because of the birth of another....based on a foreign law he was totally unaware of, & least of all, that it might pertain to him, an full blooded Australian by birth.

The last time the High Court made a ruling would not have been favorable to Barnaby:

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





Quote:

Sue v Hill was an Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 23 June 1999. It concerned a dispute over the apparent return of a candidate, Heather Hill, to the Australian Senate in the 1998 federal election. The result was challenged on the basis that Hill was a dual citizen of the United Kingdom and Australia, and that section 44(i) of the Constitution of Australia prevents any person who is the citizen of a "foreign power" from being elected to the Parliament of Australia. The High Court found that, at least for the purposes of section 44(i), the United Kingdom is a foreign power to Australia. The High court ruled that Senator-elect Hill had not been duly elected to the national parliament because at the time of her election she was a subject or citizen of a foreign power.[1] Five judgments were delivered, with Chief Justice Gleeson and Justices Gummow and Hayne writing a joint judgment, and Justices Gaudron, McHugh, Kirby and Callinan writing individual judgments.[1]

Therefore the High Court did not change the law &
found against Senator Hill.

This is my point & why Longy is wrong.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 5:38pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 5:36pm: That NZ is a foreign power is just part of the deal, Bobby.  There is also whether Joyce took all reasonable steps to renounce, and there are several aspects of that. Aussie, all I'm saying is that I now agree with your summation - Joyce is going to get his arse kicked out. It's crazy & it means that our High Court is inferior to the American Supreme Court. The Yanks can change bad laws there - we can't here.

Why is it crazy it is only the same as applied to everyone else. I would think it would be crazy if an exception was made for one politician because of the party he belongs to.

We have had 2 previous disqualifications this year that were exactly the same, they both had the integrity to resign as had all before them.

They all resign because there is zero ambiguity in the rule and no scope for excuses.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 7:55pm:

Panther wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 7:33pm: He will survive ONLY if the High Court rules that the "spirit of the law"......it's "original intent" was not to criminalize the conditions related to him. It was meant to thwart corruption from other governments, not a totally innocent Australian Citizen who becomes a citizen of another country because of the birth of another....based on a foreign law he was totally unaware of, & least of all, that it might pertain to him, an full blooded Australian by birth. The last time the High Court made a ruling would not have been favorable to Barnaby: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_v_Hill Quote: Sue v Hill was an Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 23 June 1999. It concerned a dispute over the apparent return of a candidate, Heather Hill, to the Australian Senate in the 1998 federal election. The result was challenged on the basis that Hill was a dual citizen of the United Kingdom and Australia, and that section 44(i) of the Constitution of Australia prevents any person who is the citizen of a "foreign power" from being elected to the Parliament of Australia. The High Court found that, at least for the purposes of section 44(i), the United Kingdom is a foreign power to Australia. The High court ruled that Senator-elect Hill had not been duly elected to the national parliament because at the time of her election she was a subject or citizen of a foreign power.[1] Five judgments were delivered, with Chief Justice Gleeson and Justices Gummow and Hayne writing a joint judgment, and Justices Gaudron, McHugh, Kirby and Callinan writing individual judgments.[1] Therefore the High Court did not change the law & found against Senator Hill. This is my point & why Longy is wrong.

Have you ever read those decisions, & the judges individual writings of that judgment/the reasons they decided the way they did?

That would shed light on their mindset.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 8:01pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 5:38pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 5:36pm: That NZ is a foreign power is just part of the deal, Bobby.  There is also whether Joyce took all reasonable steps to renounce, and there are several aspects of that. Aussie, all I'm saying is that I now agree with your summation - Joyce is going to get his arse kicked out. It's crazy & it means that our High Court is inferior to the American Supreme Court. The Yanks can change bad laws there - we can't here. Why is it crazy it is only the same as applied to everyone else. I would think it would be crazy if an exception was made for one politician because of the party he belongs to. We have had 2 previous disqualifications this year that were exactly the same, they both had the integrity to resign as had all before them. They all resign because there is zero ambiguity in the rule and no scope for excuses.

But Barnaby could lose his job & Australia be plunged into a political crisis all
because of a law that hardly anyone knew about in NZ.

It's absurd.
What if Russia decided tomorrow that all Australian politicians were automatically citizens of Russia?
Could they destroy our Govt.?

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 8:08pm:

But Barnaby could lose his job

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-10/15/7/enhanced/webdr06/anigif_enhanced-10118-1444908040-3.gif

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 8:08pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 8:01pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 5:38pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 5:36pm: That NZ is a foreign power is just part of the deal, Bobby.  There is also whether Joyce took all reasonable steps to renounce, and there are several aspects of that. Aussie, all I'm saying is that I now agree with your summation - Joyce is going to get his arse kicked out. It's crazy & it means that our High Court is inferior to the American Supreme Court. The Yanks can change bad laws there - we can't here. Why is it crazy it is only the same as applied to everyone else. I would think it would be crazy if an exception was made for one politician because of the party he belongs to. We have had 2 previous disqualifications this year that were exactly the same, they both had the integrity to resign as had all before them. They all resign because there is zero ambiguity in the rule and no scope for excuses. But Barnaby could lose his job & Australia be plunged into a political crisis all because of a law that hardly anyone knew about in NZ. It's absurd. What if Russia decided tomorrow that all Australian politicians were automatically citizens of Russia? Could they destroy our Govt.?

But Barnaby could lose his job


Barnaby never legally held his job and you would think that virtually every NZ'er would be aware of their citizenship requirements. Baaaarnaby's dad would have known that his son was a K1. Barnaby is a dill for not knowing if it is true.

Besides we have already had people lose their job this year under the same rule in the same position. In terms of the political repercussions - it is what it is. This may not be a bad thing. If they wanted they could probably put the next name on the list in place before the next sitting. If they wait it is more likely to cause a political crisis.

Whatever happens it is their own fault and remember both Baaarnaby and Turnbull went hard line on the Greens who were in this position. They were not going to cop any rubbish from people who were not legitimately elected back then. Turnbull labelled the whole greens party incompetent for letting it happen.

Guess he already knew that the coalition were all incompetent.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 9:13pm:

But Barnaby could lose his job Barnaby never legally held his job and you would think that virtually every NZ'er would be aware of their citizenship requirements. Baaaarnaby's dad would have known that his son was a K1. Barnaby is a dill for not knowing if it is true. Besides we have already had people lose their job this year under the same rule in the same position. In terms of the political repercussions - it is what it is. This may not be a bad thing. If they wanted they could probably put the next name on the list in place before the next sitting. If they wait it is more likely to cause a political crisis. Whatever happens it is their own fault and remember both Baaarnaby and Turnbull went hard line on the Greens who were in this position. They were not going to cop any rubbish from people who were not legitimately elected back then. Turnbull labelled the whole greens party incompetent for letting it happen. Guess he already knew that the coalition were all incompetent.

I spoke to many New Zealanders.
Not one of them knew about that obscure NZ law.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 9:48pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 9:13pm: But Barnaby could lose his job Barnaby never legally held his job and you would think that virtually every NZ'er would be aware of their citizenship requirements. Baaaarnaby's dad would have known that his son was a K1. Barnaby is a dill for not knowing if it is true. Besides we have already had people lose their job this year under the same rule in the same position. In terms of the political repercussions - it is what it is. This may not be a bad thing. If they wanted they could probably put the next name on the list in place before the next sitting. If they wait it is more likely to cause a political crisis. Whatever happens it is their own fault and remember both Baaarnaby and Turnbull went hard line on the Greens who were in this position. They were not going to cop any rubbish from people who were not legitimately elected back then. Turnbull labelled the whole greens party incompetent for letting it happen. Guess he already knew that the coalition were all incompetent. I spoke to many New Zealanders. Not one of them knew about that obscure NZ law.

yes, but to be fair, you probably need to leave your primary school friends alone and ask their parents instead

Panther wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 7:33pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 7:02pm: Panther wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 6:56pm: I can't see what LW58 usually posts, that is unless someone quotes him. I'm still waiting for that to be fixed by my friend....might have to light a fire on that.....but I can see LW's post because you quoted him....not your fault though. Bobby.... I really hate this more than you could ever realize. but I have to be truthful, & give credit where due regarding this matter..... LW58 is correct in this matter..... The US Supreme Court did not change, I repeat, did not change any law in their Roe v. Wade decision, they just interpreted the Constitution (the American Law of the Land....on which all lower laws must be based) that Women have the   'Right to Choose'   an abortion as a matter of privacy based on the 14th Amendment's 'due process' provisions. Personally, I think Abortion is Murder, & pray for the day this decision is revisited & reversed by another Supreme Court, made up of justices with deeper right wing convictions. LW58 is rarely correct, but in this ever so rare case, he is spot on.   >:( >:( >:( :-X Yes Longy might be right: http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/closer-look/the-australian-constitution/the-constitution-and-the-high-court.html Quote: The High Court can invalidate any legislation or parts of legislation that it finds to be unconstitutional. However - what about Barnaby Joyce? He will survive ONLY if the High Court rules that the "spirit of the law"......it's "original intent" was not to criminalize the conditions related to him. It was meant to thwart corruption from other governments, not a totally innocent Australian Citizen who becomes a citizen of another country because of the birth of another....based on a foreign law he was totally unaware of, & least of all, that it might pertain to him, an full blooded Australian by birth.

Quote:

that it might pertain to him, an full blooded Australian by birth.

His father is a Kiwi he was fully aware that he is not a full blooded Australian by birth, His father would have also been aware that his child is a full citizen of NZ.

This has never been an acceptable excuse before including the 2 other cases the same this year.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 9:48pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 9:13pm: But Barnaby could lose his job Barnaby never legally held his job and you would think that virtually every NZ'er would be aware of their citizenship requirements. Baaaarnaby's dad would have known that his son was a K1. Barnaby is a dill for not knowing if it is true. Besides we have already had people lose their job this year under the same rule in the same position. In terms of the political repercussions - it is what it is. This may not be a bad thing. If they wanted they could probably put the next name on the list in place before the next sitting. If they wait it is more likely to cause a political crisis. Whatever happens it is their own fault and remember both Baaarnaby and Turnbull went hard line on the Greens who were in this position. They were not going to cop any rubbish from people who were not legitimately elected back then. Turnbull labelled the whole greens party incompetent for letting it happen. Guess he already knew that the coalition were all incompetent. I spoke to many New Zealanders. Not one of them knew about that obscure NZ law.

What that the children of New Zealder's are New Zealander's ? Unbelievable or a bunch of Dumb K1's.

By the way you do know that a New Zealander born in NZ with an Australian parent could claim Australian citizenship and is thus in the same position over there.

OH yeah and the USA have the same Law as NZ as well, it is very common.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 9:48pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 9:13pm: But Barnaby could lose his job Barnaby never legally held his job and you would think that virtually every NZ'er would be aware of their citizenship requirements. Baaaarnaby's dad would have known that his son was a K1. Barnaby is a dill for not knowing if it is true. Besides we have already had people lose their job this year under the same rule in the same position. In terms of the political repercussions - it is what it is. This may not be a bad thing. If they wanted they could probably put the next name on the list in place before the next sitting. If they wait it is more likely to cause a political crisis. Whatever happens it is their own fault and remember both Baaarnaby and Turnbull went hard line on the Greens who were in this position. They were not going to cop any rubbish from people who were not legitimately elected back then. Turnbull labelled the whole greens party incompetent for letting it happen. Guess he already knew that the coalition were all incompetent. I spoke to many New Zealanders. Not one of them knew about that obscure NZ law.

Almost every country including Australia have a similar obscure law that most of us know about.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 11:04pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 9:48pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 9:13pm: But Barnaby could lose his job Barnaby never legally held his job and you would think that virtually every NZ'er would be aware of their citizenship requirements. Baaaarnaby's dad would have known that his son was a K1. Barnaby is a dill for not knowing if it is true. Besides we have already had people lose their job this year under the same rule in the same position. In terms of the political repercussions - it is what it is. This may not be a bad thing. If they wanted they could probably put the next name on the list in place before the next sitting. If they wait it is more likely to cause a political crisis. Whatever happens it is their own fault and remember both Baaarnaby and Turnbull went hard line on the Greens who were in this position. They were not going to cop any rubbish from people who were not legitimately elected back then. Turnbull labelled the whole greens party incompetent for letting it happen. Guess he already knew that the coalition were all incompetent. I spoke to many New Zealanders. Not one of them knew about that obscure NZ law. Almost every country including Australia have a similar obscure law that most of us know about.

Only Barnaby's father was born in New Zealand.
Barnaby was born in Australia -
he's a dinky die ridgy didge true blue fair dinkum Aussie.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 6:44am:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 11:04pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 9:48pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 9:13pm: But Barnaby could lose his job Barnaby never legally held his job and you would think that virtually every NZ'er would be aware of their citizenship requirements. Baaaarnaby's dad would have known that his son was a K1. Barnaby is a dill for not knowing if it is true. Besides we have already had people lose their job this year under the same rule in the same position. In terms of the political repercussions - it is what it is. This may not be a bad thing. If they wanted they could probably put the next name on the list in place before the next sitting. If they wait it is more likely to cause a political crisis. Whatever happens it is their own fault and remember both Baaarnaby and Turnbull went hard line on the Greens who were in this position. They were not going to cop any rubbish from people who were not legitimately elected back then. Turnbull labelled the whole greens party incompetent for letting it happen. Guess he already knew that the coalition were all incompetent. I spoke to many New Zealanders. Not one of them knew about that obscure NZ law. Almost every country including Australia have a similar obscure law that most of us know about. Only Barnaby's father was born in New Zealand. Barnaby was born in Australia - he's a dinky die ridgy didge true blue fair dinkum Aussie.

he's a dinky die ridgy didge true blue fair dinkum Aussie - who happens to be a citizen of NZ.

By the way So were all the others who had to resign, you think they should be recalled ????

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 6:44am:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 11:04pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 9:48pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 9:13pm: But Barnaby could lose his job Barnaby never legally held his job and you would think that virtually every NZ'er would be aware of their citizenship requirements. Baaaarnaby's dad would have known that his son was a K1. Barnaby is a dill for not knowing if it is true. Besides we have already had people lose their job this year under the same rule in the same position. In terms of the political repercussions - it is what it is. This may not be a bad thing. If they wanted they could probably put the next name on the list in place before the next sitting. If they wait it is more likely to cause a political crisis. Whatever happens it is their own fault and remember both Baaarnaby and Turnbull went hard line on the Greens who were in this position. They were not going to cop any rubbish from people who were not legitimately elected back then. Turnbull labelled the whole greens party incompetent for letting it happen. Guess he already knew that the coalition were all incompetent. I spoke to many New Zealanders. Not one of them knew about that obscure NZ law. Almost every country including Australia have a similar obscure law that most of us know about. Only Barnaby's father was born in New Zealand. Barnaby was born in Australia - he's a dinky die ridgy didge true blue fair dinkum Aussie.

Quote:

Only Barnaby's father was born in New Zealand. Barnaby was born in Australia -

"ONLY BAAAARNABY'S FATHER" That makes him half New Zealander"

You still don't get that place of birth is irrelevant to this rule. This is a very simple standard either you are a duel citizen or you are not. Baaarnaby is a duel citizen.

Baaarnaby ticked the box saying that he is not a fuel citizen thus falsifying his application to the AEC.

Anyone with a parent of any other nationality who ticks that box without checking is only getting what they deserve. In fact even in Water's case with two Australian parents she was caught out in a much worse case.

Waters not knowing is understandable Baaa Baaa Baaarnaby not knowing is just incompetent.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 7:02pm:

Panther wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 6:56pm: I can't see what LW58 usually posts, that is unless someone quotes him. I'm still waiting for that to also be ignored....might have to light a fire on that.....but I can see LW's post because you quoted him....not your fault. Bobby.... I really hate this more than you could ever realize. but I have to be truthful, & give credit where due regarding this matter..... LW58 is correct in this matter..... The US Supreme Court did not change, I repeat, did not change any law in their Roe v. Wade decision, they just interpreted the Constitution (the American Law of the Land....on which all lower laws must be based) that Women have the   'Right to Choose'   an abortion as a matter of privacy based on the 14th Amendment's 'due process' provisions. Personally, I think Abortion is Murder, & pray for the day this decision is revisited & reversed. LW58 is rarely correct, but in this ever so rare case, he is spot on.   >:( >:( >:( :-X Yes Longy might be right: http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/closer-look/the-australian-constitution/the-constitution-and-the-high-court.html Quote: The High Court can invalidate any legislation or parts of legislation that it finds to be unconstitutional. However - what about Barnaby Joyce?

of COURSE I am right. And Barnaby and others are having their cases referred to the High Court for assessment and judgement.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 8:01pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 5:38pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 5:36pm: That NZ is a foreign power is just part of the deal, Bobby.  There is also whether Joyce took all reasonable steps to renounce, and there are several aspects of that. Aussie, all I'm saying is that I now agree with your summation - Joyce is going to get his arse kicked out. It's crazy & it means that our High Court is inferior to the American Supreme Court. The Yanks can change bad laws there - we can't here. Why is it crazy it is only the same as applied to everyone else. I would think it would be crazy if an exception was made for one politician because of the party he belongs to. We have had 2 previous disqualifications this year that were exactly the same, they both had the integrity to resign as had all before them. They all resign because there is zero ambiguity in the rule and no scope for excuses.

The likely difference that the High Court MAY find is that these dual citizenships were unknown to the people and occured without their consent or knowledge. I dont know if it will make any difference, but the truth is in that all of these cases, the people were unaware and reasonably expected that they were no dual citizens.

The whole thing is a farce. And then we have one being investigated for taking a financial advantage from the commonwealth because he is part-owner of a shopping complex that has an aussie post franchise in it.  Is that not beyond stupid and missing the point?

Dnarever wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 7:15am:

he's a dinky die ridgy didge true blue fair dinkum Aussie - who happens to be a citizen of NZ. By the way So were all the others who had to resign, you think they should be recalled ????

We shall see how good our High Court is.
I wish they would hurry up & make a judgement.

Also - if the High Court chucks out all those people does it
make the laws they voted for invalid?

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 10:03am:

The American Supreme court is better than our High court of Australia. They can actually change the law! see here: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/10/justice/landmark-scotus-cases/index.html 15 Supreme Court cases that changed America. We have a High Court that seems to only be allowed to interpret the law. In the case of the laws around politicians like Barnaby Joyce it seems that as his Father was a New Zealander, that he might be kicked out of parliament even though he didn't know that he had automatic NZ citizenship. If we had a Supreme court like America they could change the law. The law could then be a living document and change as absurdities & needs arose. We have a poor system that needs to be changed.

Hell no!

The Supreme Court of the United States has completely exceeded its constitutional bounds. The judiciary's role is not to make laws; it's to interpret them.

Another complaint about the SCOTUS is that it basically acts as a permanent constitutional council - Woodrow Wilson pretty well said as much when he was President.

I much prefer the British system - the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: the Parliament reigns supreme. The judiciary is independent but has power to overturn legislation passed by the Parliament.

That's how it should be.

Also, the other issue with SCOTUS is that judges serve til they die or retire; there are no compulsory retirement ages.

At least in Australia we amended the Constitution to provide for mandatory retirement at 70 years of age.

Bobby, did the article mention the Dred Scott case? Or Plessy vs. Ferguson?

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:44pm:

Hell no! The Supreme Court of the United States has completely exceeded its constitutional bounds. The judiciary's role is not to make laws; it's to interpret them. Another complaint about the SCOTUS is that it basically acts as a permanent constitutional council - Woodrow Wilson pretty well said as much when he was President. I much prefer the British system - the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: the Parliament reigns supreme. The judiciary is independent but has power to overturn legislation passed by the Parliament. That's how it should be.

I remember a TV series called Alistair Cooke's America.

He explained the Supreme Court so well.
I wish I could find the quote.
He had much praise for the founding Fathers of the USA
who foresaw the need for a court that would change laws
as it became necessary.
It was sort of a built in redundancy so that silly laws could be changed.

Absurdities can arise -
I gave an example:

hypothetical -

President Putin decides that all Australian politicians are automatically Russian citizens -
then by our law our whole Govt. would collapse over night.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:36pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 7:15am: he's a dinky die ridgy didge true blue fair dinkum Aussie - who happens to be a citizen of NZ. By the way So were all the others who had to resign, you think they should be recalled ???? We shall see how good our High Court is. I wish they would hurry up & make a judgement. Also - if the High Court chucks out all those people does it make the laws they voted for invalid?

No.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:52pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:44pm: Hell no! The Supreme Court of the United States has completely exceeded its constitutional bounds. The judiciary's role is not to make laws; it's to interpret them. Another complaint about the SCOTUS is that it basically acts as a permanent constitutional council - Woodrow Wilson pretty well said as much when he was President. I much prefer the British system - the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: the Parliament reigns supreme. The judiciary is independent but has power to overturn legislation passed by the Parliament. That's how it should be. I remember a TV series called Alistair Cooke's America. He explained the Supreme Court so well. I wish I could find the quote. He had much praise for the founding Fathers of the USA who foresaw the need for a court that would change laws as it became necessary. It was sort of a built in redundancy so that silly laws could be changed. Absurdities can arise - I gave an example: hypothetical - President Putin decides that all Australian politicians are automatically Russian citizens - then by our law our whole Govt. would collapse over night.

Incorrect, the Founding Fathers of the US did not create a Supreme Court for that purpose; that was never the original intention. The court decision which started the tradition of Judicial Review was Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 (???). This was the first decision in which the court struck down a law because it was repugnant to the Constitution.

After the decision, Thomas Jefferson was appalled by the Supreme's Court ruling. He stated that the function of the Court SHOULD NOT be to determine matters related to the Constitution because it was open to abuse.

Thomas Jefferson said the following (Aussie, listen well):

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:52pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:44pm: Hell no! The Supreme Court of the United States has completely exceeded its constitutional bounds. The judiciary's role is not to make laws; it's to interpret them. Another complaint about the SCOTUS is that it basically acts as a permanent constitutional council - Woodrow Wilson pretty well said as much when he was President. I much prefer the British system - the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: the Parliament reigns supreme. The judiciary is independent but has power to overturn legislation passed by the Parliament. That's how it should be. I remember a TV series called Alistair Cooke's America. He explained the Supreme Court so well. I wish I could find the quote. He had much praise for the founding Fathers of the USA who foresaw the need for a court that would change laws as it became necessary. It was sort of a built in redundancy so that silly laws could be changed. Absurdities can arise - I gave an example: hypothetical - President Putin decides that all Australian politicians are automatically Russian citizens - then by our law our whole Govt. would collapse over night.

why do you persist in repeating STUPID CRAP????  You've already had it explained to you that SCOTUS does not make law. Nor does it invalidate law with the singular exception of when it conflicts with an existing superior law or the constitution. It is the legal UMPIRE, not a law-maker.

Persisting in your stupidity does not improve your already poor record for being dumb.

Point of note:

The ability of the President to return Bills (commonly known as the 'veto') was considered to be the mechanism by which unconstitutional or 'bad' bills would be rejected.

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:58pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:52pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:44pm: Hell no! The Supreme Court of the United States has completely exceeded its constitutional bounds. The judiciary's role is not to make laws; it's to interpret them. Another complaint about the SCOTUS is that it basically acts as a permanent constitutional council - Woodrow Wilson pretty well said as much when he was President. I much prefer the British system - the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: the Parliament reigns supreme. The judiciary is independent but has power to overturn legislation passed by the Parliament. That's how it should be. I remember a TV series called Alistair Cooke's America. He explained the Supreme Court so well. I wish I could find the quote. He had much praise for the founding Fathers of the USA who foresaw the need for a court that would change laws as it became necessary. It was sort of a built in redundancy so that silly laws could be changed. Absurdities can arise - I gave an example: hypothetical - President Putin decides that all Australian politicians are automatically Russian citizens - then by our law our whole Govt. would collapse over night. Incorrect, the Founding Fathers of the US did not create a Supreme Court for that purpose; that was never the original intention. The court decision which started the tradition of Judicial Review was Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 (???). This was the first decision in which the court struck down a law because it was repugnant to the Constitution. After the decision, Thomas Jefferson was appalled by the Supreme's Court ruling. He stated that the function of the Court SHOULD NOT be to determine matters related to the Constitution because it was open to abuse.

not a lot of point in having a constitution if there is not a body that can uphold it. Russia and CHina all have constitutions that they regularly ignore simply because there is no one to uphold it.

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:08pm:

Point of note: The ability of the President to return Bills (commonly known as the 'veto') was considered to be the mechanism by which unconstitutional or 'bad' bills would be rejected.

so that assumes an obviously partisan and compromised person such as the President would naturally choose to do the 'right thing' all the time? To say nothing about a President needing to be a skilled constitutional lawyer and scholar.

such naievete

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:08pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:52pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:44pm: Hell no! The Supreme Court of the United States has completely exceeded its constitutional bounds. The judiciary's role is not to make laws; it's to interpret them. Another complaint about the SCOTUS is that it basically acts as a permanent constitutional council - Woodrow Wilson pretty well said as much when he was President. I much prefer the British system - the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: the Parliament reigns supreme. The judiciary is independent but has power to overturn legislation passed by the Parliament. That's how it should be. I remember a TV series called Alistair Cooke's America. He explained the Supreme Court so well. I wish I could find the quote. He had much praise for the founding Fathers of the USA who foresaw the need for a court that would change laws as it became necessary. It was sort of a built in redundancy so that silly laws could be changed. Absurdities can arise - I gave an example: hypothetical - President Putin decides that all Australian politicians are automatically Russian citizens - then by our law our whole Govt. would collapse over night. why do you persist in repeating STUPID CRAP????  You've already had it explained to you that SCOTUS does not make law. Nor does it invalidate law with the singular exception of when it conflicts with an existing superior law or the constitution. It is the legal UMPIRE, not a law-maker. Persisting in your stupidity does not improve your already poor record for being dumb.

Factually not correct, longy. The Supreme Court was considered by Woodrow Wilson to be a 'permanent Constitution council' to revise the Constitution as they believed fit.

When the Supreme Court made the decision in favour of 'separate but equal' facilities for blacks and whites, was it interpreting the Constitution or making laws? Don't forget this was after the Civil War and the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.

50 years later said Supreme Court overturned the decision in Brown vs. Board of Education.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:11pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:08pm: Point of note: The ability of the President to return Bills (commonly known as the 'veto') was considered to be the mechanism by which unconstitutional or 'bad' bills would be rejected. so that assumes an obviously partisan and compromised person such as the President would naturally choose to do the 'right thing' all the time? To say nothing about a President needing to be a skilled constitutional lawyer and scholar. such naievete

Naivete on part of the Founding Fathers, indeed, given that they were the ones who stated this.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a Presidency that was NON-PARTISAN, NON-POLITICAL, and that's why the Electoral College was established.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:09pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:58pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:52pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:44pm: Hell no! The Supreme Court of the United States has completely exceeded its constitutional bounds. The judiciary's role is not to make laws; it's to interpret them. Another complaint about the SCOTUS is that it basically acts as a permanent constitutional council - Woodrow Wilson pretty well said as much when he was President. I much prefer the British system - the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: the Parliament reigns supreme. The judiciary is independent but has power to overturn legislation passed by the Parliament. That's how it should be. I remember a TV series called Alistair Cooke's America. He explained the Supreme Court so well. I wish I could find the quote. He had much praise for the founding Fathers of the USA who foresaw the need for a court that would change laws as it became necessary. It was sort of a built in redundancy so that silly laws could be changed. Absurdities can arise - I gave an example: hypothetical - President Putin decides that all Australian politicians are automatically Russian citizens - then by our law our whole Govt. would collapse over night. Incorrect, the Founding Fathers of the US did not create a Supreme Court for that purpose; that was never the original intention. The court decision which started the tradition of Judicial Review was Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 (???). This was the first decision in which the court struck down a law because it was repugnant to the Constitution. After the decision, Thomas Jefferson was appalled by the Supreme's Court ruling. He stated that the function of the Court SHOULD NOT be to determine matters related to the Constitution because it was open to abuse. not a lot of point in having a constitution if there is not a body that can uphold it. Russia and CHina all have constitutions that they regularly ignore simply because there is no one to uphold it.

The American Constitution had many shortcomings. An alternative to giving the Supreme Court to determine constitutional issues is to establish a secondary court which rules solely on constitutional/bill of rights issues. Such a court would consist of judges or arbiters who held offices for a fixed term of 6 - 9 years (not re-eligible).

Aussie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:56pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:36pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 7:15am: he's a dinky die ridgy didge true blue fair dinkum Aussie - who happens to be a citizen of NZ. By the way So were all the others who had to resign, you think they should be recalled ???? We shall see how good our High Court is. I wish they would hurry up & make a judgement. Also - if the High Court chucks out all those people does it make the laws they voted for invalid? No.

I agree, but I would think, based on the reasons the law exists in the first place, that all laws passed by a tainted government should, at least, be up for review.

If not, IMHO, then the law is a sham, for it would mean no possible harm whatsoever would or could befall any government with members considered to be beholden to foreign powers  & or governments, prior to their removal.

Wouldn't that be a logical conclusion? :-/ 

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:08pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:52pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:44pm: Hell no! The Supreme Court of the United States has completely exceeded its constitutional bounds. The judiciary's role is not to make laws; it's to interpret them. Another complaint about the SCOTUS is that it basically acts as a permanent constitutional council - Woodrow Wilson pretty well said as much when he was President. I much prefer the British system - the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: the Parliament reigns supreme. The judiciary is independent but has power to overturn legislation passed by the Parliament. That's how it should be. I remember a TV series called Alistair Cooke's America. He explained the Supreme Court so well. I wish I could find the quote. He had much praise for the founding Fathers of the USA who foresaw the need for a court that would change laws as it became necessary. It was sort of a built in redundancy so that silly laws could be changed. Absurdities can arise - I gave an example: hypothetical - President Putin decides that all Australian politicians are automatically Russian citizens - then by our law our whole Govt. would collapse over night. why do you persist in repeating STUPID CRAP????  You've already had it explained to you that SCOTUS does not make law. Nor does it invalidate law with the singular exception of when it conflicts with an existing superior law or the constitution. It is the legal UMPIRE, not a law-maker. Persisting in your stupidity does not improve your already poor record for being dumb. Factually not correct, longy. The Supreme Court was considered by Woodrow Wilson to be a 'permanent Constitution council' to revise the Constitution as they believed fit. When the Supreme Court made the decision in favour of 'separate but equal' facilities for blacks and whites, was it interpreting the Constitution or making laws? Don't forget this was after the Civil War and the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. 50 years later said Supreme Court overturned the decision in Brown vs. Board of Education.

Woodraw Wilson could think what he wanted, but it did not change the immutable fact that only a vote of the people could alter the constitution. SCOTUS was there to prevent breaches of the constitution, not alter it at their wishes.

I'm not sure what you think by your examples. I dont know if it was right or not, nor do I care  and nor does it matter in this discussion. Court's routinely overturn decisions based on either better arbitration or better arguments.

What truly separates great countries from the lesser ones is a powerful record of constitutional protection and the rule of law. Not perfect by any means but USA Australia UK and the like have that record while third world banana republics do not. Russia is the dismal economic failure that it is because they do not have true democracy and a system of constitutional and legislative law.

Logical.....maybe....but there are many situations in Law where the position is that where something done by a person in a role....is not found totally invalid or void because that person was ineligible to do that something.

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:13pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:11pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:08pm: Point of note: The ability of the President to return Bills (commonly known as the 'veto') was considered to be the mechanism by which unconstitutional or 'bad' bills would be rejected. so that assumes an obviously partisan and compromised person such as the President would naturally choose to do the 'right thing' all the time? To say nothing about a President needing to be a skilled constitutional lawyer and scholar. such naievete Naivete on part of the Founding Fathers, indeed, given that they were the ones who stated this. The Founding Fathers envisioned a Presidency that was NON-PARTISAN, NON-POLITICAL, and that's why the Electoral College was established.

And how dumb was that!  Same as our constitution that wanted the Senate to be a non-political States House. That silly idea lasted two weeks at best.

And i make the same argument for being against an elected Head of State in an Australian Republic. If you are voted on, then you need to campaign. If you need to campaign then you need to make promises. Ergo, a politician. You cannot have a non-partisan, no-politician official that is voted in. It was a truly dumb idea. Fortunately, most of the rest of their ideas worked out well and are currently keeping the insane resident of the WH caged.

Aussie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:25pm:

Logical.....maybe....but there are many situations in Law where the position is that where something done by a person in a role....is not found totally invalid or void because that person was ineligible to do that something.

Plus, the only outcome that could result from invalidating the votes of 12 years of parliamentary service is massive chaos and legal unknowns. No one wants to go down that path because there are no winners.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:23pm:

but it did not change the immutable fact that only a vote of the people could alter the constitution.

Incorrect, the Constitution of US can only be changed by a three-quarters of the State Legislatures ratifying said amendment.


longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:23pm:

SCOTUS was there to prevent breaches of the constitution, not alter it at their wishes.

SCOTUS was there to interpret law as Jefferson stated later on. Do you know better than the Founders?
longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:23pm:

Not perfect by any means but USA Australia UK

The Supreme Court of the UK has no power to overturn legislation like SCOTUS and the High Court does.

This is the principle of 'parliamentary sovereignty' - that the Parliament is supreme.

The UK Parliament could pass a law tomorrow deporting all British Muslims and the Supreme Court would couldn't do a single thing.

If you ask me, the British have a better history of protecting civil rights of its subjects than America ever did.

So, in actual fact, having a Supreme Court doesn't necessarily mean that the country has a better system of 'rule of law'.

Aussie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:25pm:

Logical.....maybe....but there are many situations in Law where the position is that where something done by a person in a role....is not found totally invalid or void because that person was ineligible to do that something.

What the hell does that mean?

Panther wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:18pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:56pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:36pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 7:15am: he's a dinky die ridgy didge true blue fair dinkum Aussie - who happens to be a citizen of NZ. By the way So were all the others who had to resign, you think they should be recalled ???? We shall see how good our High Court is. I wish they would hurry up & make a judgement. Also - if the High Court chucks out all those people does it make the laws they voted for invalid? No. [font=Georgia][size=11][i]I agree, but I would think, based on the reasons the law exists in the first place, that all laws passed by a tainted government should, at least, be up for review.

Right. Policies like Obamacare should be invalid due to a government led by a tinted foreign monkey in a tree.

Hussein Obama's laws are up for review alright. Trump's going through them, one by one. He's making America great again one step at a time. First step, get rid of the gorilla. Second step, abandon his key policies.

Third step, incarcerate the Muslim scumbag and his paedophile witch Hillary. 

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:27pm:

And i make the same argument for being against an elected Head of State in an Australian Republic. If you are voted on, then you need to campaign. If you need to campaign then you need to make promises. Ergo, a politician. You cannot have a non-partisan, no-politician official that is voted in. It was a truly dumb idea. Fortunately, most of the rest of their ideas worked out well and are currently keeping the insane resident of the WH caged.

I totally agree with you on this point.

If we had a Republic, I would support an unelected President.

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:09pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:58pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:52pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:44pm: Hell no! The Supreme Court of the United States has completely exceeded its constitutional bounds. The judiciary's role is not to make laws; it's to interpret them. Another complaint about the SCOTUS is that it basically acts as a permanent constitutional council - Woodrow Wilson pretty well said as much when he was President. I much prefer the British system - the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: the Parliament reigns supreme. The judiciary is independent but has power to overturn legislation passed by the Parliament. That's how it should be. I remember a TV series called Alistair Cooke's America. He explained the Supreme Court so well. I wish I could find the quote. He had much praise for the founding Fathers of the USA who foresaw the need for a court that would change laws as it became necessary. It was sort of a built in redundancy so that silly laws could be changed. Absurdities can arise - I gave an example: hypothetical - President Putin decides that all Australian politicians are automatically Russian citizens - then by our law our whole Govt. would collapse over night. Incorrect, the Founding Fathers of the US did not create a Supreme Court for that purpose; that was never the original intention. The court decision which started the tradition of Judicial Review was Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 (???). This was the first decision in which the court struck down a law because it was repugnant to the Constitution. After the decision, Thomas Jefferson was appalled by the Supreme's Court ruling. He stated that the function of the Court SHOULD NOT be to determine matters related to the Constitution because it was open to abuse. not a lot of point in having a constitution if there is not a body that can uphold it. Russia and CHina all have constitutions that they regularly ignore simply because there is no one to uphold it. The American Constitution had many shortcomings. An alternative to giving the Supreme Court to determine constitutional issues is to establish a secondary court which rules solely on constitutional/bill of rights issues. Such a court would consist of judges or arbiters who held offices for a fixed term of 6 - 9 years (not re-eligible).

that is an efficiency measure and little else. But being americans they would ELECT their judges and so make them as partisan and corrupt as everyday politicians. What mindless insanity exists to ELECT judges on any court?

lovely lips wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:34pm:

Panther wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:18pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:56pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:36pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 7:15am: he's a dinky die ridgy didge true blue fair dinkum Aussie - who happens to be a citizen of NZ. By the way So were all the others who had to resign, you think they should be recalled ???? We shall see how good our High Court is. I wish they would hurry up & make a judgement. Also - if the High Court chucks out all those people does it make the laws they voted for invalid? No. [font=Georgia][size=11]I agree, but I would think, based on the reasons the law exists in the first place, that all laws passed by a tainted government should, at least, be up for review. Right. Policies like Obamacare should be invalid due to a government led by a tinted foreign monkey in a tree. Hussein Obama's laws are up for review alright. Trump's going through them, one by one. He's making America great again one step at a time. First step, get rid of the gorilla. Second step, abandon his key policies. Third step, incarcerate the Muslim scumbag.

Obamacare should've been unconstitutional because Congress has no power to make laws with respect to healthcare in the United States, but I see your point.

In fact, there is a judicial doctrine in America called [i]substantive due process in which the Court may overturn legislation if they believe it infringes on the rights of an individual.

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:31pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:23pm: but it did not change the immutable fact that only a vote of the people could alter the constitution. Incorrect, the Constitution of US can only be changed by a three-quarters of the State Legislatures ratifying said amendment. longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:23pm: SCOTUS was there to prevent breaches of the constitution, not alter it at their wishes. SCOTUS was there to interpret law as Jefferson stated later on. Do you know better than the Founders? longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:23pm: Not perfect by any means but USA Australia UK The Supreme Court of the UK has no power to overturn legislation like SCOTUS and the High Court does. This is the principle of 'parliamentary sovereignty' - that the Parliament is supreme. The UK Parliament could pass a law tomorrow deporting all British Muslims and the Supreme Court would couldn't do a single thing. If you ask me, the British have a better history of protecting civil rights of its subjects than America ever did. So, in actual fact, having a Supreme Court doesn't necessarily mean that the country has a better system of 'rule of law'.

Did not know that. Thanks. It does not however change my argument that SCOTUS does not and should not be able to alter the constitution.

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:32pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:25pm: Logical.....maybe....but there are many situations in Law where the position is that where something done by a person in a role....is not found totally invalid or void because that person was ineligible to do that something. What the hell does that mean?

What it says......for example, say a Board Member was found to be bankrupt and ineligible to be a Director under Corporate Law.....Board decisions made by the Board when he was there, are not invalidated.

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:37pm:

lovely lips wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:34pm: Panther wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:18pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:56pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:36pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 7:15am: he's a dinky die ridgy didge true blue fair dinkum Aussie - who happens to be a citizen of NZ. By the way So were all the others who had to resign, you think they should be recalled ???? We shall see how good our High Court is. I wish they would hurry up & make a judgement. Also - if the High Court chucks out all those people does it make the laws they voted for invalid? No. [font=Georgia][size=11]I agree, but I would think, based on the reasons the law exists in the first place, that all laws passed by a tainted government should, at least, be up for review. Right. Policies like Obamacare should be invalid due to a government led by a tinted foreign monkey in a tree. Hussein Obama's laws are up for review alright. Trump's going through them, one by one. He's making America great again one step at a time. First step, get rid of the gorilla. Second step, abandon his key policies. Third step, incarcerate the Muslim scumbag.  Obamacare should've been unconstitutional because Congress has no power to make laws with respect to healthcare in the United States, but I see your point. In fact, there is a judicial doctrine in America called [i]substantive due process in which the Court may overturn legislation if they believe it infringes on the rights of an individual.

and yet no one challenged it on that point despite the rabid right demanding that poor people should be denied basic healthcare.  Ive calling you on this one. You are wrong as events have proven.

This thread's the reason why we'll prevail. While you leftist dilettantes sit around discussing abstract legal principles, we're out on the streets of America, getting things done.

Good luck when we take over, scum.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:36pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:09pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:58pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:52pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:44pm: Hell no! The Supreme Court of the United States has completely exceeded its constitutional bounds. The judiciary's role is not to make laws; it's to interpret them. Another complaint about the SCOTUS is that it basically acts as a permanent constitutional council - Woodrow Wilson pretty well said as much when he was President. I much prefer the British system - the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: the Parliament reigns supreme. The judiciary is independent but has power to overturn legislation passed by the Parliament. That's how it should be. I remember a TV series called Alistair Cooke's America. He explained the Supreme Court so well. I wish I could find the quote. He had much praise for the founding Fathers of the USA who foresaw the need for a court that would change laws as it became necessary. It was sort of a built in redundancy so that silly laws could be changed. Absurdities can arise - I gave an example: hypothetical - President Putin decides that all Australian politicians are automatically Russian citizens - then by our law our whole Govt. would collapse over night. Incorrect, the Founding Fathers of the US did not create a Supreme Court for that purpose; that was never the original intention. The court decision which started the tradition of Judicial Review was Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 (???). This was the first decision in which the court struck down a law because it was repugnant to the Constitution. After the decision, Thomas Jefferson was appalled by the Supreme's Court ruling. He stated that the function of the Court SHOULD NOT be to determine matters related to the Constitution because it was open to abuse. not a lot of point in having a constitution if there is not a body that can uphold it. Russia and CHina all have constitutions that they regularly ignore simply because there is no one to uphold it. The American Constitution had many shortcomings. An alternative to giving the Supreme Court to determine constitutional issues is to establish a secondary court which rules solely on constitutional/bill of rights issues. Such a court would consist of judges or arbiters who held offices for a fixed term of 6 - 9 years (not re-eligible). that is an efficiency measure and little else. But being americans they would ELECT their judges and so make them as partisan and corrupt as everyday politicians. What mindless insanity exists to ELECT judges on any court?

This court wouldn't be elected; it would be appointed by the Government. The reason for having fixed terms is to ensure that the court is up to date; and to prevent the entrenchment of judges.

My overall preference would be to reform the High Court in the following manner:

1) there must be 6 judges on the Court, one from each State of the Commonwealth;

2) all rulings concerning inter se matters between the Commonwealth and the States must have UNANIMOUS consent (i.e. all judges must agree).

3) the Constitution should be amended to state that 'all powers of the Commonwealth' should not be construed as plenary or expansive powers, but powers limited in scope."

lovely lips wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:40pm:

This thread's the reason why we'll prevail. While you leftist dilettantes sit around discussing abstract legal principles, we're out on the streets of America, getting things done. Good luck when we take over, scum.

you are on the streets scurrying away from other protestors. You are getting sacked from your jobs and being publicly shamed on the internet.

You will always be there, but vermin are always difficult to eradicate.  Your superiors (pretty much anyone) will walk over your worthless corpses as you die having acheived nothing at all in your pitiful existence.

Quote:

and yet no one challenged it on that point despite the rabid right demanding that poor people should be denied basic healthcare.  Ive calling you on this one. You are wrong as events have proven.

No, it was challenged on that point: Conservatives argued that it was a power [correction: NOT a power] conferred to the Congress as per section 8 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court allowed the law based on Congress' power to tax and spend; BUT the law could not compel States to except the programme.

Aussie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:25pm:

Logical.....maybe....but there are many situations in Law where the position is that where something done by a person in a role....is not found totally invalid or void because that person was ineligible to do that something.

So then, the reason why they would be thrown out is solely because of being found to have dual-citizenship, but this dual-citizenship has nothing to do with what ramifications of dual-citizenship could have on years of legislation???

I agree, as I said previously, that the laws should not be invalidated, but I suggested all those laws should....at the very least.....be subject to review to ensure they weren't tainted.

If not....Then why the law?

Is the law merely established to punish, or was it hopefully designed to protect Australia from legislative harm.

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:42pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:36pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:09pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:58pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:52pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:44pm: Hell no! The Supreme Court of the United States has completely exceeded its constitutional bounds. The judiciary's role is not to make laws; it's to interpret them. Another complaint about the SCOTUS is that it basically acts as a permanent constitutional council - Woodrow Wilson pretty well said as much when he was President. I much prefer the British system - the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: the Parliament reigns supreme. The judiciary is independent but has power to overturn legislation passed by the Parliament. That's how it should be. I remember a TV series called Alistair Cooke's America. He explained the Supreme Court so well. I wish I could find the quote. He had much praise for the founding Fathers of the USA who foresaw the need for a court that would change laws as it became necessary. It was sort of a built in redundancy so that silly laws could be changed. Absurdities can arise - I gave an example: hypothetical - President Putin decides that all Australian politicians are automatically Russian citizens - then by our law our whole Govt. would collapse over night. Incorrect, the Founding Fathers of the US did not create a Supreme Court for that purpose; that was never the original intention. The court decision which started the tradition of Judicial Review was Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 (???). This was the first decision in which the court struck down a law because it was repugnant to the Constitution. After the decision, Thomas Jefferson was appalled by the Supreme's Court ruling. He stated that the function of the Court SHOULD NOT be to determine matters related to the Constitution because it was open to abuse. not a lot of point in having a constitution if there is not a body that can uphold it. Russia and CHina all have constitutions that they regularly ignore simply because there is no one to uphold it. The American Constitution had many shortcomings. An alternative to giving the Supreme Court to determine constitutional issues is to establish a secondary court which rules solely on constitutional/bill of rights issues. Such a court would consist of judges or arbiters who held offices for a fixed term of 6 - 9 years (not re-eligible). that is an efficiency measure and little else. But being americans they would ELECT their judges and so make them as partisan and corrupt as everyday politicians. What mindless insanity exists to ELECT judges on any court? This court wouldn't be elected; it would be appointed by the Government. The reason for having fixed terms is to ensure that the court is up to date; and to prevent the entrenchment of judges. My overall preference would be to reform the High Court in the following manner: 1) there must be 6 judges on the Court, one from each State of the Commonwealth; 2) all rulings concerning inter se matters between the Commonwealth and the States must have UNANIMOUS consent (i.e. all judges must agree). 3) the Constitution should be amended to state that 'all powers of the Commonwealth' should not be construed as plenary or expansive powers, but powers limited in scope."

Thats not bad, but I question 3). Is there a reason to change the constitution to do that? I am very much a fan of 'if it aint broke, dont fix it'. The same argument against a bill of rights as that will codify them and accidentally exclude others that we already have.  I dont see the american Bill of Rights as some kind of shining example. this is after all the nation of slavery and a civil rights movement.

lovely lips wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:40pm:

This thread's the reason why we'll prevail. While you leftist dilettantes sit around discussing abstract legal principles, we're out on the streets of America, getting things done. Good luck when we take over, scum.

Can I assume that you're in favour of a free-market solution to healthcare?

Panther wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:44pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:25pm: Logical.....maybe....but there are many situations in Law where the position is that where something done by a person in a role....is not found totally invalid or void because that person was ineligible to do that something. So then, the reason why they would be thrown out is solely because of being found to have dual-citizenship, but this dual-citizenship has nothing to do with what ramifications of dual-citizenship could have on years of legislation??? I agree, as I said previously, that the laws should not be invalidated, but I suggested all those laws should....at the very least.....be subject to review to ensure they weren't tainted. If not....Then why the law?

Reviewed by whom?  Parliament?  THEY DO THAT NOW.

by the way COngress didnt give Trump recess appointments. AS I PREDICTED!

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:45pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:42pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:36pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:09pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:58pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:52pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:44pm: Hell no! The Supreme Court of the United States has completely exceeded its constitutional bounds. The judiciary's role is not to make laws; it's to interpret them. Another complaint about the SCOTUS is that it basically acts as a permanent constitutional council - Woodrow Wilson pretty well said as much when he was President. I much prefer the British system - the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: the Parliament reigns supreme. The judiciary is independent but has power to overturn legislation passed by the Parliament. That's how it should be. I remember a TV series called Alistair Cooke's America. He explained the Supreme Court so well. I wish I could find the quote. He had much praise for the founding Fathers of the USA who foresaw the need for a court that would change laws as it became necessary. It was sort of a built in redundancy so that silly laws could be changed. Absurdities can arise - I gave an example: hypothetical - President Putin decides that all Australian politicians are automatically Russian citizens - then by our law our whole Govt. would collapse over night. Incorrect, the Founding Fathers of the US did not create a Supreme Court for that purpose; that was never the original intention. The court decision which started the tradition of Judicial Review was Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 (???). This was the first decision in which the court struck down a law because it was repugnant to the Constitution. After the decision, Thomas Jefferson was appalled by the Supreme's Court ruling. He stated that the function of the Court SHOULD NOT be to determine matters related to the Constitution because it was open to abuse. not a lot of point in having a constitution if there is not a body that can uphold it. Russia and CHina all have constitutions that they regularly ignore simply because there is no one to uphold it. The American Constitution had many shortcomings. An alternative to giving the Supreme Court to determine constitutional issues is to establish a secondary court which rules solely on constitutional/bill of rights issues. Such a court would consist of judges or arbiters who held offices for a fixed term of 6 - 9 years (not re-eligible). that is an efficiency measure and little else. But being americans they would ELECT their judges and so make them as partisan and corrupt as everyday politicians. What mindless insanity exists to ELECT judges on any court? This court wouldn't be elected; it would be appointed by the Government. The reason for having fixed terms is to ensure that the court is up to date; and to prevent the entrenchment of judges. My overall preference would be to reform the High Court in the following manner: 1) there must be 6 judges on the Court, one from each State of the Commonwealth; 2) all rulings concerning inter se matters between the Commonwealth and the States must have UNANIMOUS consent (i.e. all judges must agree). 3) the Constitution should be amended to state that 'all powers of the Commonwealth' should not be construed as plenary or expansive powers, but powers limited in scope." Thats not bad, but I question 3). Is there a reason to change the constitution to do that? I am very much a fan of 'if it aint broke, dont fix it'. The same argument against a bill of rights as that will codify them and accidentally exclude others that we already have.  I dont see the american Bill of Rights as some kind of shining example. this is after all the nation of slavery and a civil rights movement.

I only included no 3) because I'm a Federalist, and the purpose of the clause is to secure the rights of the States. But, I agree that most Australians are not ardent federalists.

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:46pm:

lovely lips wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:40pm: This thread's the reason why we'll prevail. While you leftist dilettantes sit around discussing abstract legal principles, we're out on the streets of America, getting things done. Good luck when we take over, scum. Can I assume that you're in favour of a free-market solution to healthcare?

Dont even bother to respond to that racist nazi clone.  He is just another of Mechanics 'socks'.  Small minds and smaller penises need to invent people to support them.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:42pm:

You will always be there, but vermin are always difficult to eradicate.  Your superiors (pretty much anyone) will walk over your worthless corpses as you die having acheived nothing at all in your pitiful existence.

Great sentiments there, Longweekend. Ever thought of joining us?

Panther wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:44pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:25pm: Logical.....maybe....but there are many situations in Law where the position is that where something done by a person in a role....is not found totally invalid or void because that person was ineligible to do that something. So then, the reason why they would be thrown out is solely because of being found to have dual-citizenship, but this dual-citizenship has nothing to do with what ramifications of dual-citizenship could have on years of legislation??? I agree, as I said previously, that the laws should not be invalidated, but I suggested all those laws should....at the very least.....be subject to review to ensure they weren't tainted. If not....Then why the law? Is the law merely established to punish, or was it hopefully designed to protect Australia from legislative harm.

Logically, and even theoretically , I'll go with your 'review' position.....but it is fraught in practical problems of rights having been given and acted upon, potentially being removed.  Take legislation on SSM as an example. (Do I have to spell that out?)

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:47pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:45pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:42pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:36pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:09pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:58pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:52pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:44pm: Hell no! The Supreme Court of the United States has completely exceeded its constitutional bounds. The judiciary's role is not to make laws; it's to interpret them. Another complaint about the SCOTUS is that it basically acts as a permanent constitutional council - Woodrow Wilson pretty well said as much when he was President. I much prefer the British system - the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: the Parliament reigns supreme. The judiciary is independent but has power to overturn legislation passed by the Parliament. That's how it should be. I remember a TV series called Alistair Cooke's America. He explained the Supreme Court so well. I wish I could find the quote. He had much praise for the founding Fathers of the USA who foresaw the need for a court that would change laws as it became necessary. It was sort of a built in redundancy so that silly laws could be changed. Absurdities can arise - I gave an example: hypothetical - President Putin decides that all Australian politicians are automatically Russian citizens - then by our law our whole Govt. would collapse over night. Incorrect, the Founding Fathers of the US did not create a Supreme Court for that purpose; that was never the original intention. The court decision which started the tradition of Judicial Review was Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 (???). This was the first decision in which the court struck down a law because it was repugnant to the Constitution. After the decision, Thomas Jefferson was appalled by the Supreme's Court ruling. He stated that the function of the Court SHOULD NOT be to determine matters related to the Constitution because it was open to abuse. not a lot of point in having a constitution if there is not a body that can uphold it. Russia and CHina all have constitutions that they regularly ignore simply because there is no one to uphold it. The American Constitution had many shortcomings. An alternative to giving the Supreme Court to determine constitutional issues is to establish a secondary court which rules solely on constitutional/bill of rights issues. Such a court would consist of judges or arbiters who held offices for a fixed term of 6 - 9 years (not re-eligible). that is an efficiency measure and little else. But being americans they would ELECT their judges and so make them as partisan and corrupt as everyday politicians. What mindless insanity exists to ELECT judges on any court? This court wouldn't be elected; it would be appointed by the Government. The reason for having fixed terms is to ensure that the court is up to date; and to prevent the entrenchment of judges. My overall preference would be to reform the High Court in the following manner: 1) there must be 6 judges on the Court, one from each State of the Commonwealth; 2) all rulings concerning inter se matters between the Commonwealth and the States must have UNANIMOUS consent (i.e. all judges must agree). 3) the Constitution should be amended to state that 'all powers of the Commonwealth' should not be construed as plenary or expansive powers, but powers limited in scope." Thats not bad, but I question 3). Is there a reason to change the constitution to do that? I am very much a fan of 'if it aint broke, dont fix it'. The same argument against a bill of rights as that will codify them and accidentally exclude others that we already have.  I dont see the american Bill of Rights as some kind of shining example. this is after all the nation of slavery and a civil rights movement. I only included no 3) because I'm a Federalist, and the purpose of the clause is to secure the rights of the States. But, I agree that most Australians are not ardent federalists.

I am no fan of State Governments but I support them simply because the alternative is far worse. Anyone who lives outside of Sydney and Melbourne knows that int he mind of Canberra, there are only two cities and two states in Australia. If states were removed there would be a Deputy Prime Minister responsible for Sydney, a Cabinet minister for Melbourne, an assistant minister for QLD, a deputy dept head for SA and WA. NT and TAS would have to settle for a mid-level official with no actual authority.

THATS WHY.

Aussie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:38pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:32pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:25pm: Logical.....maybe....but there are many situations in Law where the position is that where something done by a person in a role....is not found totally invalid or void because that person was ineligible to do that something. What the hell does that mean? What it says......for example, say a Board Member was found to be bankrupt and ineligible to be a Director under Corporate Law.....Board decisions made by the Board when he was there, are not invalidated.

Unless a law is made with retroactive effect?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:47pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:46pm: lovely lips wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:40pm: This thread's the reason why we'll prevail. While you leftist dilettantes sit around discussing abstract legal principles, we're out on the streets of America, getting things done. Good luck when we take over, scum. Can I assume that you're in favour of a free-market solution to healthcare? Dont even bother to respond to that racist nazi clone.  He is just another of Mechanics 'socks'.  Small minds and smaller penises need to invent people to support them.

:-X

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:46pm:

lovely lips wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:40pm: This thread's the reason why we'll prevail. While you leftist dilettantes sit around discussing abstract legal principles, we're out on the streets of America, getting things done. Good luck when we take over, scum. Can I assume that you're in favour of a free-market solution to healthcare?

Don't assume anything. I'm in favour of a free-market that looks after its own. Thanks to Obamacare, decent white people now have to pay for the blacks' medical marijuana.

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:50pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:38pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:32pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:25pm: Logical.....maybe....but there are many situations in Law where the position is that where something done by a person in a role....is not found totally invalid or void because that person was ineligible to do that something. What the hell does that mean? What it says......for example, say a Board Member was found to be bankrupt and ineligible to be a Director under Corporate Law.....Board decisions made by the Board when he was there, are not invalidated. Unless a law is made with retroactive effect?

See my reply to Panther.

Quote:

I am no fan of State Governments but I support them simply because the alternative is far worse. Anyone who lives outside of Sydney and Melbourne knows that int he mind of Canberra, there are only two cities and two states in Australia. If states were removed there would be a Deputy Prime Minister responsible for Sydney, a Cabinet minister for Melbourne, an assistant minister for QLD, a deputy dept head for SA and WA. NT and TAS would have to settle for a mid-level official with no actual authority. THATS WHY.

Correct. In my view, the best argument for federalism is that it's easier to gain the consensus of 7 million (in the case of NSW) than it is to gain the consensus of 24 million Aussies. Also, federalism allows for experimentation of policy at a local level where the effect more controlled and less devastating.

I was reading the Constitutional Convention debates today, and noticed that the Framers of our Constitution actually discussed giving the Commonwealth the power to make laws concerning irrigation in relation to the River Murray; but was ultimately abandoned. Even though I'm a federalist, I think that any issue involving more than one State should be (but subject to limitation) within the guise of the Federation.

lovely lips wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:51pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:46pm: lovely lips wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:40pm: This thread's the reason why we'll prevail. While you leftist dilettantes sit around discussing abstract legal principles, we're out on the streets of America, getting things done. Good luck when we take over, scum. Can I assume that you're in favour of a free-market solution to healthcare? Don't assume anything. I'm in favour of a free-market that looks after its own. Thanks to Obamacare, decent white people now have to pay for the blacks' medical marijuana.

Right. Another racist on the Forum... Great...

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:55pm:

lovely lips wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:51pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:46pm: lovely lips wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:40pm: This thread's the reason why we'll prevail. While you leftist dilettantes sit around discussing abstract legal principles, we're out on the streets of America, getting things done. Good luck when we take over, scum. Can I assume that you're in favour of a free-market solution to healthcare? Don't assume anything. I'm in favour of a free-market that looks after its own. Thanks to Obamacare, decent white people now have to pay for the blacks' medical marijuana. Right. Another racist on the Forum... Great...

Don't shoot the messenger, it's just a fact. If companies have to insure a whole lot of useless deadbeats, who do you think they're going to charge?

Whitey always ends up footing the bill.

Not anymore. We've finally got a president who's prepared to stand up for us.

Aussie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:50pm:

Panther wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:44pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:25pm: Logical.....maybe....but there are many situations in Law where the position is that where something done by a person in a role....is not found totally invalid or void because that person was ineligible to do that something. So then, the reason why they would be thrown out is solely because of being found to have dual-citizenship, but this dual-citizenship has nothing to do with what ramifications of dual-citizenship could have on years of legislation??? I agree, as I said previously, that the laws should not be invalidated, but I suggested all those laws should....at the very least.....be subject to review to ensure they weren't tainted. If not....Then why the law? Is the law merely established to punish, or was it hopefully designed to protect Australia from legislative harm. Logically, and even theoretically , I'll go with your 'review' position.....but it is fraught in practical problems of rights having been given and acted upon, potentially being removed.  Take legislation on SSM as an example. (Do I have to spell that out?)

So no review because of the potential reversal of legislation, considered by some as good or beneficial?

The court's only charge would be to prove beyond doubt that legislation was corrupted by agents acting in behalf of a foreign government or power.... who's best interests in this legislation would be served to Australia's detriment, by the passage of the legislation.

Without such undeniable proof of external interference, the legislation would have to stand. 

That's a threat to Australia?

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:58pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:52pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:44pm: Hell no! The Supreme Court of the United States has completely exceeded its constitutional bounds. The judiciary's role is not to make laws; it's to interpret them. Another complaint about the SCOTUS is that it basically acts as a permanent constitutional council - Woodrow Wilson pretty well said as much when he was President. I much prefer the British system - the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: the Parliament reigns supreme. The judiciary is independent but has power to overturn legislation passed by the Parliament. That's how it should be. I remember a TV series called Alistair Cooke's America. He explained the Supreme Court so well. I wish I could find the quote. He had much praise for the founding Fathers of the USA who foresaw the need for a court that would change laws as it became necessary. It was sort of a built in redundancy so that silly laws could be changed. Absurdities can arise - I gave an example: hypothetical - President Putin decides that all Australian politicians are automatically Russian citizens - then by our law our whole Govt. would collapse over night. Incorrect, the Founding Fathers of the US did not create a Supreme Court for that purpose; that was never the original intention. The court decision which started the tradition of Judicial Review was Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 (???). This was the first decision in which the court struck down a law because it was repugnant to the Constitution. After the decision, Thomas Jefferson was appalled by the Supreme's Court ruling. He stated that the function of the Court SHOULD NOT be to determine matters related to the Constitution because it was open to abuse.

Did you see the TV series Alistair Cooke's America or
read the book?
I had a friend who is an American historian & they thought very highly of that book.
I am not so qualified to give such an opinion & I admit it.

http://www.parnassusbooks.com/image/cache/data/books/2015/11/0_013-500x500.jpg

Alistair Cooke's America
4.07 (325 ratings by Goodreads)

    Paperback English

By (author)  Alistair Cooke   

Now regarded as a classic, Alistair Cooke's America is an intimate portrait of the nation, and an irresistibly readable guide to what has made this powerful democracy work and survive through the years. For over sixty years Alistair Cooke wrote and broadcast on every facet of American life with incomparable wit and wisdom. This is his 'personal history' of America, the bestselling book that accompanied his legendary television series, with full colour photos alongside the text. Beginning with the controversial discovery of America, Alistair Cooke writes with engaging wit and wisdom about the explorers who put their new-found land on the map, the pioneers who tamed the Wild West, the soldier who fought for independence and the tycoons who built fortunes. From the Mayflower to the gold rush, the Jazz Age to Pearl Harbor, with portraits of figures as varied as Buffalo Bill, John D. Rockefeller and Martin Luther King, here is the American story in all its triumphs and failures, grandeurs and tragedies. 'Cooke was the special relationship' Daily Mail 'Civilized, literate, rational, graceful, humane' New York Magazine Alistair Cooke (1908-2004) enjoyed an extraordinary life in print, radio and television. The Guardian's Senior Correspondent in New York for twenty-five years and the host of groundbreaking cultural programmes on American television and of the BBC series America, Cooke was, however, best known both at home and abroad for his weekly BBC broadcast Letter from America, which reported on fifty-eight years of US life, was heard over five continents and totalled 2,869 broadcasts before his retirement in February 2004, far and away the longest-running radio series in broadcasting history.

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 5:08pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:52pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:44pm: Hell no! The Supreme Court of the United States has completely exceeded its constitutional bounds. The judiciary's role is not to make laws; it's to interpret them. Another complaint about the SCOTUS is that it basically acts as a permanent constitutional council - Woodrow Wilson pretty well said as much when he was President. I much prefer the British system - the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: the Parliament reigns supreme. The judiciary is independent but has power to overturn legislation passed by the Parliament. That's how it should be. I remember a TV series called Alistair Cooke's America. He explained the Supreme Court so well. I wish I could find the quote. He had much praise for the founding Fathers of the USA who foresaw the need for a court that would change laws as it became necessary. It was sort of a built in redundancy so that silly laws could be changed. Absurdities can arise - I gave an example: hypothetical - President Putin decides that all Australian politicians are automatically Russian citizens - then by our law our whole Govt. would collapse over night. why do you persist in repeating STUPID CRAP????  You've already had it explained to you that SCOTUS does not make law. Nor does it invalidate law with the singular exception of when it conflicts with an existing superior law or the constitution. It is the legal UMPIRE, not a law-maker. Persisting in your stupidity does not improve your already poor record for being dumb. Factually not correct, longy. The Supreme Court was considered by Woodrow Wilson to be a 'permanent Constitution council' to revise the Constitution as they believed fit. When the Supreme Court made the decision in favour of 'separate but equal' facilities for blacks and whites, was it interpreting the Constitution or making laws? Don't forget this was after the Civil War and the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. 50 years later said Supreme Court overturned the decision in Brown vs. Board of Education.

Thanks for correcting Longy -
the self professed expert on everything even American law.

Bobby, American Supreme Court is still not better than our high court.

I believe in the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.

Quote:

American Supreme Court is better ....

Than a toaster in the bath tub ?

Auggie wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 1:11pm:

Bobby, American Supreme Court is still not better than our high court. I believe in the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.

I dont. I really, really like the idea of a non-political, unelected body with the ability to strike down unconstiutional laws. I dont think trusting pollies is necessarily a good idea.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 4:29pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 1:11pm: Bobby, American Supreme Court is still not better than our high court. I believe in the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. I dont. I really, really like the idea of a non-political, unelected body with the ability to strike down unconstiutional laws. I dont think trusting pollies is necessarily a good idea.

You cannot remove or elect the justices; you can elect politicians.

Auggie wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 4:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 4:29pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 1:11pm: Bobby, American Supreme Court is still not better than our high court. I believe in the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. I dont. I really, really like the idea of a non-political, unelected body with the ability to strike down unconstiutional laws. I dont think trusting pollies is necessarily a good idea. You cannot remove or elect the justices; you can elect politicians.

You say that like it is a bad thing. If they are elected, they can (and often are) compromised and owe allegiance to a party and an ideology rather than the law and constitution. Elected judges is a incredibly dumb idea and the American experience underscores that. The Australian experience of the High Court is an extremely good one. The US supreme court no so much largely because political ideology trumps every other consideration for most americans and so the idea of a judge ruling on the law and the law alone is sadly, uncommon.

I used to bemoan Australian political disinterest and lack of engagement. Given how much better our society operates than in USA, I wonder if that might have been one of the reasons: that politics is necessary but also very poisonous, so limit the exposure to it.

Auggie wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 1:11pm:

Bobby, American Supreme Court is still not better than our high court. I believe in the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.

I like the idea of a Supreme Court that can change stupid laws
that our politicians have made especially when they relate
to absurdities and unintended consequences.

You really should read Alistair Cooke's book
or maybe there are episodes on YouTube?
I'll have a look.
He explains it all so well.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 4:59pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 1:11pm: Bobby, American Supreme Court is still not better than our high court. I believe in the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. I like the idea of a Supreme Court that can change stupid laws that our politicians have made especially when they relate to absurdities and unintended consequences. You really should read Alistair Cooke's book or maybe there are episodes on YouTube? I'll have a look. He explains it all so well.

fortunately there are enough clever people around to stop the incredibly stupid ideas of a simpleton like you.

For instance, how do you define 'stupid laws'? By the opinions of a stupid person like you?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 5:01pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 4:59pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 1:11pm: Bobby, American Supreme Court is still not better than our high court. I believe in the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. I like the idea of a Supreme Court that can change stupid laws that our politicians have made especially when they relate to absurdities and unintended consequences. You really should read Alistair Cooke's book or maybe there are episodes on YouTube? I'll have a look. He explains it all so well. fortunately there are enough clever people around to stop the incredibly stupid ideas of a simpleton like you. For instance, how do you define 'stupid laws'? By the opinions of a stupid person like you?

Have you read  Alistair Cooke's book?

Longy - you're not an expert on American history or
American constitutional law.

None of us here are -
that's why I appeal to authority.
I am not so arrogant as you to assume that I know everything.

You are forgiven for your ad hominem insults.

namaste

http://www.parnassusbooks.com/image/cache/data/books/2015/11/0_013-500x500.jpg

Alistair Cooke's America
4.07 (325 ratings by Goodreads)

    Paperback English

By (author)  Alistair Cooke   

Now regarded as a classic, Alistair Cooke's America is an intimate portrait of the nation, and an irresistibly readable guide to what has made this powerful democracy work and survive through the years. For over sixty years Alistair Cooke wrote and broadcast on every facet of American life with incomparable wit and wisdom. This is his 'personal history' of America, the bestselling book that accompanied his legendary television series, with full colour photos alongside the text. Beginning with the controversial discovery of America, Alistair Cooke writes with engaging wit and wisdom about the explorers who put their new-found land on the map, the pioneers who tamed the Wild West, the soldier who fought for independence and the tycoons who built fortunes. From the Mayflower to the gold rush, the Jazz Age to Pearl Harbor, with portraits of figures as varied as Buffalo Bill, John D. Rockefeller and Martin Luther King, here is the American story in all its triumphs and failures, grandeurs and tragedies. 'Cooke was the special relationship' Daily Mail 'Civilized, literate, rational, graceful, humane' New York Magazine Alistair Cooke (1908-2004) enjoyed an extraordinary life in print, radio and television. The Guardian's Senior Correspondent in New York for twenty-five years and the host of groundbreaking cultural programmes on American television and of the BBC series America, Cooke was, however, best known both at home and abroad for his weekly BBC broadcast Letter from America, which reported on fifty-eight years of US life, was heard over five continents and totalled 2,869 broadcasts before his retirement in February 2004, far and away the longest-running radio series in broadcasting history.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 4:53pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 4:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 4:29pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 1:11pm: Bobby, American Supreme Court is still not better than our high court. I believe in the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. I dont. I really, really like the idea of a non-political, unelected body with the ability to strike down unconstiutional laws. I dont think trusting pollies is necessarily a good idea. You cannot remove or elect the justices; you can elect politicians. You say that like it is a bad thing. If they are elected, they can (and often are) compromised and owe allegiance to a party and an ideology rather than the law and constitution. Elected judges is a incredibly dumb idea and the American experience underscores that. The Australian experience of the High Court is an extremely good one. The US supreme court no so much largely because political ideology trumps every other consideration for most americans and so the idea of a judge ruling on the law and the law alone is sadly, uncommon. I used to bemoan Australian political disinterest and lack of engagement. Given how much better our society operates than in USA, I wonder if that might have been one of the reasons: that politics is necessary but also very poisonous, so limit the exposure to it.

That's because we didn't cast off the yoke of the British.

I certainly don't approve of elected justices. I just don't approve of a court that can decide on constitutional matters unless there are more checks and balances.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 5:12pm:

http://www.parnassusbooks.com/image/cache/data/books/2015/11/0_013-500x500.jpg Alistair Cooke's America 4.07 (325 ratings by Goodreads)     Paperback English By (author)  Alistair Cooke    Now regarded as a classic, Alistair Cooke's America is an intimate portrait of the nation, and an irresistibly readable guide to what has made this powerful democracy work and survive through the years. For over sixty years Alistair Cooke wrote and broadcast on every facet of American life with incomparable wit and wisdom. This is his 'personal history' of America, the bestselling book that accompanied his legendary television series, with full colour photos alongside the text. Beginning with the controversial discovery of America, Alistair Cooke writes with engaging wit and wisdom about the explorers who put their new-found land on the map, the pioneers who tamed the Wild West, the soldier who fought for independence and the tycoons who built fortunes. From the Mayflower to the gold rush, the Jazz Age to Pearl Harbor, with portraits of figures as varied as Buffalo Bill, John D. Rockefeller and Martin Luther King, here is the American story in all its triumphs and failures, grandeurs and tragedies. 'Cooke was the special relationship' Daily Mail 'Civilized, literate, rational, graceful, humane' New York Magazine Alistair Cooke (1908-2004) enjoyed an extraordinary life in print, radio and television. The Guardian's Senior Correspondent in New York for twenty-five years and the host of groundbreaking cultural programmes on American television and of the BBC series America, Cooke was, however, best known both at home and abroad for his weekly BBC broadcast Letter from America, which reported on fifty-eight years of US life, was heard over five continents and totalled 2,869 broadcasts before his retirement in February 2004, far and away the longest-running radio series in broadcasting history.

This is just 'fawning' over the Americans. They're system of government has many flaws, although if they adopted my proposals, it would be much better.

Auggie wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 5:28pm:

This is just 'fawning' over the Americans. They're system of government has many flaws, although if they adopted my proposals, it would be much better.

So you know more than the founding Fathers of the USA?

They set up the whole political system by taking the best parts from many other democratic systems.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 5:30pm:

So you know more than the founding Fathers of the USA?

Yes, because I have the benefit of hindsight, they didn't.

Auggie wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 5:31pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 5:30pm: So you know more than the founding Fathers of the USA? Yes, because I have the benefit of hindsight, they didn't.

They set up a democratic nation that now rules the world &
that other nations try to emulate.

Auggie wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 4:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 4:29pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 1:11pm: Bobby, American Supreme Court is still not better than our high court. I believe in the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. I dont. I really, really like the idea of a non-political, unelected body with the ability to strike down unconstiutional laws. I dont think trusting pollies is necessarily a good idea. You cannot remove or elect the justices; you can elect politicians.

actually you can. IN australia it is a 2/3 majority of the House and in the USA it is via impeachment. it has also actually been done.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 5:51pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 4:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 4:29pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 1:11pm: Bobby, American Supreme Court is still not better than our high court. I believe in the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. I dont. I really, really like the idea of a non-political, unelected body with the ability to strike down unconstiutional laws. I dont think trusting pollies is necessarily a good idea. You cannot remove or elect the justices; you can elect politicians. actually you can. IN australia it is a 2/3 majority of the House and in the USA it is via impeachment. it has also actually been done.

The instances in which it has been done in either case is extremely rare. Besides that is not enough of a check in my view.

Auggie wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 5:58pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 5:51pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 4:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 4:29pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 1:11pm: Bobby, American Supreme Court is still not better than our high court. I believe in the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. I dont. I really, really like the idea of a non-political, unelected body with the ability to strike down unconstiutional laws. I dont think trusting pollies is necessarily a good idea. You cannot remove or elect the justices; you can elect politicians. actually you can. IN australia it is a 2/3 majority of the House and in the USA it is via impeachment. it has also actually been done. The instances in which it has been done in either case is extremely rare. Besides that is not enough of a check in my view.

The SCOTUS and AUstralian High Court are there to act as a protector against executive and parliamentary over-reach. Naturally, the process to remove them needs to be difficult, but not impossible. The fact that it can and has been done proves that point. I'm not sure why you are so enamoured by parliaments and prime ministers or for that matters, Presidents. These checks and balances were put in place to specifically address idiots like Trump and the potential for fools and traitors in our own government. I think our High Court has acted very very well and in defence of nothing more than the constitution and arbiting issues of law.  What more could you want?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 6:01pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 5:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 5:51pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 4:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 4:29pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 1:11pm: Bobby, American Supreme Court is still not better than our high court. I believe in the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. I dont. I really, really like the idea of a non-political, unelected body with the ability to strike down unconstiutional laws. I dont think trusting pollies is necessarily a good idea. You cannot remove or elect the justices; you can elect politicians. actually you can. IN australia it is a 2/3 majority of the House and in the USA it is via impeachment. it has also actually been done. The instances in which it has been done in either case is extremely rare. Besides that is not enough of a check in my view. The SCOTUS and AUstralian High Court are there to act as a protector against executive and parliamentary over-reach. Naturally, the process to remove them needs to be difficult, but not impossible. The fact that it can and has been done proves that point. I'm not sure why you are so enamoured by parliaments and prime ministers or for that matters, Presidents. These checks and balances were put in place to specifically address idiots like Trump and the potential for fools and traitors in our own government. I think our High Court has acted very very well and in defence of nothing more than the constitution and arbiting issues of law.  What more could you want?

Britain doesn't have any such court and hasn't never had.

What I what is safeguards in place to protect the states.

Auggie wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 6:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 6:01pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 5:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 5:51pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 4:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 4:29pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 1:11pm: Bobby, American Supreme Court is still not better than our high court. I believe in the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. I dont. I really, really like the idea of a non-political, unelected body with the ability to strike down unconstiutional laws. I dont think trusting pollies is necessarily a good idea. You cannot remove or elect the justices; you can elect politicians. actually you can. IN australia it is a 2/3 majority of the House and in the USA it is via impeachment. it has also actually been done. The instances in which it has been done in either case is extremely rare. Besides that is not enough of a check in my view. The SCOTUS and AUstralian High Court are there to act as a protector against executive and parliamentary over-reach. Naturally, the process to remove them needs to be difficult, but not impossible. The fact that it can and has been done proves that point. I'm not sure why you are so enamoured by parliaments and prime ministers or for that matters, Presidents. These checks and balances were put in place to specifically address idiots like Trump and the potential for fools and traitors in our own government. I think our High Court has acted very very well and in defence of nothing more than the constitution and arbiting issues of law.  What more could you want? Britain doesn't have any such court and hasn't never had. What I what is safeguards in place to protect the states.

why? what makes states so 'awesome' that they need such special protection? State governments are the only group that makes federal govt look competent and efficient. They are ghastly and while I believe we need them, lets not laud them or the tribalism they embrace as worthy of much support.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 6:07pm:

They are ghastly and while I believe we need them,

why? we'd be much better served abolishing the states, and having only a regional and federal govt.

bump



bump

John Smith wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 6:35pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 6:07pm: They are ghastly and while I believe we need them, why? we'd be much better served abolishing the states, and having only a regional and federal govt.

and local councils spend more time on rainbow flags and australia day arguments and are actually LESS competent than state governments. 

no state govts is great if you live in sydney, but outside of there, you would be lucky to be remembered, nevermind, supported.

regional, not local.

It's not like states don't waste a lot of money or develop their own rainbow causes.

John Smith wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 6:56pm:

regional, not local. It's not like states don't waste a lot of money or develop their own rainbow causes.

And you dont think that Sydney will get first dibs on money, resources or even, interest?  State governments at least mean that their state gets action and interest.  Without the state govt, TAS might as will secede and if they did, Canberra might not even notice.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 7:05pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 6:56pm: regional, not local. It's not like states don't waste a lot of money or develop their own rainbow causes. And you dont think that Sydney will get first dibs on money, resources or even, interest?  State governments at least mean that their state gets action and interest.  Without the state govt, TAS might as will secede and if they did, Canberra might not even notice.

How come WA gets only 33% of the GST they collect?

Bobby. wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 8:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 7:05pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 6:56pm: regional, not local. It's not like states don't waste a lot of money or develop their own rainbow causes. And you dont think that Sydney will get first dibs on money, resources or even, interest?  State governments at least mean that their state gets action and interest.  Without the state govt, TAS might as will secede and if they did, Canberra might not even notice. How come WA gets only 33% of the GST they collect?

It's called fiscal equalisation.