Australian Politics Forum - Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship

Auggie Gold Member Offline The Bull Moose Posts: 8571	Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship Reply #135 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 8:24pm You've been brainwashed, Aussie.
Back to top	The Progressive President IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38535
Gender: male

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #136 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 8:29pm

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 58234
Here
Gender: male

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #137 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 8:34pm

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

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

Quote:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 44
Disqualification
               Any person who:
                  (i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 45
Vacancy on happening of disqualification
               If a senator or member of the House of Representatives:
                  (i) becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the last preceding section; or

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #138 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 8:43pm

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #139 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 8:44pm

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not in pain.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 58234
Here
Gender: male

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #140 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 8:48pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #141 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 8:51pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 103346
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #142 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 8:52pm

Quote:

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

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38535
Gender: male

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #143 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 8:53pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #144 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:01pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is about 'rule of law'.

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

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38535 Gender:	Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship Reply #145 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:03pm Quote: why didn't the High Court just speak the facts, and let the people the decide? You'll have to clarify that.
Back to top	IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #146 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:08pm

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

Quote:

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

You'll have to clarify that.

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

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

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

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38535
Gender: male

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #147 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:14pm

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

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

Quote:

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

You'll have to clarify that.

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38535 Gender:	Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship Reply #148 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:16pm ....and it is not the function of the High Court to do what you say. Its function is to interpret the Constitution, not manipulate the political agenda.
Back to top	IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #149 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:17pm

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

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

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

Quote:

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

You'll have to clarify that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged