Australian Politics Forum - Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #150 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:18pm

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

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

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

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

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38553
Gender: male

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #151 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:24pm

Auggie wrote on 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.

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38553
Gender: male

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #152 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:25pm

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

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

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

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

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

Cite the cases.

Back to top

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #153 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:30pm

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

Auggie wrote on 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.

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

By a referendum.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #154 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:32pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite the cases.

Engineers case
ABC case regarding free speech ; Lange vs ABC

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38553
Gender: male

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #155 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:34pm

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

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

Auggie wrote on 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.

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

By a referendum.

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38553
Gender: male

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #156 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:37pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite the cases.

Engineers case
ABC case regarding free speech ; Lange vs ABC

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #157 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:41pm

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

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

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

Auggie wrote on 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.

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

By a referendum.

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

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

Or

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

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #158 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:44pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite the cases.

Engineers case
ABC case regarding free speech ; Lange vs ABC

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

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

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

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38553
Gender: male

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #159 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:49pm

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Auggie Gold Member Offline The Bull Moose Posts: 8571	Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship Reply #160 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:50pm The Constitution contains no implicit right to free speech or to free anything. This was the court trying to expand its power and push an agenda to check the government - something it has no power to do.
Back to top	The Progressive President IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #161 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:51pm

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38553
Gender: male

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #162 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 9:53pm

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

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

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

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

Auggie wrote on 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.

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

By a referendum.

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

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

Or

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

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship
Reply #163 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 10:22pm

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

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

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

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

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

Auggie wrote on 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.

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

By a referendum.

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

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

Or

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

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

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

Question: who is Australia's Head of State?

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Hoss Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 761 talbot victoria Gender:	Re: Joyce renounces NZ Citizenship Reply #164 - Aug 17^th, 2017 at 6:12am HI ALL is now gone hews Joyce should not be there at all? Just because the British citizenship is now gone does not mean that he was not over all other elections he has been through.
Back to top	Old n get radicalized by government IP Logged