It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Who is Danny Nalliah and what is Rise up Australia?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 03:39 AM

Originally posted by nothingwrong

Originally posted by Anusuia
reply to post by richard42smith

why were they left out of the constitution in the first place ?

Australia doesn't have a constitution.

It has a sort of unofficial one about only drinking tiny bottles of beer, never going in an art gallery, and enforcing a rubbish singer-songwriter playing guitar in the backroom of every pub.

I jest. But actually it does have one.

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:56 AM
reply to post by hellobruce

It specifically stated that they shouldn't be counted when the population of a state was determined. This is generally perceived today as having been "racist", in the sense that we were leaving them out because we didn't view them as equals. What Mr McMurtrie proposes, and I can't see a logical/legal error, is that the settlers, in the absence of any treaty, simply had no right at all under international law to make laws for the nations that were already here.

This clause was repealed by a referendum along with another clause that specifically gave the government the right to make different laws for people of different races but NOT for the aboriginal people.

The question is of whether the "aboriginals" are essentially a defeated/colonised people who have been subsumed into the "commonwealth" by force or whether they remain independent nations, in which case, the absence of any treaty with them allowing "us" to be here is a bit of a problem in international law.

Of course, if the constitution of the Commonwealth worked the way it was intended to then maybe they'd be happy to be a part of it.

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 07:11 AM
reply to post by nothingwrong

Australia has what is possibly the single greatest constitution ever written - it was created as a Commonwealth, which means that every Australian is supposed to be an equal shareholder in the whole country and there is nobody above them. They are effectively the "sovereigns" of the land.

There is literally nobody more important (on Earth) than an Australian and there is certainly nobody in Australia who is any more important than any other.

Sadly, of course, the maniacal powers that presently prevail in the world couldn't allow such a situation to stand and so have effected to steal control of the country by their usual nefarious tactics, including, of course, doing their best to stop the average Australian from ever bothering to read the constitution.

If too many people read it and started to actually think about what it really means might start asking too many questions and they don't want that. But actually, lots of people *are* beginning to ask questions about it.

The political parties (the puppets on the left and right hands of the same puppeteer) and all the multinational businesses that get filthy rich here think that they own Australia, but they don't - the Australian people do.

Recommended reading:
edit on 22-2-2013 by richard42smith because: typo

edit on 22-2-2013 by richard42smith because: ditto

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:23 AM
reply to post by richard42smith

I don't agree with this assessment of the Australian Constitution. There is no bill of rights in the Australian Constitution, as there is in the USA; We have a right to trial by jury for indictable offences (section 80), however the parliament can change what offences are indictable.

The right to vote in section 41 was a transitional provision, guaranteeing a right to vote for those who had already been granted such right to vote in state / colonial elections.

I do agree with your assessment that the Constitution has been bastardized though. This country was supposed to be be a federal system with strong states; the power and responsibilities of the federal government was supposed to be limited by the constitution; most of the powers are contained in section 51.

s 51 (xxvi) is the controversial race power.

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

" (xxvi) the people of any race , other than the aboriginal race in any State>, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;"

It has been interpreted very broadly by the courts. The words 'deemed necessary' means that the law need not actually be necessary, parliament just needs to deem it necessary.

This power was amended by referendum to remove the constraint on making laws for aboriginal peoples, not the other way around as was suggested by another poster.
This provision was originally enacted with the intent of allowing the federal parliament to discriminate against any race they chose; it was a response to fears at the time of federation about the influx of immigrants into Australia. The provision sort specifically to allow for discriminatory laws. The framers of the constitution were well aware of the US constitution and chose specifically not to include a bill of rights.

The move from federalism to centralism is the greatest bastardization of the Australian constitution. The high court has allowed the Commonwealth to coerce the states into giving up their powers of taxation (see the Uniform Tax Case 1 and 2). As it stands, the federal government can force the states to do things with the threat of withholding funding. While legally the states could impose their own income tax or GST, it would be politically impossible, as the people of that state would still have to pay federal taxes.
Further, the external affairs power in s 51 (xxix) can be used by the federal government to pass laws which would otherwise be ultra vires (Beyond power).
The Emissions Trading scheme was in part (a large part) grounded in the external affairs power - The 'Clean Energy Act 2011' purported to give effect to Australia's obligations under the Kyoto Protocol and Climate Change Conventions.
However I think it could also be grounded in the corporations power which has also been interpreted very broadly.

Our High Court continually thinks that it change the constitution and subvert the will of the people. Provision is made for constitutional amendment in s 128 - Constitutional amendment requires referendum and a double majority - that is a majority of the major states and a majority of the entire population. The High Court however, has changed the Constitution by stealth over the 200 years since federation. We now have a country with impotent states and an unconstrained federal government. This is a very dangerous state of affairs.

edit on 25-2-2013 by bigdohbeatdown because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-2-2013 by bigdohbeatdown because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in