I found this on another site about a new constitution for Australia.

What do people think should we have a new constitution or is the one we got now good enough.

The guy has brought up some good ideas some I don't go along with.

John S wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 8:40pm:

I found this on another site about a new constitution for Australia. What do people think should we have a new constitution or is the one we got now good enough. The guy has brought up some good ideas some I don't go along with.

There is no greater constitution than Australias covenant...if you dont like our law, leave our country...
;D ;D ;D ;D

I didn't get much from that article about what's apparently wrong with our Constitution.

I wouldnt touch a constitution that came from a progressive or a red diaper baby nor a site that uses progressive tactics, calling itself independent when it is far from it.

Shane B wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 8:52pm:

I didn't get much from that article about what's apparently wrong with our Constitution.

It had very very little detail at all. Worthless.

Shane B wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 8:52pm:

I didn't get much from that article about what's apparently wrong with our Constitution.

They think the solution to our corrupt system is a new constitution, we have the best constitution, its the politicians that are corrupt and the people who are uneducated on the constitution.  Changing that priceless legal heritage wont fix the problem of ignorance and corruption...the constitution outlines your rights - you have to know them and enforce them... :) :)

If it precludes conservatives or multi-nationals from ever having power, I'm in.

Otherwise, no, sorry (not).


[smiley=tongue.gif] [smiley=tongue.gif] [smiley=tongue.gif] [smiley=tongue.gif] [smiley=tongue.gif] [smiley=tongue.gif]

John S wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 8:40pm:

I found this on another site about a new constitution for Australia. What do people think should we have a new constitution or is the one we got now good enough. The guy has brought up some good ideas some I don't go along with.

I have seen talk about ths before. My problem with a "new" constitution is that i dont trust the ppl writing it and putting it together. Better off leaving it as is. IMO.

SOB

That article is pretty lame. All it does is try to define a system that gives independents a free ride. It has probably not occured to him just how easy it would be to rort the system. An 'independent' is rarely any such thing. With 2/3 of voters effectively rusted on, what makes anyone think an independent is any different. Our current independents arent independent. they are joined at the hip to labor. They say all the right words but when do they part company? only in something trivial.

The value of independant is overstated as well as naively understood.

John S wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 8:40pm:

I found this on another site about a new constitution for Australia. What do people think should we have a new constitution or is the one we got now good enough. The guy has brought up some good ideas some I don't go along with.

I thought a new Constitution was not possible?

PV said so, therefore it must be true?

What's all the crap about guaranteeing 'Independents' spots in the Senate?

The 'Independents' aren't independent.  Look at Windsor, Wilkie & Oakeshott FFS.  At least with a party you know beforehand what they stand for (except the Lie-bor party I suppose  :()

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 10:57am:

John S wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 8:40pm: I found this on another site about a new constitution for Australia. What do people think should we have a new constitution or is the one we got now good enough. The guy has brought up some good ideas some I don't go along with. I thought a new Constitution was not possible? PV said so, therefore it must be true?

Not in the way you think it is...a renewed declaration of independence is definately possible, but not the abolition of 800 years of legal precedent only an idiot could conceive of that...

If it helps you to understand the rights we already have to reaffirm them more power to you...but international law and social law can never be made to supersede our law if that is what you are getting at...this is why the UK has never fully integrated into the EU - the constitution and the law wont allow it, they have to go to referendum after referendum to accomplish the smallest of incremental achievements because they cant legislate it...

The American constitution and declaration of independence was a new Magna Carta - built on the original and on the same principle of making Government subject to the rule of law - you are never going to beat that if you are seeking to abolish the law...it cant be done - it can be restated, but it cant be abolished - the rule of law is eternal...
;D ;D ;D ;D

Prevailing wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 11:22am:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16th, 2012 at 10:57am: John S wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 8:40pm: I found this on another site about a new constitution for Australia. What do people think should we have a new constitution or is the one we got now good enough. The guy has brought up some good ideas some I don't go along with. I thought a new Constitution was not possible? PV said so, therefore it must be true? Not in the way you think it is...a renewed declaration of independence is definately possible, but not the abolition of 800 years of legal precedent only an idiot could conceive of that... If it helps you to understand the rights we already have to reaffirm them more power to you...but international law and social law can never be made to supersede our law if that is what you are getting at...this is why the UK has never fully integrated into the EU - the constitution and the law wont allow it, they have to go to referendum after referendum to accomplish the smallest of incremental achievements because they cant legislate it... The American constitution and declaration of independence was a new Magna Carta - built on the original and on the same principle of making Government subject to the rule of law - you are never going to beat that if you are seeking to abolish the law...it cant be done - it can be restated, but it cant be abolished - the rule of law is eternal... ;D ;D ;D ;D

PV,
I think you may find that these things all fit together.

Some international Law, is integrated into Australian Law & Australian Law has changed over the years, by virtue (or lack of virtue) of new precedents set, as the legal system, Parliament & the Public agree that the time for change has arrived.

Of course, a new Declaration of Independence &/or a new Constitution could become possible, but that also would be likely to build on past precedents, albeit with some variations!

That said, we (you,I &/or others) may or may not agree with a single massive change or with some of the smaller incremental changes (like same sex marriage), but the system is about the interests of the whole, so it's just tough for the individual concerned, if they don't agree with every change.

At least, that's the way we are meant to think the system supposedly works, but in reality the self interest of a select few can often supplant the best interests of the whole!

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 12:38pm:

Prevailing wrote on Aug 16th, 2012 at 11:22am: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16th, 2012 at 10:57am: John S wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 8:40pm: I found this on another site about a new constitution for Australia. What do people think should we have a new constitution or is the one we got now good enough. The guy has brought up some good ideas some I don't go along with. I thought a new Constitution was not possible? PV said so, therefore it must be true? Not in the way you think it is...a renewed declaration of independence is definately possible, but not the abolition of 800 years of legal precedent only an idiot could conceive of that... If it helps you to understand the rights we already have to reaffirm them more power to you...but international law and social law can never be made to supersede our law if that is what you are getting at...this is why the UK has never fully integrated into the EU - the constitution and the law wont allow it, they have to go to referendum after referendum to accomplish the smallest of incremental achievements because they cant legislate it... The American constitution and declaration of independence was a new Magna Carta - built on the original and on the same principle of making Government subject to the rule of law - you are never going to beat that if you are seeking to abolish the law...it cant be done - it can be restated, but it cant be abolished - the rule of law is eternal... ;D ;D ;D ;D PV, I think you may find that these things all fit together. Some international Law, is integrated into Australian Law & Australian Law has changed over the years, by virtue (or lack of virtue) of new precedents set, as the legal system, Parliament & the Public agree that the time for change has arrived. Of course, a new Declaration of Independence &/or a new Constitution could become possible, but that also would be likely to build on past precedents, albeit with some variations! That said, we (you,I &/or others) may or may not agree with a single massive change or with some of the smaller incremental changes (like same sex marriage), but the system is about the interests of the whole, so it's just tough for the individual concerned, if they don't agree with every change. At least, that's the way we are meant to think the system supposedly works, but in reality the self interest of a select few can often supplant the best interests of the whole!

There are fundamental changes to the Law that cannot be made without a referendum - if you like - the Government cannot absolve itself of being the subject of the rule of law, that law is a covenant of a people and their land and the rules they will live under.  The Government knows it has no power to make massive change to that covenant without a referendum - it is constrained- as constrained as the day the crown was forced to sign the charter that bought the law into effect.  The law cannot be twisted out of its original intent by unilateral acts of legislation - you cant legislate away the right to life, the right of self defense, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, sovereign territorial and economic rights just because you control the Parliament.   Parliament is not the law, it does not preside over the law, it is not sovereign to the law, it never can be and it never will be, that is why we will never be the subject of a foreign law and a foreign Government - we the citizens will never be the subject of the Government it is illegal.  Our law is a covenant between the Crown, the Church and the sovereign free people granting full liberties forever to freemen  Because of the Law, the Government is an ineffectual toothless slave that must go to the people for permission...The law is a declaration of the independence and rights of the people from tyranny declared to be forever - you cant change intent of the law in that regards in the Parliament...International law can never usurp the Magna Carta...it is rock solid...A dictatorship may be possible, but it can never be legal the law will always supersede the dictatorship... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 4:16pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16th, 2012 at 12:38pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 16th, 2012 at 11:22am: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16th, 2012 at 10:57am: John S wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 8:40pm: I found this on another site about a new constitution for Australia. What do people think should we have a new constitution or is the one we got now good enough. The guy has brought up some good ideas some I don't go along with. I thought a new Constitution was not possible? PV said so, therefore it must be true? Not in the way you think it is...a renewed declaration of independence is definately possible, but not the abolition of 800 years of legal precedent only an idiot could conceive of that... If it helps you to understand the rights we already have to reaffirm them more power to you...but international law and social law can never be made to supersede our law if that is what you are getting at...this is why the UK has never fully integrated into the EU - the constitution and the law wont allow it, they have to go to referendum after referendum to accomplish the smallest of incremental achievements because they cant legislate it... The American constitution and declaration of independence was a new Magna Carta - built on the original and on the same principle of making Government subject to the rule of law - you are never going to beat that if you are seeking to abolish the law...it cant be done - it can be restated, but it cant be abolished - the rule of law is eternal... ;D ;D ;D ;D PV, I think you may find that these things all fit together. Some international Law, is integrated into Australian Law & Australian Law has changed over the years, by virtue (or lack of virtue) of new precedents set, as the legal system, Parliament & the Public agree that the time for change has arrived. Of course, a new Declaration of Independence &/or a new Constitution could become possible, but that also would be likely to build on past precedents, albeit with some variations! That said, we (you,I &/or others) may or may not agree with a single massive change or with some of the smaller incremental changes (like same sex marriage), but the system is about the interests of the whole, so it's just tough for the individual concerned, if they don't agree with every change. At least, that's the way we are meant to think the system supposedly works, but in reality the self interest of a select few can often supplant the best interests of the whole! There are fundamental changes to the Law that cannot be made without a referendum - if you like - the Government cannot absolve itself of being the subject of the rule of law, that law is a covenant of a people and their land and the rules they will live under.  The Government knows it has no power to make massive change to that covenant without a referendum - it is constrained- as constrained as the day the crown was forced to sign the charter that bought the law into effect.  The law cannot be twisted out of its original intent by unilateral acts of legislation - you cant legislate away the right to life, the right of self defense, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, sovereign territorial and economic rights just because you control the Parliament.   Parliament is not the law, it does not preside over the law, it is not sovereign to the law, it never can be and it never will be, that is why we will never be the subject of a foreign law and a foreign Government - we the citizens will never be the subject of the Government it is illegal.  Our law is a covenant between the Crown, the Church and the sovereign free people granting full liberties forever to freemen  Because of the Law, the Government is an ineffectual toothless slave that must go to the people for permission...The law is a declaration of the independence and rights of the people from tyranny declared to be forever - you cant change intent of the law in that regards in the Parliament...International law can never usurp the Magna Carta...it is rock solid...A dictatorship may be possible, but it can never be legal the law will always supersede the dictatorship... :) :)

No wonder you never get the the High Court. You have absolutely no idea whatsoever of the function of parliament, constitution or the law itself.

Bet you NEVER launch a high court action!

gold_medal wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 5:04pm:

Prevailing wrote on Aug 16th, 2012 at 4:16pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16th, 2012 at 12:38pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 16th, 2012 at 11:22am: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16th, 2012 at 10:57am: John S wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 8:40pm: I found this on another site about a new constitution for Australia. What do people think should we have a new constitution or is the one we got now good enough. The guy has brought up some good ideas some I don't go along with. I thought a new Constitution was not possible? PV said so, therefore it must be true? Not in the way you think it is...a renewed declaration of independence is definately possible, but not the abolition of 800 years of legal precedent only an idiot could conceive of that... If it helps you to understand the rights we already have to reaffirm them more power to you...but international law and social law can never be made to supersede our law if that is what you are getting at...this is why the UK has never fully integrated into the EU - the constitution and the law wont allow it, they have to go to referendum after referendum to accomplish the smallest of incremental achievements because they cant legislate it... The American constitution and declaration of independence was a new Magna Carta - built on the original and on the same principle of making Government subject to the rule of law - you are never going to beat that if you are seeking to abolish the law...it cant be done - it can be restated, but it cant be abolished - the rule of law is eternal... ;D ;D ;D ;D PV, I think you may find that these things all fit together. Some international Law, is integrated into Australian Law & Australian Law has changed over the years, by virtue (or lack of virtue) of new precedents set, as the legal system, Parliament & the Public agree that the time for change has arrived. Of course, a new Declaration of Independence &/or a new Constitution could become possible, but that also would be likely to build on past precedents, albeit with some variations! That said, we (you,I &/or others) may or may not agree with a single massive change or with some of the smaller incremental changes (like same sex marriage), but the system is about the interests of the whole, so it's just tough for the individual concerned, if they don't agree with every change. At least, that's the way we are meant to think the system supposedly works, but in reality the self interest of a select few can often supplant the best interests of the whole! There are fundamental changes to the Law that cannot be made without a referendum - if you like - the Government cannot absolve itself of being the subject of the rule of law, that law is a covenant of a people and their land and the rules they will live under.  The Government knows it has no power to make massive change to that covenant without a referendum - it is constrained- as constrained as the day the crown was forced to sign the charter that bought the law into effect.  The law cannot be twisted out of its original intent by unilateral acts of legislation - you cant legislate away the right to life, the right of self defense, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, sovereign territorial and economic rights just because you control the Parliament.   Parliament is not the law, it does not preside over the law, it is not sovereign to the law, it never can be and it never will be, that is why we will never be the subject of a foreign law and a foreign Government - we the citizens will never be the subject of the Government it is illegal.  Our law is a covenant between the Crown, the Church and the sovereign free people granting full liberties forever to freemen  Because of the Law, the Government is an ineffectual toothless slave that must go to the people for permission...The law is a declaration of the independence and rights of the people from tyranny declared to be forever - you cant change intent of the law in that regards in the Parliament...International law can never usurp the Magna Carta...it is rock solid...A dictatorship may be possible, but it can never be legal the law will always supersede the dictatorship... :) :) No wonder you never get the the High Court. You have absolutely no idea whatsoever of the function of parliament, constitution or the law itself. Bet you NEVER launch a high court action!

Wow - you manged to say absolutely nothing of substance in so few words.. ::) ::)

gold_medal wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 9:58am:

That article is pretty lame. All it does is try to define a system that gives independents a free ride. It has probably not occured to him just how easy it would be to rort the system. An 'independent' is rarely any such thing. With 2/3 of voters effectively rusted on, what makes anyone think an independent is any different. Our current independents arent independent. they are joined at the hip to labor. They say all the right words but when do they part company? only in something trivial. The value of independant is overstated as well as naively understood.

Swagman wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

What's all the crap about guaranteeing 'Independents' spots in the Senate? The 'Independents' aren't independent.  Look at Windsor, Wilkie & Oakeshott FFS.  At least with a party you know beforehand what they stand for (except the Lie-bor party I suppose  :()

you 2 are only upset because the 3 independents sided with labor to form government.

So how would 40 independents in the senate could go with labor or liberal to form government isn't the government form in the House of Representatives