Australian Politics Forum - Should Australia become a republic?

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51184
At my desk.

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #180 - May 1^st, 2008 at 10:29pm

However, the 'President' would not be an Australian citizen, no matter what laws the Australian Parliament pass to make this model so, without a change to British law allowing the British Head of State to hold a foreign nationality and why would the British Parliament and the people want that?

Are you referring to the article I posted from crikey? It's got nothing to do with the British head of state or the British parliament.

If he is referring to an Australian being appointed head of state, with all else being equal

That's how I interpretted it.

Because the Constitution makes the structure of the Parliament clear in Ch 1, Part 1, s 1.

There is nothing in the bits you quoted to dictate who the Queen should be. As far as the constitution is concerned, it could be Cate Blanchett, or Dame Edna.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 17258 Gender:	Re: Should Australia become a republic? Reply #181 - May 1^st, 2008 at 10:33pm freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2008 at 10:29pm: There is nothing in the bits you quoted to dictate who the Queen should be. As far as the constitution is concerned, it could be Cate Blanchett, or Dame Edna. I think you'll find the constitution is not that easy to subvert.
Back to top	Conviction is the art of being certain IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51184 At my desk.	Re: Should Australia become a republic? Reply #182 - May 1^st, 2008 at 10:35pm Why not? And why is it even a 'subversion' of the constitution? Why can't I be Queen?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

NorthOfNorth Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 17258 Gender:	Re: Should Australia become a republic? Reply #183 - May 1^st, 2008 at 10:41pm freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2008 at 10:35pm: Why not? And why is it even a 'subversion' of the constitution? Why can't I be Queen? I dunno. I was guessing you were male.
Back to top	Conviction is the art of being certain IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51184 At my desk.	Re: Should Australia become a republic? Reply #184 - May 1^st, 2008 at 10:42pm Does the constitution say the Queen has to be female?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

NorthOfNorth Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 17258 Gender:	Re: Should Australia become a republic? Reply #185 - May 1^st, 2008 at 10:46pm freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2008 at 10:42pm: Does the constitution say the Queen has to be female? No. Just the English language.... And, of course, any use in the constitution of the pronouns 'she' and 'her'.
Back to top	« Last Edit: May 1^st, 2008 at 10:54pm by NorthOfNorth » Conviction is the art of being certain IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51184
At my desk.

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #186 - May 1^st, 2008 at 10:59pm

And, of course, any use in the constitution of the pronouns 'she' and 'her'.

For example?

Maybe I am crediting our forefathers with too much foresight, but I would expect they included in the constitution suitable provisions for the day when the Australian monarchy passed to a male. Maybe tradition, and thereby the English language, is suitably flexible that if the monarchy passes to an offspring or an usurper, any legal reference to the King or Queen is simply assumed to refer to the new monarch.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #187 - May 1^st, 2008 at 11:37pm

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2008 at 10:59pm:

And, of course, any use in the constitution of the pronouns 'she' and 'her'.

For example?

Maybe I am crediting our forefathers with too much foresight, but I would expect they included in the constitution suitable provisions for the day when the Australian monarchy passed to a male. Maybe tradition, and thereby the English language, is suitably flexible that if the monarchy passes to an offspring or an usurper, any legal reference to the King or Queen is simply assumed to refer to the new monarch.

for example: 'her heirs and successors'.

Maybe I am crediting our forefathers with too much foresight, but I would expect they included in the constitution suitable provisions for the day when the Australian monarchy passed to a male.

Yes, of course that's true. We're just having a laugh. I thought.

Now on a serious note, this 'King' or 'Queen'. How would they be appointed?

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 1^st, 2008 at 11:57pm by NorthOfNorth »

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #188 - May 2^nd, 2008 at 6:23am

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2008 at 10:29pm:

However, the 'President' would not be an Australian citizen, no matter what laws the Australian Parliament pass to make this model so, without a change to British law allowing the British Head of State to hold a foreign nationality and why would the British Parliament and the people want that?

Are you referring to the article I posted from crikey? It's got nothing to do with the British head of state or the British parliament.

If he is referring to an Australian being appointed head of state, with all else being equal

That's how I interpretted it.

Because the Constitution makes the structure of the Parliament clear in Ch 1, Part 1, s 1.

There is nothing in the bits you quoted to dictate who the Queen should be. As far as the constitution is concerned, it could be Cate Blanchett, or Dame Edna.

As far as the bits I posted it could be Queen Edna - but that is not the entire Constitution I posted. In the preamble it makes it clear for those who are inclined to believe there is more than one Queen of Australia.

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

And your quip about male or female is surely that - remember that the Queen referred to in the Constitution is in fact Queen Victoria. There have been male 'heirs and successors' already.

Back to top

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 17258 Gender:	Re: Should Australia become a republic? Reply #189 - May 2^nd, 2008 at 6:41am The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. Yes, when subverting constitutions... there's always those pesky definitions of terms to blow off.
Back to top	Conviction is the art of being certain IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51184
At my desk.

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #190 - May 2^nd, 2008 at 11:11am

Now on a serious note, this 'King' or 'Queen'. How would they be appointed?

I think the parliament would just have to pass a law:

What’s at issue is not the nature of the Australian polity but the succession. The Australian Parliament already has the power to make laws about that, and about royal titles.

The Australian Parliament could, without changing the Constitution, without making any change to the existing arrangement, without altering the office of Governor-General, legislate a change to the way the monarch’s position was transferred. If it wished, it could also change the term used to refer to the holder of the office.

Deepthought:

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

That does not appear to rule out a local Queen, just allow a foreign one.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #191 - May 2^nd, 2008 at 11:21am

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 11:11am:

Now on a serious note, this 'King' or 'Queen'. How would they be appointed?

I think the parliament would just have to pass a law:

What’s at issue is not the nature of the Australian polity but the succession. The Australian Parliament already has the power to make laws about that, and about royal titles.

The Australian Parliament could, without changing the Constitution, without making any change to the existing arrangement, without altering the office of Governor-General, legislate a change to the way the monarch’s position was transferred. If it wished, it could also change the term used to refer to the holder of the office.

Deepthought:

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

That does not appear to rule out a local Queen, just allow a foreign one.

I think the parliament would just have to pass a law:

And that law would be...?

That does not appear to rule out a local Queen, just allow a foreign one.

That refers exclusively to the British head of state insofar as that HOS is the hereditary heir to the British (English) crown. Again I think you will find the terms 'heir' and 'successor' are defined in law.

... And we would've got away with it too if it weren't for those meddling definitions....

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51184 At my desk.	Re: Should Australia become a republic? Reply #192 - May 2^nd, 2008 at 11:43am First of all, anyone can be a successor. It does not require an heir. Secondly, it does not say that the Queen of England must be the Australian Queen.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #193 - May 2^nd, 2008 at 12:05pm

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 11:43am:

First of all, anyone can be a successor. It does not require an heir. Secondly, it does not say that the Queen of England must be the Australian Queen.

When interpreting constitutional law, I believe, the interpreter must take into account what the architects intended a constitutional statement to mean.

I would say that there is no one who could successfully argue that the architects of the constitution intent of the statement 'Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom' was to refer to anyone other than the British head of state insofar as that head of state is the hereditary heir to the British (English) crown.

If the British abolished the monarchy and created a British parliamentary or presidential republic, then there would be a need to amend the Australian Constitution to state that Australia still recognises the de jure heir to the British crown and his/her heirs and successors as the Australian Head of State or declare an Australian republic.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 2^nd, 2008 at 12:16pm by NorthOfNorth »

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51184
At my desk.

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #194 - May 2^nd, 2008 at 12:19pm

I would say that there is no one who could successfully argue that the architects of the constitution intent of the statement 'Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom' was to refer to anyone other than the British head of state insofar as that head of state is the hereditary heir to the British (English) crown.

That's not what I'm saying. Rather, I'm saying that 'extend to' does not mean the same as 'apply exlcusively to'. They are saying that she can be the Queen. They are not saying she must be the Queen.

In addition, 'successor' opens to doors to anyone. Otherwise they would have left it at heirs.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Should Australia become a republic?
YES NO MAYBE « Created by: DILLIGAF on: Mar 6^th, 2007 at 10:11pm »