Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 24
th, 2023 at 12:29pm:
Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 24
th, 2023 at 12:14pm:
Aussie wrote on Jun 24
th, 2023 at 12:04pm:
This:
Quote:Essentially...the Voice has the potential to radically reshape Australia’s representative constitutional democracy. The Voice could operate like a third chamber of parliament and wield a veto power over the day-to-day functions of government and parliament.
...is just garbage. Hysterical conservative bullshit scaremongering lies is what that is.
It has no veto power, and never will have veto power. How many times must you be told that?
Ok so let me get this straight : You Aussie, a retired taxi cab driver will personally guarantee RIGHT NOW that the Voice and those behind its machinations will never have Veto power OR even function like it has Veto power on any level at any time? You feel you can firmly make that guarantee....yes?
Also...why are you struggling to address the other even more serious issues raised in my posts?
Aussie???? These serious issues 👇
Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 24
th, 2023 at 11:31am:
Paragraph 3 of what?
Show us exactly what you’ve got so the rest of us can see (what you THINK you know).
Could you possibly be referring to this??? 👇
Chapter III provides for the creation of federal courts, including the High Court of Australia, which is the final court of appeal. The High Court can interpret the law and settle disputes about the Constitution.
If so then that absolutely and totally supports my earlier post which you so kindly highlighted:
Also there is the RISK that a future High Court could place an interpretation on the Voice which goes even beyond the current expectations of the Government.
I’ve noticed you’ve gone all silent Issue Voter.
Oh well never mind. I guess I ought to thank you for helping me to illustrate and prove the obscure and therefore hazardous ramifications of such a Constitutional change.
Cheers
Fuq me, there are some stupid comments about this. There is
nothing in the Constitution which is beyond a risk that it will go to the High Court and be given an interpretation. You say it as though, in some Eureka moment, you have just invented the wheel. It is trite, banal, 101 crap. Christ, even the Ruskies can go to the High Court and challenge legislation turfing them off some ACT land.
That is what the High Court is there for.
However, as to what it might find....there is NO WAY it will be able to go beyond the comments made during the second reading of the Act just passed. That is what it MUST have regard to and is bound by. That reading made very very clear just how extremely limited this Voice can be. It is...for the last fuqqing time......tokenism.
FFS!