An interesting read - Constitutional rights

[19andrew59]

Your Will Be Done - Constitutional Rights.pdf

Be interesting to see what would happen if a number of people wrote to their 'representative' and stated that "IT IS MY WILL that all speed cameras be removed from Western Australian roads immediately".

[Shady7/8]

intriguing....

Anyone know any constitutional law students who can give opinion on this?

[SOLID]

Im not a law student, just a lowly criminology student and I have not done constitutional law. Article has a few holes in it one that stands out is he talks about the 'Westminster system' which is basically referring to our form of legal system which is an adversarial system, commonly referenced to as common law. The writer is correct in that the constitution is unrelated to the 'Westminster system' but only by its most literal of meanings, the courts and every legal body are all reliant on the the 'westminster system'. In particular the writer is full of shit when he said it was designed to 'publicly used to suit their propaganda purposes', you just need to know your history to tell that one is crap.

This is basically a shock jock journal, his argument has some basis but he has not told the full story it is not so black and white, as he makes out. PS CBF reading the whole article. I also noticed he has no references for his arguments, only basing it on acts of old which have in most case been superseded or replaced in legislation.

[Ayanami]

The problem with half truths is that, because they're loosely based in truth, they appear to have some credibility. Twisted to suit the purposes of the writer. I got about 3/4 pages in before giving up and resorting to skim reading.

Whilst the three arms of governments and the relationship between them is set up in the Constitution, the Constitution is not a lone document and is not forever frozen as at the time it was written. It's a living document, open to some degree of flexible interpretation by the Judiciary, and is to be read with reference to the various conventions that have been established over time, such as the Head of State (Queen, Governor-General etc) appointing the leader of the majority political party as the Prime Minister and their chosen cabinet as ministers.

If you read the Constitution by it's bare words, completely alone and without reference to any external matters, then many rights which we enjoy, just as the right to a fair trial or freedom of association/religion simply don't exist legally. The writer refers to generally to court interpretations, but then seems to ignore them when citing that certain things don't have a basis in law.

This sort of stuff belongs on Today Tonight or whatever we eventually come up with that mirrors Fox News in the US.

[PFLB]

I think this guy is just presenting his view of how Parliament should work as a legal fact. The quality of his legal reasoning is apparent on the first page:

Those who would seriously attempt to dispute the contents of this book are advised that the law courts are open to them to do so.

Which is incorrect, as the High Court cannot give advisory opinions on whether what Mr X says in his pamphlet is correct.

[Shady7/8]

I read that as being open to them being challenged in the high court.

[ReCon]

Magna Carta

A bit of light Sunday reading for those with not much to do. Supposed section in there refers to the 'harming' of a citizen by Govt shall be deemed as non actionable. Anyone here with the will to take on those pesky blue shirts??

[PFLB]

I read that as being open to them being challenged in the high court.

I did too, and what I am saying is, you cannot ask the High Court to simply rule on whether what so and so says is correct. There has to be a real legal controversy for it to decide, so you would have to become engaged in a dispute in which the other side is asserting Mr Chresby's arguments.

[SOLID]

High court has 2 jurisdictions. 1 They will only see cases containing Original points of law. 2 The second jurisdiction is the appellate