Відео

It would be hard to look it up, given that the Washington Stock Exchange ceased to exist in 1953. What I think you are trying to say is that the Commonwealth Government is registered with the US Security Exchange Commission. It is - but it is registered as a 'foreign government', rather than a corporation, because (unsurprisingly) the Commonwealth Government is actually a 'foreign government' from the US point of view.

Glad you enjoyed them. There have been a few attempts to steal the Crown Jewels, but not recently. I think you might be thinking of the theft of the Stone of Scone (which sits in the Coronation Chair). See the video on that one.

Thanks. It's a relief to get a comment from someone who cares that I'm explaining the law, rather than engaging in conspiracy theories.

You're most welcome.

Perhaps you should read the Defence Act and become better informed.

@@constitutionalclarion1901 You're the expert but you did say a Federal government does not need a request from a State government for assistance. And why would the Law need to be changed so ADF personnel can't be sued. So, can the ADF be engaged to use force against the Australian people Yes or No. Think peaceful unarmed insurrection against a State government if you like.

@@Mrbullet1952 Section 39 of the Defence Act says that when a call-out order is made, the Chief of the Defence Force must utilise the Defence Force in such manner as is 'reasonable and necessary' for the purpose specified in the order and 'must not stop or restrict any protest, dissent, assembly or industrial action, except if there is a reasonable likelihood of: (i) the death of, or serious injury to, persons; or (ii) serious damage to property.'

Watch the video. It explains what people voted on at the 1988 referendum.

Also variations between the states.

Agreed. I see to many American UA-camrs woefully sating what our Defmatin Laws actually are ... over and over again. Woudl love to hear exactly what they are and how 'Truth' or 'Honest held belief' works as a defence.

Sorry - but defamation law is well outside my expertise. I just try not to commit it!

@@constitutionalclarion1901 pity ... it's a hot topic.

@@michaelsecomb4115 It's a hot topic but there's plenty of information available on defamation laws in Australia online. Just make sure it's a reliable source and updated information. This link is from the Judicial Commission of NSW - updated this year. uwww.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/civil/defamation.html

No - because in many cases deadly diseases can be carried and spread without yet appearing in the carrier. That was the whole point of quarantine for people entering Australia - to wait the relevant period during which the disease would have manifested itself in symptoms before letting them into the rest of the community.

That may be true - but as I'm not an epidemiologist, I do not know. I'm here to explain the constitutional issues, which is my area of expertise.

Not sure which books you mean, but when it comes to legal books, the specialised bookstores have all gone. There's a small number of legal books in the large Dymocks on George Street. Otherwise, best to order them online from the publisher or through a large online bookseller.

The Constitution establishes a Parliament, comprised of representatives elected by the people, which has the power to make law. The Executive Government is drawn from those Members of Parliament who form a majority in the lower House. None of them are corporations.

@@constitutionalclarion1901 : I never said any of them are "corporations", but many of them have begun consultancy work with corporations affiliated with their political history (e.g. Morrison {AUKUS}, Hockey). If the "elected" representatives are either directly captured by foreign interests, dependent on donations from corporations owned and controlled by these same foreign interests, or have their hands tied by such institutions like the World Bank’s “International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes” (ICSID), that makes any discussion of a democracy absurd. For an example, the ICSID is Washington's powerful covert shadow legal system that operates across the world prosecuting governments on behalf of any corporation that has lost profits due to government legislation, refuses to privatize and “remove public competition”, or a multitude of other "recalcitrant" government acts that may be beneficial to their people. You may remember the threat of litigation by the tobacco industry when the Australian government tried to introduce plain-paper packaging of cigarettes? Since then, this entity has gained more teeth and many countries (e.g. South Africa, El Salvador) have now been successfully sued for legislating in the interests of their people. I use this ICSID example because it can be researched and its control mechanism can be mechanistically established. There are also references on the mafia tactics by these foreign interests as they indebt countries, blackmail, and subtly threaten world leaders; but that's probably going outside the scope of this discussion. Many excellent books have been written on how the ICSID was created as a result of the collapse of the British Empire; when imperialism became a dirty word and another covert mechanism was needed to exploit countries; but for some unknown reason these books rarely hit the review list. So one can perpetually recite how an electoral process and democracy functions in theory (The Constitution establishes a Parliament, comprised of representatives elected by the people, which has the power to make law. The Executive Government is drawn from those Members of Parliament who form a majority in the lower House.), but until the people are taught about the oligarchical corporate machinery behind this Potemkin sovereign democracy, they will continue to believe the illusion presented to them by the special interests and their media outlets and windup on the trash heap of history.

​@@animalfarm7467 learn to properly form an essay instead of insane rambling and people might treat your point with some respect. As it stands it's impossible to address near anything as it's entirely composed of "questions". Maybe stick to one or two, get some paragraphs in there, a thesis and conclusion.

@@cloaker416 : If one can't ask questions, how does one analyze what another has said? I was just wondering if I was talking to a bot? Every time I question the credibility of the Australian democracy, I get the usual "The Constitution establishes a Parliament, comprised of representatives elected by the people, which has the power to make law. The Executive Government is drawn from those Members of Parliament who form a majority in the lower House." That's why I thought it was a bot; I've asked similar questions, and that's the only response I've ever received. It's as if when questioned about the credibility of the Australian democracy, that's the automated response. And you really didn't understand the point I was making? Everyone else understands the point I've been making perfectly. Maybe you should check your comprehension skills?

@@animalfarm7467 your point is buried within 20 paragraphs of shit. Forms a clear, succinct and concise (that means short) argument and try again.

Yes, we have. No one has succeeded with any challenge to the validity of government. This is because the stuff made-up about 1973 is just that - made up!

Thanks.

@@constitutionalclarion1901 ua-cam.com/video/Sis1vVNXqnI/v-deo.html

I'm sure your aid was very much appreciated. It's good that the defence forces are there to help in times of need.

Roe v Wade was a decision based on the 14th amendment of the constitution's due process clause. This provides for the courts to examine and rule on both the procedural fairness of laws and the actual content of laws (whether they violate rights contained within the bill of rights/constitution or further unlisted rights which are recognised by the court, such as the right to privacy). The court had already recognised the right to privacy extended to certain medical decisions (contraception) and interracial marriage - there was no compelling government interest in banning these, only their proper regulation. The court extended this argument to abortion, balancing it against the states interest in protection potential life by establishing a ruling based on trimesters. There was enough variability regarding the viability of a foetus to provide for this privacy argument fully in the first trimester, and partially in the second. To be clear, this was not policy from the bench and rather a decision regarding clashes between the right to bodily integrity and the right to life and the states interest in that life. The Supreme Court's job is to set the limits on these things. Drawing a line is a judicial decision that affects what policy can and cannot be written.

@@cloaker416 That was not the question I was asking. I used Roe v Wade as an example on how the court has been politicised by a single party/cult and stacked with judges unsuitable for the job. There are other decisions that stink to high haeven like gun control. My point is that this court can stifle progress for decades through it's decisions.

@@rwo5402 that it certainly can. It could happen here but just like the US would require a lot of degradation of our institutions and cultural environment to allow it to happen I think.

No, because it's function is internal policing of the domestic law - not defence from outside threats.

Also to be clear police do not have tanks in Australia.

No Australian Police Force has ever had 'a tank'. Could you also describe for us lay people, what 'attack' weapons are?

The Constitution has few rights. It does, however, establish a democratic system which allows the people to elect those who make the laws. It is those laws that address rights.

Wrong, It is a Constitution that sets the rights of people. It is the ultimate right and stops politicians taking away your rights. As proven by the High Court ruling during Covid, because Australian citizens have no rights except the right to vote, the government can lockdown it's citizens permanently, it can cancel any and all demonstrations and it can permanently close the borders. It can hold trials in secret and can lock Australian citizens up indefinitely. You need to do some reading. As for democracy, Australia is Not a democracy as it doesn't have any safeguards whatsoever. No recall laws, No system for anyone to get on the ballot, No way for citizens to get laws thrown out. No way to force a referendum or a Royal Commission. In fact No powers. Worse than any other Western countries.

You've been watching too much American television, I'm afraid.

It rather depends upon what you mean by 'defy'. If you mean riots and terrorism, then a State can request the help of the ADF to restore order. If you mean peaceful protest - then there is no role for the ADF.

This supposes that the members of the ADF, those men and women who wear the uniform and carry a rifle, will want to shoot unarmed Australian Citizens, which includes their own family members - which is a kind of flaw in your TEOTWAWKI fantasies. The ADF isn't the PLA or the KPA.

You're welcome.

Glad you found it interesting.

Much appreciated.

Yes - the Commonwealth Parliament has power to change the voting system for the Senate, although it would have to be consistent with section 7 of the Commonwealth Constitution which says the Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate. The High Court has drawn implications from section 7 which support representative democracy and might limit the choice of electoral system (eg if it resulted in a Senate that was not 'directly chosen by the people').

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you!

Not a lot. The framers of the Constitution tended to trust Parliament and the good sense of the people in choosing their representatives. But there are some constitutional implications concerning representative democracy and the separation of powers that could be used to strike down extreme laws.

There is a great protection method - it's called 'an Election', we have them every 3 years or so. Worked every time, not a single Civil War in over 120 years and counting. Far better track record than the mighty United States.

I'll add it to my very long list!

An interesting question. I haven't really looked into it. I'd guess that it is a matter that is incidental to the enforcement of Commonwealth laws. If I ever do have occasion to find out more about it, I'll also do a video on it.

@@constitutionalclarion1901 thank you! I enjoy your videos very much no matter the topic but I'll keep an eye out for that one

@@benmuller6103 We can build a pathway to the valid use of police powers by ADF officers in the states by examining the constitution. At the base is the executive power of the Commonwealth (S. 61) which provides for the execution of the laws of the commonwealth and its constitution. second to this is the incidental power (51 (xxxix)) which provides for laws to be passed incidental to the execution of commonwealth powers, as in, powers that naturally must exist to execute the functions of laws affirmed by the other heads of power. The executive powers should allow for the enforcement of laws through investigation, notice of penalties which are then left to the courts to adjudicate under separate provisions, and the use of compelling force in preventing the breaking of Commonwealth law. Investigatory functions such as the searching, seizure of evidence and the compelling of people to do certain things are all in the service of maintaining and enforcing the laws of the Commonwealth. Quick and Garran make it clear that all functions incidental to the execution of government powers that were left to the colonies are transferred to the Commonwealth. Interestingly this opened a large can of worms for me regarding the ability of the AFP to enforce state laws with 'federal aspects' (a law or section of one that would be within the Commonwealth's legislative power given it had passed it), and the interesting Commonwealth-State cooperative agreements that confer power to the Federal Government in exercising functions given to state officers in certain cases. The constitutional and legal basis for this is so muddy I cannot even make a cursory examination of it. It's well beyond my comprehension skills and understanding.

The people get their say every time they vote in elections.

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Rubbish....Two Parties who have the Same Agenda and Always get the Same Outcome and they use the Cover of having a Mandate to Justify their Corruption and Never Reverse each other's Corrupt Laws.

Who decides the policies of the parties and who votes them in? The people. Has it occurred to you that perhaps the majority of people have different views to you, which is why certain parties are elected?

@@constitutionalclarion1901 People don't have à choice because elections are all Rigged to favour the Two Party Criminal Corporation.

They do eventually, it's inevitable. But if you want to be extremely insistent, they will wait a few years and then take what you owe out of the money they get from auctioning off your property, and there's nothing you can do about it.

I am not aware of anyone being 'forced' to take COVID-19 vaccines, or politicians being exempted from doing so. Vaccination was required in some cases if people wanted to work in particular jobs, or enter particular places (such as hospitals or nursing homes), or travel to some countries overseas, etc. But people could choose not to do so.

​@@constitutionalclarion1901 It was interesting at least in Queensland, I say as pro-vaccination fella and from a medical family; that in retrospect, the Police/Health workers who were dismissed from their employ won their case pertaining to our own legislation regarding human rights legislation. Now each proposed bill here, is meant to be assessed against human rights laws when proposed. Just interesting, and a comment, not a position. I would have thought, clearly wrongly, that lawmakers would have considered such a position to wit's end and advised of this possible/probable outcome. Anyway yet again the walls of Policy making and law are interesting.

Thanks. Yes, there remains a legitimate debate about the appropriateness of vaccine mandates (which did not 'force' anyone to be vaccinated, but resulted in people losing their job if they chose not to be vaccinated). It involved a clash of rights - the rights of those who were most at risk (eg people in nursing homes and hospitals) to life and health, and the rights of the individual to refuse a form of medical treatment. One would expect in such circumstances that an appropriate analysis of risks and impact upon rights would have been made, including the application of the human rights legislation.

There is no provision for it in the Constitution. The only thing that could support it would be the 'doctrine of necessity' - but that can only be used to restore democratic governance.

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you. Your responses are always informative and insightful.

Yes, part of the problem is people watching too much American television.

Bingo! 100% dead right Ken. People consume far too much American 'Content' and think we have the same/similar laws and functions here.

Thanks.

To the first question, I doubt that that could be properly characterised as an exercise of the Defence power. It might in some circumstances fall within the External Affairs power where the property was owned by a non-citizen residing overseas. A lot would depend on the particular legislation and circumstances, but the Commonwealth can certainly place conditions on foreign investment in Australia. To the second, the Commonwealth under the posts and telegraphs power has full power to legislate over telecommunications interception, and has done so. I don’t know if the actual provisions are similar to the UK, but would assume so. Not sure what you mean by monitoring of cars, but they can and do monitor the movement of interstate heavy vehicles via highway cameras and licence plate recognition software, but this is under an agreement with all State governments. Monitoring of individuals these days is really a matter of data aggregation rather than legislative power - the data is bought and sold, and while the Privacy Act and other legislation is meant to limit the effect of this, in my view anonymity these days can only be guaranteed by being of interest to no-one.

@glennsimpson7659 thankyou that is great clarification. I appreciate your reply. I will look at the previous video on Cth Powers by virtue of constitution.

Thanks. While I'm doing my best here to explain legal and constitutional matters, I can't cover everything or how the law would apply in particular circumstances, and I'm afraid that too many people these days seem to think they are experts on a subject just because they've watched a video or two. As for the Victorian Charter, as I live in NSW these days, I'm not sufficiently familiar with it to comment authoritatively on it. I'll leave that for the Victorians. On the manner and form issue, it would depend upon whether it was a legal requirement for the validity of the law and was itself entrenched. I haven't looked - but there may well be a provision somewhere that says something to the effect that if no such compatibility statement is made, the law is still valid. I'll do a video about manner and form soon. I started preparing it, but it is quite a lot of work to do it clearly and succinctly, given its complexity. It will have to wait until I have time to do it properly.

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Funnily enough the section below it, says nearly exactly what you just said “A failure to comply with section 28 (which is the section that requires a compatibility statement be made) in relation to any bill that becomes an act does not affect the validity, operation or enforcement of that act or any other statutory provision” the reason I asked was because I was wondering if this was, in a sense a law about the process that legislators should generally follow before they pass a bill, and that even though there is a clause that means laws are still valid if they don’t follow this process, this law still constitutes a type of manner and form since it outline the manner in which other laws should be made but as you said in your response it would seem their are other considerations that need to be made for the term manner and form to apply and as such I eagerly await your video but I also understand that this process to make concepts digestible can take time :)

So, can I take your comment as meaning; when the sheep are scared, the shepherds should be too?

@@tonstril I’ve not heard this expression before but in General if a flock of sheep are panicking about something, then the Shepard should also be concerned about pacifying the nerves of said flock, now obviously in a democratic context the Shepard is elected by the sheep and in this sense a good Democratic Leader both leads and is lead by the needs people, this is because an effective politician should understand that they will only be able to hold onto their mandate if they make policies that are beneficial for at least half the population. Note that so long as Governments are structured in a way that preserves at the very least a two party system and forces leaders to build public goods which can be accessed by all people (even if they don’t vote for the government of the day) then that means that there will always be a sub group of that society who are able to freely switch between supporting one political party and another political party and will suffer no consequence because either way they can still access public goods and so long as there are swing voters in a democracy then in a sense when the sheep are scared the shepherd should be to because some of those sheep might think that their lives would be better if they had a different shepherd.

@@tonstril I’ve not heard this expression before but in General if a flock of sheep are panicking about something, then the Shepard should also be concerned about pacifying the nerves of said flock, now obviously in a democratic context the Shepard is elected by the sheep and in this sense a good Democratic Leader both leads and is lead by the needs of the people, this is because an effective politician should understand that they will only be able to hold onto their mandate if they make policies that are beneficial for at least half the population. Note that so long as Governments are structured in a way that preserves at the very least a two party system and forces leaders to build public goods which can be accessed by all people (even if they don’t vote for the government of the day) then that means that there will always be a sub group of that society who are able to freely switch between supporting one political party and another political party and will suffer no consequence because either way they can still access public goods and so long as there are swing voters in a democracy then in a sense when the sheep are scared the shepherd should be to because some of those sheep might think that their lives would be better if they had a different shepherd.

Thanks. It's great to have people explain their direct experience of these things.

Yes - this one's quite a tricky one. It is made harder by the lack of clarity because we have very few precedents to rely on. But do persevere!

@@constitutionalclarion1901 I most certainly will, thank you again .

It's a very long book! When I run out of other things to say, there's plenty of material there.