Your video just appeared on my feed. Well presented and explained in an engaging way. Just subscribed boy are my kids in for a treat infront of the TV tonight.
I am new to your channel, and I wish I had access to your channel when I was in high school doing P&L! Now that I'm doing Law, your videos help make Constitutional Law more fun! Thank you!!!
I have a video about the definition of treason (hurting the queen or aiding a foreign military power in a war against Australia) and I assure you the government is in no way breaching the definition of treason. Governments often do things that make different people angry, but treason is almost never actually committed.
@@AuspolExplained Great, so it turns out I technically do have something nice I can say about the government. I won't be praising them for not being treasonous though, not while there's so many other fitting synonyms out there. Great video by the way.
Could you make a video about the old South Australia splitting into South Australia and Northern Territory? I know very little about it and would be interested in learning more. Also, could you make another video going over the history of Central Australia as once again I know very little about it and would be interested in learning. Central Australia is a part of our history that is greatly forgotten.
Great video. I've been researching how to challenge a State law under sections 76 & 109 of the Federal Constitution. I've found s 40 of Judiciary Act but can't find any examples of the application to the court. How about making a video on the "procedure" of "how to" challenge State law under Federal Constitution in Australia?
That sounds like the kind of expertise of a constitutional lawyer. If there's an issue for the interpretation of the constitution it's the duty of the High Court to hear cases on the matter but how one does an appeal to the High Court is not something I know much about sorry.
Have you researched the Annotated Constitution by Quick and Garren. This is a detailed book on how the constitution was formed the debates and conclusions that formed the wording of the constitution, it is the primary source that should be used when interpreting our Commonwealth Constitution.
It’s actually called Commonwealth Day. You fail to mention the influence of the US Constitution. Even down to Chapters aligning to the content of Articles in the US, also there are a lot of phrases that are virtually lifted from the US - e.g. compare the US First Amendment establishment clause to s116.
@@AuspolExplained no worries. There’s lots of fun facts with federation, the conference was at a stalemate until William Ingliss Clarke tabled the US Constitution- Clarke is one half of the Tasmanian Hare-Clarke voting system. Clarke was a lifelong correspondent with and friend of the famous US Jurist and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the two had many discussions about the adaptation of the US Constitution into an Australian Constitution so indirectly Wendell Holmes had a say in our Constitution. There was no other acceptable model because they didn’t like the Canadian approach and of course the UK doesn’t have a written and entrenched constitution- the UK often refers to “the British constitution” but in reality it’s a few Acts of Parliament and overwhelmingly just conventions or customs and practices.
Use the Annotated Constitution by Quick and Garren to find all these references, there was at least 7 other countries constituions and founding doucuments that were studied to form our own.
A bit of a sad fact about the Australian constitution, for nearly a century the two original copies were stored unceremoniously in London. Then in 1989, as something of an after thought, the hawke government asked asked the Thatcher government if they could have a copy. In the words of bob hawke, 'Australian,s birth certificate is finally being returned home' The irony is that nobody seemed to realise it was missing in the fast place. How un- patriotic can you get.
Well, I'm not sure that London was actually the wrong place for it to be kept. You have to understand that our Commonwealth Constitution is just an act of the British Parliament, along with all the other acts of the British Parliament which also means it has to be consistent with them all, this is where we get inherited law from and includes the English bill of rights 1688, statute of monopolies 1623 and the Grandaddy of them all Magna Carta 1215. All these laws and may more are accessible to us here in Australia. I hear people say we don't have a bill of rights here in Australia, untrue and it shows their lack of understanding. All our rights are afforded us within the Commonwealth Constitution, those we need further clarification on we can find in the English Bill of Rights 1688. We have no need for a seperate document, and in my opinion would only serve to undermine the rights we currently have. Unfortunately this stuff isn't taught in schools so people have no basic understanding of their law to protect their rights, could you possibly reason why the government stopped teaching it in schools
Bob Hawke was one of the greatest political charlatans this country has ever seen while winning over the Australian people with popular policies he hoodwinked the British Parliament into passing the Australia Act 1986, got a signature of Queen Elizebeth Second on it all be it at the top of the document (placement of signatures in law is relevant) then made off with the evidence to prove it invalid in the original copy of the Commonwealth Constitution. But not everybody in the British Parliament was impressed with the Australia act and one of the Lords put his displeasure on record for us to find in these current times. Here is a short video to listen to if you are interested. It also summarises the filing and acceptance of the current British High court case CO/588/2020 which is acking for a determination to the Australia Acts 1986 validity. ua-cam.com/video/6fnAlEWd51g/v-deo.html
It's a process to stop/delay a bill by speaking for as long as possible. It's a well known tactic in the US, and not really a thing here. The Senate/House of Representatives both put in time limits for speakers way back in the the 1910s (so there is an unbeatable record by Albert Gardiner who spoke for about 12 hours in 1918 in the Senate). The rules of speaking limits are determined by the individual chambers not the constitution, so state parliaments vary on how long you can talk. I'm not sure of which ones allow for long speeches and which don't, or if this has changed since, but in NSW in 2011 Greens MLC David Shoebridge spoke for nearly 6 hours in a debate about overhaul wages and conditions for public servants, which set a record for the NSW Legislative Council which had been set at just shy of 4 hours - 20 years prior. So you can see that filibusters are not a common part of Australian parliamentary procedure though can exist in some state parliaments.
So you mentioned that one in parliament doesn't need to know the laws. If the rule makers don't know the law how can they be allowed access to instruments which effectively change the law and measure, practically, it's use and application. So that makes no sense. However, if someone does the wrong thing, like treasonist activity, they can call it a mistake, and people have to go through the hoops of holding these individuals responsible. Then they can be held accountable, according to law and order. How is it that cops can break their oaths and nothing happens? Is there not a side effect set-up in the rules that enables the effect, more likely rather than less likely, that they will do the wrong things in their positions? Look around. You can see it. What's wrong with freedom? Simple. People think they have it. And they, as an effective majority, show they trust those who shouldn't have power to abuse their power. And they will where they can. Wonder why "they" studied the crowd mentality, in psychology? So they could apply what they learned to 'crowds'. Another me for a type of crowd - the majority. Awake yet?
It’s not even possible to know every single law. Though most legislators have law degree, many of them to generally have a good understanding of the law. Though when MPs/Senators join parliament they get a crash course in the law. There are also lawyers that work for the government that assist them.
@@JamesVCTH Yes, they are incredibly ignorant. But what they do know is used against the public. Let's say that they have "rules of thumb" with a context of making sure that the agenda is continued. Now, who would care about doing that. And how can people be held accountable when laws are installed w/o proper interpretation, made enforced, simply b/c "that's the law"? The system is so corrupt, there is nothing to pinpoint. Hoe do you isolate a drop in the ocean w/o separating it from the WHOLE? You can't. Everything is together in the system and that's why ppl can't see where the corruption begins and ends. It's a horrid example of humanity's awareness, but proves ppl allowed it.
On what day did we hold a referendum to alter the Constitution to pay the Governor-General Dollars because my Constitution states in Chapter 1. The Parliament. Part 1. General. 3. There shall be payable to the Queen out of the Consolidated Revenue Salary of fund of the Commonwealth, for the salary of the Governor-General, an Governor annual sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides, shall be ten thousand pounds. The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during his continuance in office.
It says right in the wording Parliament can change the salary, just not during the term of a governor general, which they have not. For several GGs it didn't change. There are a few moments in the constitution that are "this is how it is until parliament says otherwise"
Again, it's right there in the wording the parliament decides the salary and it decided not to pay the position in a currency we haven't used in decades.
Here's info on the actual bill they pass to alter the salary when a new Governor General comes in. Hope this clears up things: www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2019/February/Governor-General_Amendment_Salary_Bill_2019
There is no preamble. The constitution does not have one. The text before the constitution is the enabling act of the UK, who had to approve of the constitution to make it law. Although that is a good fact and I should've mentioned that part I did again want to try and make the video as short as I could given a large subject.
Fact: the authors of our constitution never intended it to be for Black people (Aboriginal,African, Islanders and others). Because those authors deemed us lesser human if not down right worse. So whilst I affirm our constitutions and support it. It’s important not to loos sight of the fact it was a document written by European folks and FOR fellow Europeans. You may call say Whites.
you have no understanding of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1901 as proclaimed and gazetted. its the peoples constitution not the politicians constitution .
Need to add one more; your Constitution needs two more parts: equivalents or the US constitution's second and fifth amendments. You need to have the rights to bear arms and remain silent.
People who need guns in Australia, like farmers, can still access them. The constitution doesn't need to be amended to provide people firearms - that'd be the least efficient and most inconvenient way to do it
The constitutional law is suppose to be for peoples rights, but its not. We the public dont have a say in making the laws, parliment does & theyr all in on it together. From what we experienced with Covid lockdowns, our right to defend ourselves, our right to bare arms does not exsist, in reality Aussies have no rights, no freedom of speech, we have no freedom of anything
@@PmFlinty Yes. Mixed 50/50 - Humans/reptilians Yes but no, I come from a poor/lower class family they wouldn't let me in unless I knew a politician or 2 who held me in high regard then I'd have a good chance of getting in. As the saying goes; its not what you know it's who you know. I have no desire to be a politician anyway. So whats the point of your questions?
Seeing fresh David in my feed brought all the good vibes I needed heading into another Vic lockdown.
Keep it up legend 🙌🏼
I'm glad I'm bringing those much needed vibes. Lockdowns suck so I hope you get through this one ok!
Your video just appeared on my feed.
Well presented and explained in an engaging way.
Just subscribed boy are my kids in for a treat infront of the TV tonight.
Love these vids btw. I actually work in Parliament House here in Canberra and i don't know most of this stuff!
I am new to your channel, and I wish I had access to your channel when I was in high school doing P&L! Now that I'm doing Law, your videos help make Constitutional Law more fun! Thank you!!!
So interesting, helpful, and fun to watch; thank you! I liked the bit about the remoomins, they sound important.
You're looking dashing today, David :)
Thanks Sam!
Thanks for this video man, I’m trying to study for a test and it was super helpful and interesting. You’ve earned yourself a new sub.
I think the government needs a refresher on the whole no treason thing
I have a video about the definition of treason (hurting the queen or aiding a foreign military power in a war against Australia) and I assure you the government is in no way breaching the definition of treason. Governments often do things that make different people angry, but treason is almost never actually committed.
@@AuspolExplained Great, so it turns out I technically do have something nice I can say about the government. I won't be praising them for not being treasonous though, not while there's so many other fitting synonyms out there.
Great video by the way.
Could you make a video about the old South Australia splitting into South Australia and Northern Territory? I know very little about it and would be interested in learning more.
Also, could you make another video going over the history of Central Australia as once again I know very little about it and would be interested in learning. Central Australia is a part of our history that is greatly forgotten.
Great video. I've been researching how to challenge a State law under sections 76 & 109 of the Federal Constitution. I've found s 40 of Judiciary Act but can't find any examples of the application to the court. How about making a video on the "procedure" of "how to" challenge State law under Federal Constitution in Australia?
That sounds like the kind of expertise of a constitutional lawyer. If there's an issue for the interpretation of the constitution it's the duty of the High Court to hear cases on the matter but how one does an appeal to the High Court is not something I know much about sorry.
Have you researched the Annotated Constitution by Quick and Garren. This is a detailed book on how the constitution was formed the debates and conclusions that formed the wording of the constitution, it is the primary source that should be used when interpreting our Commonwealth Constitution.
It’s actually called Commonwealth Day.
You fail to mention the influence of the US Constitution. Even down to Chapters aligning to the content of Articles in the US, also there are a lot of phrases that are virtually lifted from the US - e.g. compare the US First Amendment establishment clause to s116.
That's a fun fact! Thanks for sharing
@@AuspolExplained no worries. There’s lots of fun facts with federation, the conference was at a stalemate until William Ingliss Clarke tabled the US Constitution- Clarke is one half of the Tasmanian Hare-Clarke voting system.
Clarke was a lifelong correspondent with and friend of the famous US Jurist and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the two had many discussions about the adaptation of the US Constitution into an Australian Constitution so indirectly Wendell Holmes had a say in our Constitution. There was no other acceptable model because they didn’t like the Canadian approach and of course the UK doesn’t have a written and entrenched constitution- the UK often refers to “the British constitution” but in reality it’s a few Acts of Parliament and overwhelmingly just conventions or customs and practices.
Use the Annotated Constitution by Quick and Garren to find all these references, there was at least 7 other countries constituions and founding doucuments that were studied to form our own.
A bit of a sad fact about the Australian constitution, for nearly a century the two original copies were stored unceremoniously in London.
Then in 1989, as something of an after thought, the hawke government asked asked the Thatcher government if they could have a copy.
In the words of bob hawke, 'Australian,s birth certificate is finally being returned home'
The irony is that nobody seemed to realise it was missing in the fast place.
How un- patriotic can you get.
Well, I'm not sure that London was actually the wrong place for it to be kept. You have to understand that our Commonwealth Constitution is just an act of the British Parliament, along with all the other acts of the British Parliament which also means it has to be consistent with them all, this is where we get inherited law from and includes the English bill of rights 1688, statute of monopolies 1623 and the Grandaddy of them all Magna Carta 1215. All these laws and may more are accessible to us here in Australia. I hear people say we don't have a bill of rights here in Australia, untrue and it shows their lack of understanding. All our rights are afforded us within the Commonwealth Constitution, those we need further clarification on we can find in the English Bill of Rights 1688. We have no need for a seperate document, and in my opinion would only serve to undermine the rights we currently have. Unfortunately this stuff isn't taught in schools so people have no basic understanding of their law to protect their rights, could you possibly reason why the government stopped teaching it in schools
Bob Hawke was one of the greatest political charlatans this country has ever seen while winning over the Australian people with popular policies he hoodwinked the British Parliament into passing the Australia Act 1986, got a signature of Queen Elizebeth Second on it all be it at the top of the document (placement of signatures in law is relevant) then made off with the evidence to prove it invalid in the original copy of the Commonwealth Constitution. But not everybody in the British Parliament was impressed with the Australia act and one of the Lords put his displeasure on record for us to find in these current times. Here is a short video to listen to if you are interested. It also summarises the filing and acceptance of the current British High court case CO/588/2020 which is acking for a determination to the Australia Acts 1986 validity. ua-cam.com/video/6fnAlEWd51g/v-deo.html
Can you tell me what a filibuster is?
It's a process to stop/delay a bill by speaking for as long as possible. It's a well known tactic in the US, and not really a thing here. The Senate/House of Representatives both put in time limits for speakers way back in the the 1910s (so there is an unbeatable record by Albert Gardiner who spoke for about 12 hours in 1918 in the Senate). The rules of speaking limits are determined by the individual chambers not the constitution, so state parliaments vary on how long you can talk. I'm not sure of which ones allow for long speeches and which don't, or if this has changed since, but in NSW in 2011 Greens MLC David Shoebridge spoke for nearly 6 hours in a debate about overhaul wages and conditions for public servants, which set a record for the NSW Legislative Council which had been set at just shy of 4 hours - 20 years prior. So you can see that filibusters are not a common part of Australian parliamentary procedure though can exist in some state parliaments.
16:10 That was spoken under duress wasn't it?
Nicolas Cage has broken into my house and is forcing me to remind everyone he has an Academy Award. Send help.
@@AuspolExplained 😂
Neither of you 😂😂 hilarious. Go Melbourne!!
So you mentioned that one in parliament doesn't need to know the laws. If the rule makers don't know the law how can they be allowed access to instruments which effectively change the law and measure, practically, it's use and application. So that makes no sense. However, if someone does the wrong thing, like treasonist activity, they can call it a mistake, and people have to go through the hoops of holding these individuals responsible. Then they can be held accountable, according to law and order. How is it that cops can break their oaths and nothing happens? Is there not a side effect set-up in the rules that enables the effect, more likely rather than less likely, that they will do the wrong things in their positions? Look around. You can see it. What's wrong with freedom? Simple. People think they have it. And they, as an effective majority, show they trust those who shouldn't have power to abuse their power. And they will where they can. Wonder why "they" studied the crowd mentality, in psychology? So they could apply what they learned to 'crowds'. Another me for a type of crowd - the majority.
Awake yet?
It’s not even possible to know every single law. Though most legislators have law degree, many of them to generally have a good understanding of the law. Though when MPs/Senators join parliament they get a crash course in the law. There are also lawyers that work for the government that assist them.
@@JamesVCTH Yes, they are incredibly ignorant. But what they do know is used against the public. Let's say that they have "rules of thumb" with a context of making sure that the agenda is continued. Now, who would care about doing that. And how can people be held accountable when laws are installed w/o proper interpretation, made enforced, simply b/c "that's the law"?
The system is so corrupt, there is nothing to pinpoint. Hoe do you isolate a drop in the ocean w/o separating it from the WHOLE? You can't. Everything is together in the system and that's why ppl can't see where the corruption begins and ends. It's a horrid example of humanity's awareness, but proves ppl allowed it.
On what day did we hold a referendum to alter the Constitution to pay the Governor-General Dollars because my Constitution states in Chapter 1. The Parliament. Part 1. General.
3. There shall be payable to the Queen out of the Consolidated Revenue Salary of
fund of the Commonwealth, for the salary of the Governor-General, an Governor annual sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides, shall be ten
thousand pounds.
The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during his
continuance in office.
It says right in the wording Parliament can change the salary, just not during the term of a governor general, which they have not. For several GGs it didn't change. There are a few moments in the constitution that are "this is how it is until parliament says otherwise"
@@AuspolExplained They can change the salary but not the currency.
Again, it's right there in the wording the parliament decides the salary and it decided not to pay the position in a currency we haven't used in decades.
Here's info on the actual bill they pass to alter the salary when a new Governor General comes in. Hope this clears up things: www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2019/February/Governor-General_Amendment_Salary_Bill_2019
You still don't get it. In order to alter the currency from pounds to Dollars they must hold a referendum. Full stop.
You forgot the preamble - probably because it mentions God
There is no preamble. The constitution does not have one. The text before the constitution is the enabling act of the UK, who had to approve of the constitution to make it law. Although that is a good fact and I should've mentioned that part I did again want to try and make the video as short as I could given a large subject.
The Preamble is part of the British Act which gives effect to the constitution. But it’s not actually part of the constitution itself.
Fact: the authors of our constitution never intended it to be for Black people (Aboriginal,African, Islanders and others).
Because those authors deemed us lesser human if not down right worse.
So whilst I affirm our constitutions and support it. It’s important not to loos sight of the fact it was a document written by European folks and FOR fellow Europeans. You may call say Whites.
you have no understanding of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1901 as proclaimed and gazetted. its the peoples constitution not the politicians constitution .
Need to add one more; your Constitution needs two more parts: equivalents or the US constitution's second and fifth amendments. You need to have the rights to bear arms and remain silent.
People who need guns in Australia, like farmers, can still access them. The constitution doesn't need to be amended to provide people firearms - that'd be the least efficient and most inconvenient way to do it
@@AuspolExplained City dwellers could make good use of guns too, like protect each other from crime along with police.
@@kentjensen4939 people in cities can actually own guns if they have a genuine reason to own them. Guns do exist in Australia.
@@AuspolExplained The best reason, protect your neighbors.
@@kentjensen4939 The vast body of studies and evidence prove guns aren't useful for that.
The constitutional law is suppose to be for peoples rights, but its not. We the public dont have a say in making the laws, parliment does & theyr all in on it together. From what we experienced with Covid lockdowns, our right to defend ourselves, our right to bare arms does not exsist, in reality Aussies have no rights, no freedom of speech, we have no freedom of anything
Do you vote?
Are politicians people?
Do you have the ability to become a politician?
@@PmFlinty
Yes.
Mixed 50/50 - Humans/reptilians
Yes but no, I come from a poor/lower class family they wouldn't let me in unless I knew a politician or 2 who held me in high regard then I'd have a good chance of getting in. As the saying goes; its not what you know it's who you know.
I have no desire to be a politician anyway.
So whats the point of your questions?