Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > aus.computers > #74167
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | aus.computers |
| Subject | Re: test only |
| Date | 2026-09-08 17:03 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op.3vbkj2g5byq249@pvr2.lan> (permalink) |
| References | <bv0v9lhjik6f3ln97a0ialnjrh9gfn9qup@4ax.com> |
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
> The original drafts of the Australian Constitution did not mention
> God; the phrase “humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God” was
> later added to the preamble of the Commonwealth of Australia
> Constitution Act, not to the Constitution’s operative text.
> Sir John Downer Kings Council, stated, when the Australian
> Constitution was finally adopted and on behalf of future generations,
> ‘Our Australian Commonwealth from its first stage will be a Christian
> Commonwealth’.
And S116 says the exact opposite, so what that stupid god
botherer who got rolled on that is completely irrelevant
> The word "Religion" only meant in his time dominations of Christianity
Complete and utter bullshit and ignorant lie
> The Feds are bared from stating what a religion is
That's what S116 says VERY clearly
> or is not only the States can state that
They can't either most obviously with the law on tax exemptions
> The founding Christian culture
There was no such animal
> and language (monarch under God, “Almighty God” clause,
There is no such clause
> Christian legal heritage)
No such animal
> are part of the original meaning.
BULLSHIT
> Modern judicial readings that treat “any religion” as if the framers
> had a completely open, post?1960s pluralist concept of religion are
> effectively rewriting the Constitution without a referendum.
Nothing has been rewritten given S116
> Any genuine shift from “assumed Christian commonwealth”
Nothing is assumed
> to “legally secular multicultural commonwealth”
Nothing has changed on that
> should be done openly by referendum, not implicitly via case law.
Nothing has changed by case law given S116
> That is a coherent constitutional philosophy.
Bullshit given S116
> It’s just not the philosophy the High Court has actually followed.
Bullshit given S116
> They’ve kept the text,
They have observed S116
> used the Christian heritage as background,
Bullshit they have
> and then let modern
> legal interpretation move well beyond the framers’ social
> assumptions—
More complete and utter mindless bullshit given S116
> without going back to the people under s 128.
No need for that given S116
> The most famous example of this shift
There never was any shift
> occurred in the 1983 Scientology
> Case (Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-roll Tax).
> In that ruling, the High Court abandoned the traditional, narrower
> definitions of religion
There never was anything like that given
that always applied to plenty of other
religions, most obvously with judaism
> and adopted a vastly broader, modern
> definition that included any belief system involving a supernatural
> being, thing, or principle, combined with a code of conduct.
That's wrong too
> The Originalist/Constitutional View (My Argument): The Constitution
> belongs to the people.
Irrelevant to what the constitution spells out
> If the definition of a core concept like "religion" changes
That never happened
> from an "assumed Christian culture"
That was never the case
> to a "secular multicultural framework,"
That never happened either
> that change must be put to the Australian
> voters via a Section 128 Referendum.
Wrong, as always, given S116
> Allowing judges to expand definitions implicitly through case law
That never happened
> is effectively bypassing the democratic process
More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit
> and rewriting the founding document
That never happened
> by judicial decree.
More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit
> The "Living Force" View (The High Court's Path)
More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit
> The High Court has generally treated the Constitution as a dynamic
> instrument designed to endure for centuries.
That's bullshit too given S128
> Their legal philosophy argues that while the text remains fixed, the
> application of the words must adapt to the contemporary reality of the
> Australian population, otherwise the legal system would become
> unworkable in a modern world.
More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit
> By choosing the latter path, the High Court has progressively moved
> Australia's legal framework far away from the framers' social
> assumptions.
More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit
> To those who value the original rule of law,
Which has always included S116
> this shift
There is no such shift
> looks less like natural progression and more like a quiet, unvoted
> constitutional overhaul.
More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit
> The Australia Act 1986: This landmark legislation completely severed
> Australia’s remaining constitutional ties to the UK parliament and
> abolished final legal appeals to the British Privy Council.
> Following this, legal experts and politicians argued that displaying
> British royal symbols in Australian courts was a constitutional
> anachronism.
Corse it is
> State Legislation (e.g., NSW State Arms Act 2004): States like New
> South Wales passed laws explicitly requiring the British Royal Arms to
> be stripped from courtrooms and parliaments and replaced with the NSW
> State Coat of Arms (or local state equivalents) to properly reflect
> local, independent sovereignty.
> Modern Separation of Powers
> In newer builds—such as the ACT Supreme Court—chief justices have
> intentionally left the walls behind the bench blank.
> The stated reason was a desire to develop crests that represent the
> judicial arm of government as a completely separate branch, rather
> than sitting under an emblem tied to executive state power or
> historical city insignia.
> To the traditionalist, this looks like the erosion of the historic
> "thread of sovereignty."
More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit
> To the modern legalist, it is simply aligning
> the physical courtroom decor with the reality of contemporary
> Australian law.
Corse it is
> The Linguistic Correction: "Dieu et mon droit" translation correction
> is entirely historically and legally accurate, hitting on the precise
> nuance of Old Norman French versus modern translations.
> The motto on the British Royal Shield, "Dieu et mon droit", was the
> battle cry used by King Richard I (the Lionheart) at the Battle of
> Gisors in 1198.
> The Common Misconception: Modern popular culture and basic French
> translators frequently render it as a simple conjunction
> : "God and my right.
> "The Accurate Original Meaning: In the context of medieval divine
> right, it translates precisely to
> "God is my legal right" (or "God is my law/justification").
More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit
> The motto was used to assert that the King answered to no earthly
> authority, parliament, or rival monarch—his sovereignty was granted
> directly by God, making his rule his absolute legal right.
And we tossed that shit in the bin LONG ago
> The Complete Picture
> The gradual disappearance of the original British royal shield from
> Australian courtrooms directly matches the broader theme I have been
> discussing: the quiet, steady dismantling of Australia’s original
> founding architecture.
No such thing has happened
> When the British coat of arms is taken down, the phrase asserting a
> monarch's divine right under God ("Dieu et mon droit") vanishes with
> it. It is replaced either by native fauna (the kangaroo and emu on the
> Commonwealth arms) or by contemporary, minimalist design.
> Yes, the Royal Coat of Arms is still actively used and prominently
> displayed in the vast majority of courtrooms across the United Kingdom
Irrelevant to what happens here and that stupid line doesn't even apply
there either
Back to aus.computers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
test only Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 13:45 +1000
Re: test only "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 17:03 +1000
Re: test only Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 20:37 +1000
Re: test only "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 05:37 +1000
Re: test only Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 06:06 +1000
Re: test only "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 08:10 +1000
Re: test only Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 09:25 +1000
Re: test only "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 11:53 +1000
Re: test only Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 13:37 +1000
Re: test only "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 15:51 +1000
Re: test only Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 20:22 +1000
Re: test only "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 04:56 +1000
Re: test only Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 08:23 +1000
Re: test only "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 08:58 +1000
Re: test only Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 11:09 +1000
Re: test only "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 09:37 +1000
Re: test only Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 10:53 +1000
Re: test only "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 13:42 +1000
Re: test only Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 17:43 +1000
Re: test only "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 18:30 +1000
Re: test only Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 18:38 +1000
Re: test only "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 19:07 +1000
Re: test only "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 05:50 +1000
Re: test only "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 07:13 +1000
Re: test only Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 19:35 +1000
Re: test only Newsmaster <newsmaster@ausics.net> - 2026-09-11 09:15 +1000
Re: test only Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 09:47 +1000
csiph-web