Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > aus.computers > #74180

Re: test only

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>> I don't believe you, its entirely the steaming turd
>> you have dropped countless times before

>> And that's what grok says too
>> https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_128a3e35-caaa-4f22-88a9-347c7e909777

> I had GROK do it's version

Grok never said that, you pathological liar
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_454364f6-b392-4f47-b825-480f9fef556b

> The original drafts of the Australian Constitution contained no
> reference to God. The words “humbly relying on the blessing of
> Almighty God” were inserted into the preamble of the Commonwealth of
> Australia Constitution Act 1900 after deliberate debate and petition
> at the Federal Conventions. That insertion formed part of the
> constitutional compact as finally adopted.
> Sir John Downer KC, speaking at the moment of adoption and expressly
> for future generations, declared that “Our Australian Commonwealth
> from its first stage will be a Christian Commonwealth.” In the
> vocabulary of the framers the word “religion” referred only to the
> several denominations of Christianity. That was the sole meaning the
> term carried in the constitutional text they enacted. The Christian
> character of the new polity—expressed in the monarchical oath under
> God, the Almighty God clause of the covering Act, and the received
> common-law heritage—was therefore an assumed and operative premise of
> the Constitution as they understood and adopted it.
> Section 116 of the Constitution denies the Commonwealth any power to
> change the meaning of religion. The section provides that the
> Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion,
> imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of
> any religion, and that no religious test shall be required for office
> under the Commonwealth. In the understanding of the framers the word
> “religion” referred only to the Christian denominations. Section 116
> therefore locks that meaning against Commonwealth alteration. The
> definition and regulation of religion, beyond the specific
> prohibitions in section 116, is the domain of the States. Any attempt
> by the Commonwealth—whether by legislation or by judicial
> redefinition—to expand “religion” beyond the Christian denominations
> known to the framers is contrary to the original text and requires the
> authority of the people under section 128.
> Because the founding Christian culture and language formed part of the
> original meaning, any judicial reading that treats “any religion” as
> an open, pluralist category unknown to the framers rewrites the
> Constitution without authority.
> A genuine change from the Christian commonwealth the framers
> established to a secular multicultural framework can be made only by
> the people themselves under section 128. It cannot be effected by case
> law.
> That is the coherent originalist position.
> It is not the course the High Court has taken.
> The Court has retained the text, treated the Christian heritage as
> mere background, and then permitted modern interpretation to move far
> beyond the framers’ understanding—without returning to the electors
> under section 128.
> The clearest illustration is the 1983 Scientology case (Church of the
> New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-roll Tax).
> There the High Court discarded the traditional meaning of
> religion—limited to the Christian denominations known to the
> framers—and substituted a broad modern definition covering any belief
> system that involves a supernatural being, thing or principle together
> with a code of conduct.
> That expansion altered a core constitutional concept by judicial
> decree rather than by referendum.
> The originalist view is straightforward.
> The Constitution belongs to the people.
> When the meaning of a foundational term such as “religion” is shifted
> from the Christian denominations the framers knew to a secular
> multicultural category they never contemplated, the change must be put
> to the Australian voters under section 128.
> Judicial redefinition bypasses the democratic process and amends the
> founding document without the people’s consent.
> The alternative approach treated by the High Court as a “living”
> instrument allows the application of the words to evolve with
> contemporary social conditions.
> That path has carried Australian law a long distance from the framers’
> assumptions.
> To those who hold that the original meaning governs until the people
> alter it, the result is a quiet constitutional change effected without
> a vote.
> The same pattern appears in the treatment of symbols.
> The Australia Act 1986 severed the remaining legislative and appellate
> links with the United Kingdom.
> Thereafter the continued display of the British Royal Arms in
> Australian courts was characterised as an anachronism.
> State legislation followed.
> The New South Wales State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Act 2004 required
> the British Royal Arms to be removed from courtrooms and parliamentary
> buildings and replaced with the State Arms so as to reflect
> independent sovereignty.
> In newer buildings such as the ACT Supreme Court the walls behind the
> bench have been left deliberately blank, the stated purpose being to
> mark the judiciary as a separate branch of government rather than one
> sitting under an historic emblem.
> To the originalist these changes form part of the steady dismantling
> of the founding architecture.
> When the British coat of arms is taken down, the motto “Dieu et mon
> droit” disappears with it.
> That motto, the battle cry of Richard I at Gisors in 1198, asserted in
> its proper medieval sense that the King’s right was derived from
> God—“God is my legal right”—and that he answered to no earthly
> authority.
> Its removal, and the substitution of native fauna or blank walls,
> severs a visible thread of the sovereignty the framers inherited and
> assumed.
> (By contrast, the Royal Coat of Arms remains in regular use in the
> great majority of courtrooms throughout the United Kingdom.)
> In short, the word “religion” in the Constitution as originally
> understood referred only to the Christian denominations.
> Section 116 denies the Commonwealth power to alter that meaning; the
> domain remains with the States.
> Any wider meaning requires the authority of the people expressed in a
> section 128 referendum.
> That is the presentation required by the original text and by the
> legal advice that the change, if it is to be made, must be made by the
> electors themselves.
>
> https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_e5ecc77c-554c-4e25-a335-361d4aee3ade
> Bottom line
> The document correctly identifies the Christian cultural and legal
> matrix in which the Constitution was framed, the deliberate insertion
> of the Almighty God clause, Downer’s contemporaneous characterisation,
> and the High Court’s later expansive approach to “religion.” It then
> draws the strong originalist conclusion that any move beyond the
> framers’ Christian denominational understanding of “religion,” or any
> analogous change in constitutional symbolism, requires s 128 approval
> and cannot validly be effected by judicial or ordinary legislative
> action.
> That is a coherent position within originalist theory.
> It is not the position the High Court has adopted, nor the
> understanding that has governed Australian public law and practice for
> decades.
> The gap between the two is precisely the ongoing debate over whether
> the Constitution is to be read according to its original public
> meaning until the people change it, or whether its application may
> evolve with changed social conditions without formal amendment.

Back to aus.computers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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