Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > aus.computers > #74166 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-09-08 13:45 +1000 |
| Last post | 2026-09-11 09:47 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 27 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to aus.computers
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
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 13:45 +1000 |
| Subject | test only |
| Message-ID | <bv0v9lhjik6f3ln97a0ialnjrh9gfn9qup@4ax.com> |
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.
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’.
The word "Religion" only meant in his time dominations of Christianity
The Feds are bared from stating what a religion is or is not only the
States can state that
The founding Christian culture and language (monarch under God,
“Almighty God” clause, Christian legal heritage) are part of the
original meaning.
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.
Any genuine shift from “assumed Christian commonwealth” to “legally
secular multicultural commonwealth” should be done openly by
referendum, not implicitly via case law.
That is a coherent constitutional philosophy. It’s just not the
philosophy the High Court has actually followed. They’ve kept the
text, used the Christian heritage as background, and then let modern
legal interpretation move well beyond the framers’ social
assumptions—without going back to the people under s 128.
The most famous example of this 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 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.
The Originalist/Constitutional View (My Argument): The Constitution
belongs to the people. If the definition of a core concept like
"religion" changes from an "assumed Christian culture" to a "secular
multicultural framework," that change must be put to the Australian
voters via a Section 128 Referendum.
Allowing judges to expand definitions implicitly through case law is
effectively bypassing the democratic process and rewriting the
founding document by judicial decree.
The "Living Force" View (The High Court's Path)
: The High Court has generally treated the Constitution as a dynamic instrument designed to endure for centuries.
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.
By choosing the latter path, the High Court has progressively moved
Australia's legal framework far away from the framers' social
assumptions. To those who value the original rule of law, this shift
looks less like natural progression and more like a quiet, unvoted
constitutional overhaul.
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.
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." To the modern legalist, it is simply aligning
the physical courtroom decor with the reality of contemporary
Australian law.
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").
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.
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.
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
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 17:03 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op.3vbkj2g5byq249@pvr2.lan> |
| In reply to | #74166 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 20:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <2bpv9ldrk52vtuir5hhikencbhdjr9m50g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #74167 |
On Tue, 08 Sep 2026 17:03:28 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
--
<https://www.perplexity.ai/search/rod-speed-usenet-troll-iBra.u6iSuy..0dwUJuvhQ#0>
https://tinyurl.com/z5hh3shh
Rod Speed is known in Usenet communities as a notorious
argumentative figure often labeled a troll.
So says Rod speed a egotistical self appointed know-all who knows nothing
Rod has been on newgroups since the 80's and still the same
Rod Speed a annoying Australian can type faster than you can talk
Best to ignore or he will continue to bait you
Rod speed a egotistical self appointed know-all who knows nothing
Rod has been on newgroups since the 80's and still the same
When he starts short vulgar bursts just stop replying--
If you want to practice talking to his idiot responses Australia has a
bot to practice with or he white ants you overtime you post!
"The Rod Speed Bot"
https://www.sensationbot.com/jschat.php?db=rodspeed
ROD SPEED A SELF APPOINTED EGOTISTICAL KNOW-ALL WHO KNOWS NOTHING
JUST FULL OF
R
O
D
S
P
E
E
D
B
U
L
L
S
H
I
T
DON'T STEP IN IT!
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF ROD SPEED'S HEART IS IN THE RIGHT PLACE,
HIS HEAD IS UP HIS OWN ARSE, ALWAYS FARTING EYLASHES!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 05:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op.3vcjf3rsbyq249@pvr2.lan> |
| In reply to | #74168 |
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote just the usual shit it always ends up with when its got done like a fucking dinner, as it always is
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 06:06 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e8q0al54f6mh3k44asekarhqr5r4k0utaq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #74169 |
On Wed, 09 Sep 2026 05:37:05 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote just the >usual shit it always ends up with when its got >done like a fucking dinner, as it always is > What a good idea One Nation is doing in kicking known malcontents out of press conferences for "spin," "lies," "rubbish," or decency failing to ever report the truth. -- Petzl It's hard to win an argument with a smart person but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. The pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you're stupid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 08:10 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op.3vcqi2zzbyq249@pvr2.lan> |
| In reply to | #74170 |
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote > What a good idea One Nation is doing in kicking known malcontents out > of press conferences for "spin," "lies," "rubbish," or decency failing > to ever report the truth. You wouldn't know what the truth was if it bit you on your drug crazed drunken lard arse Yes, journos shouldn't be getting stuck in to who ever is doing the press conference, they should just be REPORTING what those doing the press conference are presenting
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 09:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <d861al91qj02ilm9rv0f7hruem7nukogjj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #74171 |
On Wed, 09 Sep 2026 08:10:04 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote > >> What a good idea One Nation is doing in kicking known malcontents out >> of press conferences for "spin," "lies," "rubbish," or decency failing >> to ever report the truth. > >You wouldn't know what the truth was if it bit >you on your drug crazed drunken lard arse > >Yes, journos shouldn't be getting stuck in to >who ever is doing the press conference, they >should just be REPORTING what those doing >the press conference are presenting > See not hard to show some reasoning -- Petzl It's hard to win an argument with a smart person but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. The pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you're stupid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 11:53 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op.3vc0uqf9byq249@pvr2.lan> |
| In reply to | #74172 |
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote >>> What a good idea One Nation is doing in kicking known malcontents out >>> of press conferences for "spin," "lies," "rubbish," or decency failing >>> to ever report the truth. >> You wouldn't know what the truth was if it bit >> you on your drug crazed drunken lard arse >> Yes, journos shouldn't be getting stuck in to >> who ever is doing the press conference, they >> should just be REPORTING what those doing >> the press conference are presenting > See not hard to show some reasoning Something you can never manage with that steaming turd you dropped about the constitution
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 13:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <8uk1al1pbpv4l1iv1r3t9vv0aa3uk5ft62@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #74173 |
On Wed, 09 Sep 2026 11:53:04 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote > >>>> What a good idea One Nation is doing in kicking known malcontents out >>>> of press conferences for "spin," "lies," "rubbish," or decency failing >>>> to ever report the truth. > >>> You wouldn't know what the truth was if it bit >>> you on your drug crazed drunken lard arse > >>> Yes, journos shouldn't be getting stuck in to >>> who ever is doing the press conference, they >>> should just be REPORTING what those doing >>> the press conference are presenting > >> See not hard to show some reasoning > >Something you can never manage with that steaming >turd you dropped about the constitution > I didn't write it I copy and pasted a Judges version of what's happen there, you think your opinion is worth something? -- Petzl It's hard to win an argument with a smart person but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. The pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you're stupid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 15:51 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op.3vdbvgefbyq249@pvr2.lan> |
| In reply to | #74174 |
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote >>> See not hard to show some reasoning >> Something you can never manage with that steaming >> turd you dropped about the constitution > I didn't write it I copy and pasted a Judges version of what's happen > there, 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 20:22 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <lhc2alhm6io45n4f00d0715fthj0c4op7d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #74175 |
On Wed, 09 Sep 2026 15:51:06 +1000, "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 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. -- Petzl It's hard to win an argument with a smart person but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. The pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you're stupid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 04:56 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op.3veb7nkwbyq249@pvr2.lan> |
| In reply to | #74177 |
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 You need to show us the question you asked it and you need to show the response the same way I do so we can see that grok actually said it and that you didn't make it up > 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. That doesn't say that it overrides S116 as you stupidly do > 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. Grok never said that > 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. Grok never said that either <reams of your fabrication flushed where it belongs>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 08:23 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ncl3alh1rvara2gitoeuknbqmp4ipmd5lr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #74178 |
On Thu, 10 Sep 2026 04:56:01 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >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 > >You need to show us the question you asked it and >you need to show the response the same way I do >so we can see that grok actually said it and that >you didn't make it up > I showed the link you snipped it out <https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_e5ecc77c-554c-4e25-a335-361d4aee3ade> In Australia according to my legal advice from a professor at law and Kings Council, is the constitution has to be interpreted by what it meant to those that voted for it in 1900. In other words a originalist version which is what I asked for And which GROK gleefully did. Showing how the high Court ignored S116 which bans the feds determining what a religion is, Section 116 of the Constitution denies the Commonwealth any power to change the meaning of religion. 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. 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 (requiring a referendum). "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. The same pattern appears in the treatment of symbols. The Australia Act 1986 severed the remaining legislative and appellate links with the United Kingdom. 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. ******************** Back to me not GROK The Shield showing the Royal Coat of Arms in a Court, behind the Magistrate/Judge, show the Court has the authority given by our King and head of state to administer judgments. The King’s right was derived from God—“God is my legal right”—and that he answered to no earthly authority. -- Petzl It's hard to win an argument with a smart person but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. The pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you're stupid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 08:58 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op.3venezcfbyq249@pvr2.lan> |
| In reply to | #74181 |
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >> 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 >> You need to show us the question you asked it and >> you need to show the response the same way I do >> so we can see that grok actually said it and that >> you didn't make it up > I showed the link you snipped it out More of your pathological lies > <https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_e5ecc77c-554c-4e25-a335-361d4aee3ade> That's not what you claimed grok said, you pathological liar What you previously claimed grok said was actually what you ASKED grok, not what grok told you, you pathologial liar And grok pissed on your stupid claim about what was meant by religion at that time, rubbing your stupid claim in the FACT that the discussion about what should be in the constitution explicitly mentioned jews and 'mahomens' And pissed on your stupid claim that there has been any change to the constitution that requires a S128 referendum And pisses on your stupid claim that the preamble has ANY effect on S116 > In Australia according to my legal advice from a professor at law Who you never named, so you are clearly lying again, you pathological liar <reams of YOUR stupid repeated shit flushed where it belongs>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 11:09 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <d104al5oq05pg6s2o8719jfvolofu5tu9f@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #74183 |
On Thu, 10 Sep 2026 08:58:01 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> 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 > >>> You need to show us the question you asked it and >>> you need to show the response the same way I do >>> so we can see that grok actually said it and that >>> you didn't make it up > >> I showed the link you snipped it out > >More of your pathological lies > >> <https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_e5ecc77c-554c-4e25-a335-361d4aee3ade> > >That's not what you claimed grok said, you pathological liar > >What you previously claimed grok said was actually what you >ASKED grok, not what grok told you, you pathologial liar > >And grok pissed on your stupid claim about what was meant >by religion at that time, rubbing your stupid claim in the FACT >that the discussion about what should be in the constitution >explicitly mentioned jews and 'mahomens' > >And pissed on your stupid claim that there has been any >change to the constitution that requires a S128 referendum > >And pisses on your stupid claim that >the preamble has ANY effect on S116 > >> In Australia according to my legal advice from a professor at law > >Who you never named, so you are clearly lying again, you pathological liar > ><reams of YOUR stupid repeated shit flushed where it belongs> > I just posted Groks conclusion which you would of seen if you scrolled down to.. here 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. -- Petzl In a democracy of course you always get a choice Do you want to be governed by the red or by the blue it’s entirely up to you Do you want to be patronized or condescended to, by liars or by crooks you get to choose. Would you prefer your fundamental values to be insulted or ignored by con-men or by charlatans In short do you want your influence to be zero or nil and when would you like to be listened to, never or not at all, it’s your choice Do you want, some more choices. Take-it-or-leave-it Now there’s a real choice we have proportional voting in Australia USE IT I’d be happy with any kind of representation wouldn't you I would like to see a new government and part of me doesn't’give a damn who’s in it as long as it doesn't’include anybody from the Labor, Liberal or Green party organizations that show itself to be without shame or principle All spineless and authoritarian both cowardly and war mongering at the same time
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 09:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op.3veo9kembyq249@pvr2.lan> |
| In reply to | #74181 |
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >> 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 > I showed the link you snipped it out Everyone can see for themselves that there is no link in the original, you pathetic excuse for a pathological liar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 10:53 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <0qv3alt53ggg5uf6ejpmtrgoepvv5911gn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #74185 |
On Thu, 10 Sep 2026 09:37:58 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> 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
>
>
>> I showed the link you snipped it out
>
>Everyone can see for themselves that
>there is no link in the original, you
>pathetic excuse for a pathological liar
>
Then why you cut it out again?
<https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_e5ecc77c-554c-4e25-a335-361d4aee3ade>
--
<https://www.perplexity.ai/search/rod-speed-usenet-troll-iBra.u6iSuy..0dwUJuvhQ#0>
https://tinyurl.com/z5hh3shh
Rod Speed is known in Usenet communities as a notorious
argumentative figure often labeled a troll.
So says Rod speed a egotistical self appointed know-all who knows nothing
Rod has been on newgroups since the 80's and still the same
Rod Speed a annoying Australian can type faster than you can talk
Best to ignore or he will continue to bait you
Rod speed a egotistical self appointed know-all who knows nothing
Rod has been on newgroups since the 80's and still the same
When he starts short vulgar bursts just stop replying--
If you want to practice talking to his idiot responses Australia has a
bot to practice with or he white ants you overtime you post!
"The Rod Speed Bot"
https://www.sensationbot.com/jschat.php?db=rodspeed
ROD SPEED A SELF APPOINTED EGOTISTICAL KNOW-ALL WHO KNOWS NOTHING
JUST FULL OF
R
O
D
S
P
E
E
D
B
U
L
L
S
H
I
T
DON'T STEP IN IT!
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF ROD SPEED'S HEART IS IN THE RIGHT PLACE,
HIS HEAD IS UP HIS OWN ARSE, ALWAYS FARTING EYLASHES!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 13:42 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op.3ve0luzhbyq249@pvr2.lan> |
| In reply to | #74186 |
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>> 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 >>> I showed the link you snipped it out >> Everyone can see for themselves that >> there is no link in the original, you >> pathetic excuse for a pathological liar > Then why you cut it out again? I didn't cut any link out, originally or now, you pathological liar > <https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_e5ecc77c-554c-4e25-a335-361d4aee3ade>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 17:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <4dn4al9l0hprb00t4mvbet34plk85f9445@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #74188 |
On Thu, 10 Sep 2026 13:42:56 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote >>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> 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 > >>>> I showed the link you snipped it out > >>> Everyone can see for themselves that >>> there is no link in the original, you >>> pathetic excuse for a pathological liar > >> Then why you cut it out again? > >I didn't cut any link out, originally or now, you pathological liar > >> <https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_e5ecc77c-554c-4e25-a335-361d4aee3ade> > Was cut out with this bit <reams of your fabrication flushed where it belongs> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2026 20:22:53 +1000 Lines: 145 Which contained this link 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. -- Petzl It's hard to win an argument with a smart person but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. The pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you're stupid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 18:30 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op.3vfdwd19byq249@pvr2.lan> |
| In reply to | #74190 |
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>> 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 >>>>> I showed the link you snipped it out >>>> Everyone can see for themselves that >>>> there is no link in the original, you >>>> pathetic excuse for a pathological liar >>> Then why you cut it out again? >> I didn't cut any link out, originally, you pathological liar >>> <https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_e5ecc77c-554c-4e25-a335-361d4aee3ade> <reams of your fabrication flushed where it belongs>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | aus.computers
csiph-web