Referendum 2023

[Siberian Kitten]

We're not talking about American politics with the Biden and Clinton crime family, we're talking about Australians choosing to commit crime and having to face the consequences.

And don't forget the bloke who was trained by Mafia lawyer, Roy Cohn, and his family.

 

[Fallen Angel]

We're not talking about American politics with the Biden and Clinton crime family, we're talking about Australians choosing to commit crime and having to face the consequences.

Joe Biden. Head of a crime family (the big guy), and trying to jail his main political opponent. Just plain evil. And at the same time that he’s masterfully pulling all of these strings like the evil genius he is, can’t even tie his own shoelaces cos he’s so old and senile. The mental gymnastics is gold medal worthy.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

@Mistymuzzle[/USER] believes it's a potential threat to the constitution and our democratic process.

I dont believe it is a threat to the Constitution, in that it wont operate because of the Voice, I just object to the Constitution providing a privilege to one small segment of the Australian population on an immutable characteristic such as race.

It is by definition a threat to the current democratic process. By definition, one small segment of the population has double the representation in Parliament and is also directly represented in the executive unlike the rest of the Australian Population. Additionally one small portion of the Australian Population has access to the High Court to seek injunction against proposed legislation. None of this is what I believe or think, this is a fact, it is what is written in the proposed amendment.

Here is a hypothetical for you that was put forward by Professor Nicholas Aroney who is Professor of Constitutional Law at The University of Queensland and an External Fellow of the Centre for Law and Religion at Emory University. He has held visiting positions at Oxford, Cambridge, Paris II, Edinburgh, Durham, Sydney, Emory and Tilburg universities......

China attacks Taiwan or more likely blockades the Taiwan Strait. As a result the supply of 90% of top end semi conductors dries up instantly. A US ship exercises its right to travel in international/Taiwanese waters and is attacked by Chinese navy. As a result the world instantly snaps to attention and Australia impose economic, diplomatic and military sanctions on China.

An emergency session of Parliament is held and the government votes and passes emergency legislation dealing with the issue which includes a plan to immediately construct joint Aus/US Naval and Military bases on 1000Ha in Northern Territory to establish emergency defence positions. Legislation is passed overnight to take effect immediately.

Because the Voice was not given an opportunity to consult, The Voice would have the power to seek an injunction against this in the High Court and the High Court would have no choice to grant leave to the injunction and delay or stop the defence facility construction.

Of course this is an extreme hypothetical example, but very real and of course there are many lower grade but more likely examples. In law, there is a basic guiding principle when considering the creation of new laws called the principle of unintended consequences and the understanding that every new law potentially results in being tested at the end of a gun. This notion that this change to the Constitution is "just an advisory body" and what could it hurt to try it if it might help indigenous people flies against this principle and IMO anyone who genuinely believes this does not understand the role of the High Court in enacting the Constitution.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Joe Biden. Head of a crime family (the big guy), and trying to jail his main political opponent. Just plain evil. And at the same time that he’s masterfully pulling all of these strings like the evil genius he is, can’t even tie his own shoelaces cos he’s so old and senile. The mental gymnastics is gold medal worthy.

The Hunter becomes the Hunted

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

I dont believe it is a threat to the Constitution, in that it wont operate because of the Voice, I just object to the Constitution providing a privilege to one small segment of the Australian population on an immutable characteristic such as race.

It is by definition a threat to the current democratic process. By definition, one small segment of the population has double the representation in Parliament and is also directly represented in the executive unlike the rest of the Australian Population. Additionally one small portion of the Australian Population has access to the High Court to seek injunction against proposed legislation. None of this is what I believe or think, this is a fact, it is what is written in the proposed amendment.

Here is a hypothetical for you that was put forward by Professor Nicholas Aroney who is Professor of Constitutional Law at The University of Queensland and an External Fellow of the Centre for Law and Religion at Emory University. He has held visiting positions at Oxford, Cambridge, Paris II, Edinburgh, Durham, Sydney, Emory and Tilburg universities......

China attacks Taiwan or more likely blockades the Taiwan Strait. As a result the supply of 90% of top end semi conductors dries up instantly. A US ship exercises its right to travel in international/Taiwanese waters and is attacked by Chinese navy. As a result the world instantly snaps to attention and Australia impose economic, diplomatic and military sanctions on China.

An emergency session of Parliament is held and the government votes and passes emergency legislation dealing with the issue which includes a plan to immediately construct joint Aus/US Naval and Military bases on 1000Ha in Northern Territory to establish emergency defence positions. Legislation is passed overnight to take effect immediately.

Because the Voice was not given an opportunity to consult, The Voice would have the power to seek an injunction against this in the High Court and the High Court would have no choice to grant leave to the injunction and delay or stop the defence facility construction.

Of course this is an extreme hypothetical example, but very real and of course there are many lower grade but more likely examples. In law, there is a basic guiding principle when considering the creation of new laws called the principle of unintended consequences and the understanding that every new law potentially results in being tested at the end of a gun. This notion that this change to the Constitution is "just an advisory body" and what could it hurt to try it if it might help indigenous people flies against this principle and IMO anyone who genuinely believes this does not understand the role of the High Court in enacting the Constitution.

What you believe and what is real are worlds apart.

 

[Fallen Angel]

The Hunter becomes the Hunted

Have you seen any Jamie Comer interview? Every one is him saying “I’m hoping we’re going to find something”. Yet he can’t find shit. Been hunting him for 3 years and still can’t find any evidence. And even if they did, on the laptop, it’s been copied so much that it’s impossible to find the metadata, therefore a first year law student could get it thrown out. All they have on him is that he lied on a form to acquire a gun. Which is something Republicans are against anyway. Background checks. It’s the equivalent of Don Jr being charged for soliciting an abortion. Not something the left could take a victory lap over.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

I dont want to go down that rabbit hole. One day the truth will come out.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Have you seen any Jamie Comer interview? Every one is him saying “I’m hoping we’re going to find something”. Yet he can’t find shit. Been hunting him for 3 years and still can’t find any evidence. And even if they did, on the laptop, it’s been copied so much that it’s impossible to find the metadata, therefore a first year law student could get it thrown out. All they have on him is that he lied on a form to acquire a gun. Which is something Republicans are against anyway. Background checks. It’s the equivalent of Don Jr being charged for soliciting an abortion. Not something the left could take a victory lap over.

Not even a crack pipe.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Who is Bill Gates?

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

 

[a_dog]

Dont even bother replying to the prick. Usual tactic by the low IQ idiots on the left. Resort to implicitly calling people NAZIs. All they do is turn people away in droves.

To the mods, if youre gonna delete my post for calling him a shit, leave the wankers post for all to see what a despicable piece of garbage he is.

If the shoe fits.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Better than the rule in your ridiculous playbook of read actually researched independent viewpoints and regurgitate horeshit fed to you by morons then call a 36 year old man a kid.

You are a mouthbreathing turd and I hope you haven't bred.

So you are a Yes Voter. Thats okay. If he is that......

If the shoe fits.

Wear it? Reminds me of a story I heard a long time ago. There was a man who complained he was missing a shoe till he came to man missing a leg.

 

[KingRobbie]

We had a good run but we’ll be leaving it there.

Thanks to all who offered quality contributions to the debate surrounding the upcoming referendum.

 

[Spartan117]

Hey I will respect views that disagree with me.

I can politely disagree with Lidia Thorpe on some points. She thinks that voting No is the best for her community, I disagree but can respect.

The Nazi Idiot who got passed police and burned the Aboriginal Flag. No respect from me and I hope that they Jail that idiot.

Lidia Thorpe accuses police of failing to protect her after neo-Nazi threat

www.9news.com.au

We can respect well thought out and honest opinions that disagree with our own. We don't need to respect Nazi idiots who burn the Aboriginal flag infront of a No campaigner.

Lydia Thorpe s dad is Irish decent

We can pick and choose our ancestry it seems.

I'm doing DNA test nest week. I'm.sure I will find some aboriginal heritage also.

Stat Dec here I come