Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
130920-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re Various Issues-Republic by Stealth!

130920-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re Various Issues-Republic by Stealth!

Ratings: (0)|Views: 7 |Likes:
A republic by stealth? Lets us have a proper look at constitutional issues and if a republic is feasible by referendum!
A republic by stealth? Lets us have a proper look at constitutional issues and if a republic is feasible by referendum!

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka on Sep 19, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/31/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 p1 20-9-2013
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVDA 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD
ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE
: You may order books in the
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series
by making a reservation, See also
Blog at
Mr Tony Abbott
Prime Minister 20-9-2013Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au
5
Cc: Mr Malcolm Turnbull MPMalcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au
Ref: 130919-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re various issues-Republic by stealth!
10
Tony,as a
CONSTITUTIONALIST
I seek to clarify some matters as there seems to be aconsiderable misconception by many, including so called
monarchist
and
republican
, as wellas the judiciary in general (including the High Court of Australia) as to the true meaning and
15
application of the constitution, as some matters I will set out in a limited format below.
.
As I understand it you are a
monarchist
and Malcolm Turnbull is a
republican
, but bothhave law degrees.
.
20
I am just an ordinary bloke who didn
t have English as his native language, nor had any formaleducation in the English language, and so uses my self proclaimed
crummy
English
. I amneither a Rhodes scholar, but seems to understand and comprehend constitutional limitations better then those who are.
25
KING v. JONES ; McEWEN v. HACKERT ; JONES v. JONES. (1972) 128 CLR 221
Barwick C.J.(1), McTiernan(2), Menzies(3), Walsh(4), Gibbs(5) and Stephen(6)JJ.QUOTEBarwick C.J.(1)30 10. There are some basic propositions of constitutional construction whichare beyond controversy. The words of the Constitutionare to be read in thatnatural sense they bore in the circumstances of their enactment by theImperial Parliament in 1900. That meaning remains, beyond the reach of anyAustralian Parliament, subject only to alteration by the means provided bys.35128of the Constitution. The connotation of words employed inthe Constitution does not change though changing events and attitudes may in some circumstancesextend the denotation or reach of those words. These propositions are fullydocumented in the reported decisions of this Court which has the task of finally and authoritatively deciding both the connotation and the denotation40 of the language othe Constitution. (at p229)END QUOTE
Hansard
11-3-1898
Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE45
The CHAIRMAN
.-I do not think I can rule this proposed amendment out of order.
Every clause, ornearly every clause, in a Bill in some way qualifies the preceding clauses. They extend the operation of those clauses, and, in some instances they limit the operation of the clauses.
This is not a distinctnegative, and I think it would be unduly curtailing the power of the committee to arrive at such a conclusionas they may think fit if I ruled this out of order.
 
 p2 20-9-2013
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVDA 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD
ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE
: You may order books in the
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series
by making a reservation, See also
Blog at
END QUOTE
Hansard
17-3-1898
Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Sir EDWARD BRADDON
.-5
When we consider how vast the importance is thatevery wordof the Constitution should be correct,that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time,trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentionsclear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which willharass the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that
10
too much care has not been exercised.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard
8-2-1898
Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE15
Mr. OCONNOR 
(New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correctin the history of this clause that he has given, and this is[start page 672]one of those instances which shouldmake us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so usedthe material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a20 great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it isfor us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the UnitedStates, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr.Carruthers) that we should be very careful of 
every word
that we put in this Constitution, and that we shouldhave no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to25 come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted,
every word
will be weighed and an interpretation given toit; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving adirection to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see thatthere is some reason for 
every clause
and
every word
that goes into this Constitution.END QUOTE30
.
Hansard
2-3-1898
Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON
.
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard toCommonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass
35
legislationthat would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact,to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the FederalParliament."
END QUOTE40
Let me quote of my 16 September 2013 correspondence to you;
QUOTE
16--9-2013 CORRESPONDENCE
Tony, as a
CONSTITUTIONALIST
, my primary concern is what the true meaning andapplication of the constitution is about.For example the Framers of the Constitution stated:
45
HANSARD
22-9-1897 
Constitution Convention Debates
(
Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention
)QUOTEThe Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[10.32]:
I have read these reasons through very carefully, and I have been unable to discover that any of theevils which my hon. and learned friend, Mr. Clark, fears may be expected from leaving these words as
50
they are.The powers are powers of legislation for thepeace, order, and good governmentof the commonwealth in respect of the matters specified.No construction in the world could confer anypowers beyond the ambit of those specified.
The Hon. N.E. LEWIS (Tasmania)[10.35]: I should like to submit for the consideration of the leader of theConvention the question whether the words which the legislature of Tasmania have proposed to omit might55 not raise the question whether legislation of the federal parliament was in
every instance for thepeace,order, and good government
of the commonwealth. Take, for instance, navigation laws.
Might it not becontended that certain navigation laws were not for thepeace, order, and good government
of thecommonwealth, and might there not be litigation upon the point? We are giving very full powers to the parliament of the commonwealth,
and might we not very well leave it to them to decide whether their
 
 p3 20-9-2013
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVDA 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD
ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE
: You may order books in the
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series
by making a reservation, See also
Blog at
legislation was for thepeace, order, and good government
of the commonwealth?
Surely that issufficient, without our saying definitely that their legislation should be for thepeace, order, and goodgovernment
of the commonwealth. I hope the leader of the Convention will give the matter fullconsideration with a view to seeing whether these words are not surplusage, and whether, therefore, they had5 better not be left out of the bill altogether.
The Hon. E. BARTON:
The suggestion of the hon. member will be considered by the DraftingCommittee.Amendment negatived.END QUOTE10
END QUOTE 16--9-2013 CORRESPONDENCEUniform Tax \case, 1942
(65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942
QUOTE
Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief Justice Latham,15 "sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of power 
is not
and
never has been
alaw at all.
Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it.
Naturally, he will feel safer if he has adecision of a court in his favor, but such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law.The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it isinvalid
ab initio
.20
END QUOTERe Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi
[1999] HCA 27(17 June 1999)QUOTE25
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity
 . No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders
made in Gould v Brown
 . No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour".That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
END QUOTE30 .
 DPP v Field 
[2001] VSC 472
(29 November 2001)QUOTE24.Section 35of theInterpretation of Legislation Act 1984
provides that in the interpretation of the provision of an Act consideration may be given to any matter or document that is relevant, including reports of 
35
proceedings in any House of the Parliament.
The section further provides that a construction that would promote the purpose or object underlying an Act is to be preferred to a construction that would not promote that purpose or object. Those provisions are well known.QUOTE
.
40
The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does tofederal laws in the USA;
http://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htmQUOTE37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the45 principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything intowhich it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents,
and even judgments
."END QUOTEAndQUOTE50 The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutesthe law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must bein agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.This is succinctly stated as follows:The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in55 reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates fromthe time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. Anunconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such astatute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no60 rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifiesno acts performed under it. . .

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->