bgt wrote:

---

If you ignore the rule of the land, ie the high court, then you have anarchy. We may not like it but without the courts who's opinion do we take notice off?

---

 Hi bgt

I am not a lawyer, but my gut feeling (opinion), tells me, that in this case, we have some people looking for a loop hole

They are using what they hope is a loophole, so that the high court, can order the borders to be opened, to anyone, even those who (unaware), are spreading a virus

Early on in this Coronavirus border hard lockdown, I do remember reading that a state can stop anything detrimental to its people crossing their borders, or words to that effect

This is why some states are able to stop certain fruits, crossing a border

As there is no way to predict, which people from certain areas, have/have not, already caught the virus, and are unintentionally spreading it, then everyone, from that area, should not be allowed to cross the border

My gut feeling (opinion) tells me, that any medical person, worth their salt, will be saying keep border closure/lockdown/ring fence/etc, to eliminate this Covid-19 virus

It has already been proved, in Victoria, and in many other countries of the world, that suppression of Covid-19, did not work

I rest me case, yer onner, and if my opinion means that I shall be painted with the brush of anarchy, then so be it

Dougwe wrote:

---

Just make sure you don't use black or white paint mate

-- Edited by Dougwe on Tuesday 28th of July 2020 06:53:02 PM

---

 Hi Doug, hope you are keeping well and safe, during this lockdown

It will not be I, who paints myself, as I only look silly plus I always wanted to be able to run fast

It appears that there are only four colours of Anarchy paint, Chaos, Fury, Mayhem, and Upheaval, so alas no black or white paint, so no controversy in this post

Link to the Anarchy paint colours below

https://paintball-online.com/paintballs-grenades/anarchy-paintballs/

bgt wrote:

---

If you ignore the rule of the land, ie the high court, then you have anarchy. We may not like it but without the courts who's opinion do we take notice off?

---

What does a lawyer understand about medicine, and why should their opinion have precedence in such matters?

Damn you, Clive Palmer. May you burn in hell for putting our lives, and the lives of our loved ones, at risk.

bgt wrote:

---

Love it or hate it you must stick with the laws. Don't like the law then have it changed. I could name countries and leaders who ignored the laws and courts. And all hell breaks out. Just look at history.

---

 You're talking about The Don & his good ole US of A then are you?

It looks like some people (in my opinion), are really standing out like sore thumbs

I just hope to God, that my interpretation of the story below, is wrong

Copy and paste below

Scott Morrison has defended the Commonwealth's decision to join Mr Palmer's action

Link to the story below

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-29/clive-palmer-highly-likely-to-win-wa-border-challenge-pm-says/12501872

 

I can't accept that an individual's opinion over rides the law. Any law. Yes there are arguably many dumb arse laws. But we still have to accept the law of the land. The PM did not endorse Palmers court challenge. He merely conceded that it was likely to be successful.

bgt wrote:

---

I can't accept that an individual's opinion over rides the law. Any law. Yes there are arguably many dumb arse laws. But we still have to accept the law of the land. The PM did not endorse Palmers court challenge. He merely conceded that it was likely to be successful.

---

Hi bgt

I am not a legal man, and if truth be known, I am probably not the brightest globe in the knife and fork draw

I realise, that we can all interpret the written word, differently

I also realise that we all have the right to our opinions, based on how we had interpreted, what we had read

Copy and past, how the words were written in the article

Scott Morrison has defended the Commonwealth's decision to join Mr Palmer's action

I will assume that Prime Minister Morrison, is backing Mr Palmers action, to the hilt

Otherwise he could have said, (err in his role) as the leader of the Federal Government

Ear, ang about matey, don't go wasting taxpayers money, joining an individual, in a court case

It will look as though, I am just a politician playing politics

Or words to that effect

Folks here are now turning this discussion into a political slinging match. Letting political bias influence good common legal debate is a path to no where. As to Palmers court challenge the legal folks will sort it out, not us bush lawyers. The PM is using Palmer to clarify a constitutional argument. Good for the PM, use Palmers money and not tax payers money. ALWAYS keep in mind each and every court case has a legal team who wins and one who looses. Both teams believe they are right. And remember that morality is not a part of law. Just facts. Yes I dislike Palmer. But he may settle the constitutional debate once and for all.

Usual disclaimer, I started this post while standing on my soapbox, but I did not open this post, to give out advertisements, for any particular political party

My position is, that as a person with a home base in Western Australia, with friends in regional South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland, I support all border closures, to eradicate the Coronavirus

As I know that this forum is a fantastic place to get information, as many here are friendly, and willing to share what information they have

I would like to ask, two questions, if anyone can answer (in layman speak) please

1. What is this constitutional argument, I was unaware of
   
   
2. How is it possible for the Federal Government to go to court, with no financial cost to the taxpayers

The PM is using Palmer to clarify a constitutional argument. Good for the PM, use Palmers money and not tax payers money

Apologies to bgt if he thought that I was just trying to be smart, about the constitutional argument

Just to keep a balanced argument/opinion, I have just come across a story, where the PM has mentioned a constitution issue

I read this story to mean, that the PM was a bit miffed, that he was not asked if WA could close the borders, as he obviously (in my opinion), wants them open, for the economy

Link below to the above story, buried in a live news update) today 30 July

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-30/coronavirus-australia-live-news-covid-19-victoria-queensland-nsw/12505700

 

-- Edited by Tony Bev on Thursday 30th of July 2020 04:32:37 PM

Cupie wrote:

---

RE the applicable 'Law'

Just go to sections 117 & 92 of your household copy of the Au Constitution ...

or

Google Au constitution & state border closures and take your pick of pages of comment.

 

As to the other question  .. It's all smoke, Mirrors & PR \I suspect.  or perhaps even BS.   LOL

---

 Thanks for that info, Cupie. It is appreciated

I actually purchased a copy of the Australian Constitution in 1975, but that has long been lost

Section 92 below
I have already said that I am not the brightest globe in the knife and fork draw
But...
After reading section 92, I am of the opinion, (my opinion may be wrong), it means that the movement of goods and (Intercourse) of people, between states shall be free of (duties of customs)  monetary charges
It appears that since the Constitution became law in 1901. That other laws must have been made, to stop anything such as (fruit etc), crossing a state border, if that (whatever fruit etc) could harm that state
Looking at states with potential uncontrollable Coronavirus, which will certainly harm that state, much more than a bag of fruit, then the states without potential uncontrollable Coronavirus, will be allowed to keep borders closed

Section 117 below
I will assume that the good people who wrote the original Constitution, and the other good people who made changes in 1977, were very very farsighted
The probably thought that, if there was a worldwide Pandemic, somewhere in the future
The people of those distant times, would lockdown/ring lock/close borders, and then when the Pandemic had died out, they would change the wording of the Constitution, to suit the times, they lived in

The above is my own opinion, and I am not pushing any political party wheelbarrow
It does look to me that there is one man who wants the borders open, for his own selfish reasons, with the PM aiding and abetting him

My opinion (gut feeling) is, keep the lockdowns/ring lock/border closure in place, to keep people safe from the Coronavirus

Tony Bev wrote:

---

---

 Thanks for that info, Cupie. It is appreciated

I actually purchased a copy of the Australian Constitution in 1975, but that has long been lost

 

Well buggar me ... you must be a bit odd just like me.  I got a copy around then too.   No, I got mine in around 1988 along with the reports of The Constitutional Commission which did recommend some changes to section 92  ie remove the second paragraph of section 92, seemingly because of ongoing disagreement among High Court Judges as to the interpretation of that provision.  Now there's a novel solution.

Can't find my copy of the Constitution .. must have loaned it out, but I still have the reports.  I wounder if my MP will give me a copy along with a new Flag.

 

Hi blaze

You are hereby appointed as a high court judge Tony

cheers

blaze

ps

where do I send the wooly hat/wig

Thanks for that

I should be right for the white wig, as I shall just let my hair grow

If you can put the wooly hat, and the certificate of high judge-air-he (or whatever it is called), on eBay
I shall purchase with PayPal, as my proof of ownership

 

So there you are ... we have solved it all here on the forum.  Just so easy to interpret Sect 117 isn't it?  Absolutely no confusion.  

 

Soon we will be able to talk about caravaning  .. or maybe not so soon.

Whenarewethere wrote:

---

Easier to interpret when one has a hard copy!

---

Hi Whenarewethere

I think that I read a while ago, that some lawyer had said, that the words (in section 92)
and intercourse among the States,
Was referring to people crossing the border

Unfortunately I do not have a link