Supreme Court rules Australian Constitution "discredited"

Except that the Hight Court has previously ruled that payment by paper money is valid and legal tender so there would be no need for a state court to state a referral to the High Court since there is already High Court precedent for this very issue.

 

How can the High Court overrule the Constitution?

 

High Court interprets the Constitution and makes a ruling. Notes are legal tender. That's what they said. As far as I have been able to determine the intent of s115 is outweighed by the express powers in ss51(xii) and (xiii) since what is really in issue is not the first part (shall not coin money) but the second part (nor make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts).

The C'wealth has exclusive power to determine legal tender, and has determined polymer notes are legal tender therefore the interpretation, afaik, of s115 when read in conjunction with the exclusive powers of ss51 (xii) (xiii) is that effectively a state may not make any thing legal tender unless that thing is legal tender as determined by the commonwealth. Bit convoluted I accept but that is what I understand the current view to be.

 

I read your post mate and I explained exactly why you're wrong. What monetary policy is needed when you have the gold standard?
The only policy that comes to my mind is the lending of gold from other countries or banks .
None of this nonsense we have now existed when they wrote the constitution so your point makes no sense as I already pointed out.
You don't have inflation in the gold standard. Unless someone finds a shitload of gold somewhere. Or we have a war or some such. The money supply limits itself.

 

The commonwealth is not running the country firstly. And if it was it is limited to acting within the confines of the law. Most of which is oputlined in the constitution.
If it acts outside this the excecutive is supposed to check the new legislation agaiinst the law to make sure its lawful. The privy council openly admits we have not had an excecutive for 30 years in Australia.
They have had nothing to do with appointments of governors general in 30 years! So we have had noone to check off on these laws.
The high court are supposed to be an independant tier of government. But are not. They are owned and paid by the commonwealth of Australia corporation. Which iof you check the constitution is against the law. The constitution explains how this tier of government is to be funded. They don't have the authority to do a damn thing. And even if they were the dejure high court they can't change the law. If they interpret black as white does it really mean you are so stupid to accept that black is now white? Or do you ask yourself who the hell is taking control of our courts?
It is not ambiguous. you would have to be pretty mindless to see ambiguity in section 115. They did not put that section in for fun. They put it in for good reason. They did not say states may accept commonwealth fiat currency in payment of debts. They did not say states may accept chickens in payment of debts. They did not say states may accept gold or silver in payment of debts. They said they make NOTHING BUT gold and silver legal tender in payment of debts.

In practice this means only the commonwealth can issue notes backed by redeemable gold. But the states can issue the gold itself. It certainly does not cater for communist scrip backed by nothing. Why you feel the need to defend the scheme to take our money off us is beyond me, but there is nothing in the constitution to defend it. Because its against the bloody law!

And whoever mentioned magna carta - I was talking habeus corpus act- different law

 

My apologies - I thought you were talking about your claim that a fine can only by imposed by a jury and assumed you meant the Magna Carta. The Habeas Corpus Act 1679 afaik only provides for the imposition of fines if that Act is breached since it refers solely and exclusively to the production of prisoners before a court - so please let me know where the Habeas Corpus Act specifies that a fine can only be imposed by a jury cause I can't find it. Thanks

 

Reference please.

 

Correct - a state cannot make something legal tender unless that thing is gold or silver coin. How would a state make something legal tender - well it would pass a law.

So a state says, well we cannot make anything but gold and silver coin legal tender, so therefore we will not make anything legal tender, and we will not pass any laws making anything legal tender.

At the same time the commonwealth says, in accordance with their express powers under ss51 (xii) and (xiii) this and this and this is legal tender, and passes laws accordingly.

Since the states have not made anything at all legal tender, they have not breached the s115. Since the commonwealth has defined legal tender, people can pay debts and buy things.

A state not making something legal tender does not mean theres some vacuum and people cannot pay money to a state government - it simply means that the commonwealth's laws making things as legal tender (for example paper or polymer notes) is in force, which is correct anyway as the commonwealth can define what is or is not legal tender IAW s51 (xii)

Pretty simple really.

 

wow sounds simple . I wish Id been brainwashed at university so I could be as sensible as you.

Section 51 does not give the commonwealth power to create fiat money or to use anything but gold and silver in payment of debts. It gives it the power to make a gold coin and call it a soverign or a shilling. It must be read in conjunction with section 115.
All sections in the constitution must be read in conjunction with each other and the laws they ratify. To do otherwise is to pervert the point of the damn thing. They werent trying to contradict themselves so some needledick could find loopholes 60 years later to steal our rights from us. Oddly enough.
This is not my opinion only, I've read it a few times, I believe its in the annotated version I read last year. Which I [posted a link to here somewhere. And is the only true way to read it because they guys who wrote it explain their purpose.
And read in context of historical fact rather than your revisionist view based on today's reality.
In ye olden days when men were too smart to accept having their money taken from them, anyone could create currency as it had intrinsic value. The local bank could create currency and it was accepted . This is the point of the law,to limit the proliferation of notes for gold issued by every tom dick and harry: that may or may not be redeemed. To create a confidence in a single note.
the point is not to create fiat money even though that idea sounds simple to you.
If the true purpose was to only allow the commonwealth government to print fiat money in order to regulate monetary policy, why bother mentioning gold and silver at all?
Would it not be clearer and simpler simply to prohibit the states from creating legal tender.
I'll rewrite section 115 for you so it is in fact simple.

115- the states do not have the power to create legal tender and must only accept that created by the commonwealth in payment of debts.

am I smarter than the guys who wrote the constitution? That I could rewrite that law with 3 seconds thought?

Grinners i think that is magna carta afterall, I was going off memory.

 

Aaah yes it does. very clearly - explicitly even.

You agree with me that 51 (xii) gives the commonwealth power to determine legal tender.

You agree with me that 51 (xiii) gives the commonwealth the power to introduce paper money

And you agree with me that 115 restricts a state from making anything except gold and silver coin a legal tender.

Not sure how there could therefore be a different view between us.

S115 is a negative imposition on the state parliaments. IE " you must not do this"

So a state government cannot do something. It chooses not to do it

The federal govt can do that thing and chooses to.

Issue solved.

Has absolutely nothing to do with the gold standard or revisionist policies or whatever it is you are accusing me of. Just a simple reading of the 3 sections together means there's no issue.

Re Magna Carta, do I take it then that I was correct or am I still misunderstanding you?

 

In Victoria, and all the other states and Commonwealth have appropriate laws, it is partially covered under the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 section 8 (12) "That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction, are illegal and void."

 

Well technically an infringement notice should only be issued when it appropriate in the circumstances and the offender S) has admitted the offence and would prefer NOT to have the matter heard at court.

 

Yep, that's my understanding - the Bill of Rights, as encapsulated by the various states applies. Which is why one can elect to either voluntarily accept the fine and pay it, or go to Court and have the alleged offence examined and a conviction or acquittal recorded.

This does not however address RC's statement.

 

Sorry mate I have to agree with Roman Control on this argument. Sections 51 and 115 are meant to be read in conjunction with each other. They are not meant to be read as a contradiction of each other.

I believe RC is right when he states that section 115 is specifically set so that the states MUST make payment of debts in gold and silver coin. They can not be made with any other form of asset. ie cattle, land, etc etc etc. This also rectifies a potential problem of gold and silver certificates (paper money) being fraudulently minted by any tom dick or harry because Tom and Dick may not have the gold and or silver to back those certificates up. Hence section 51 (xii) currency, coinage, and legal tender and (xiii) banking, other than State banking; also State banking extending beyond the limits of the State concerned, the incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money. This is also to stop the exact same thing, except in this instance it is preventing the banks from perpetrating these same types of fraud and issuing their own gold/silver certificates.

Remember the first failures of the gold standard in England and the subsequent bank runs etc were because the banks were using fractional reserve banking under a classical gold standard. This would have been very fresh in the minds of the people that wrote the constitution in the first place. If you read it the way you have it pretty much makes section 115 null and void when in fact they compliment each other perfectly.

 

Man, my head is spinning.

You guys obviously do this as a profession (if not, you have some very strange outside interests)? For that I give you credit - I don't know how you can face a day at work like this EVER!!??

On the other hand, I now know why law professionals charge such exhorbitant hourly rates (to make up for productivity ).

I also now know why sentencing of convictions in Oz is so inconsistent, or non-existent.

 

But we are in agreement that they can be read together. That is the whole point.

Firstly, let's be clear about what the 3 sections state as the words you and RC use are not correct...

S115 - it's not that a state must "make payments in silver and gold coin" nor does it talk about payments TO the state. rather s115 says

A State shall not coin money, nor make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts.

So it's clear a State (not the state in a generic sense but a State forming the commonwealth ie WA, NSW, Qld etc) cannot coin money nor more importantly can it "make anything but gold and silver coin" legal tender. It would "make" something a legal tender by passing a law saying so (and just so we're clear in the sense of s115 "make" does not mean construct, build or mint in a physical sense, it means cause something to be, define something as or allow it to be).

The States therefore do not have to do anything, but if they do choose to make something legal tender, then the things it so makes as legal tender MUST be gold and silver coin.


Moving on, to the commonwealth's powers to define legal tender and issue money ...

51 The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

(xii) currency, coinage, and legal tender;
(xiii) banking, other than State banking; also State banking extending beyond the limits of the State concerned, the incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money;


So the commonwealth can determine what is legal tender, and has a separate power to issue money.


The commonwealth's power here though has absolutely nothing to do with the gold standard (even if it should ).

Indeed, the power of the commonwealth to make laws with regard to legal tender means that if it wanted to say that cows, sheep and chickens (to use your example) were legal tender they could - now this is an extreme example of course, I am not suggesting they would, but what is clear and definitive is that the federal parliament has an absolute and total power to determine what is or is not legal tender.

So now when you read these laws together, it's clear. State governments are prohibited from making anything legal tender unless that is gold or silver coin. They do not have to make anything legal tender however, since they are allowed to rely on the commonwealth to determine what is or is not legal tender.

So a state govt does nothing and complies with s115.

The commonwealth govt uses its powers under 51 (xii) and (xiii) and issues paper money and also defines what is legal tender.

Each level of government is therefore doing what they are allowed to do and the citizens have currency and defined legal tender, and the ability to pay debts and buy goods and services.

 

Now, addressing the other parts....

Thats because it really is simple. It is not overly complicated.

You don't need to go to university in order to have a debate or try and understand another point of view, as I do with your views. I try to understand them, but when there is an issue I think is wrong or a flaw in the argument, I prefer to address the issue so that we can clarify the correct position.

It actually does give them this power and I addressed this above

It doesn't actually say this though does it ... s115 prohibits a State from defining something as legal tender unless that thing is gold or silver coin. It does not require or mandate that a State must actually define anything as legal tender, nor does it put any restriction or compulsion on the commonwealth to use or make gold or silver legal tender or to back its issued paper/fiat currency with gold or silver.

Agreed. It can issue coins, currency, regulate paper money, and define legal tender. It could issue cowrie shells as currency and call them anything it wanted. The issue is any such coins, currency or legal tender does not have to be gold or silver coin, nor even be backed by gold or silver reserves.

No I have no revisionist view - just a plain reading of the 3 sections together.

The mention of gold and silver was to give the states if it was required, the opportunity to have clarity in the definition of legal tender for their citizens in the interim period after formation of the commonwealth but before the new commonwealth parliament had defined legal tender or issued it's own currency. It allowed a state government to say, gold sovereigns minted say by Perth, Sydney, SA or whatever before the formation of the commonwealth of Australia's formation, can still be used now there is a new country (rather than an amalgam of loosely associated colonies) and that coin will have a the same value it had before, or an american silver dollar can be used until the new currency issued by the commonwealth is issued, and it will have a value of YYY shillings etc.

It was not intended as I understand it to allow a State to define legal tender once legal tender had been defined by the commonwealth, but if a state chose to do this (ie define it's own legal tender after the introduction of currency by the c'wealth) then any such items so defined must be gold and silver coin.

 

Nope, just have an interest in the area. And I like examining, questioning and finding solutions.

Much as we may seem to disagree (and in fairness we do disagree on some things) I actually agree with RC on some issues (just don't tell him that) and more particularly on his desire to have more people be aware of and use the law to their advantage. I think where we disagree is more in the basis of those claims, the interpretation of those laws and the ways they can be used. However it is also my desire to try and help him find and develop his arguements so that they can stand up to intense scrutiny, whether that be from a court or some guy online

I just feel most of the arguments put forward by sovereign men advocates, and the "all local councils are illegal" advocates and similar groups are fundamentally flawed. But by considering their arguments, examining them, finding the holes in the arguments, you gradually develop the strength in your own position.

 

Your points are childish mate. When you want to quote a section that says the commonwealth has the power to make anything legal tender, I'll bother to reassess my point of view. But by making vague references to a definitive law that simply does not exist and then using your concrete reassurance that it in fact does is TIRESOME.

I cannot find my link to the annotated constitution that explains the puirpose of every section, but I have indeed read it and I know you're both wrong and logically unsound.

IF THERE IS NO ISSUE AND IT IS SO SIMPLE PLEASE DONT BE AFRAID TO ADDRESS MY POINT. wHY DOES IT MENTION GOLD AND SILVER AT ALL? wHY NOT SIMPLY MAKE THE LAW- THE COMMONWEALTH IS IN CHARGE OF MAKING LEGAL TENDER AND CAN MAKE ANYTHING THEY LIKE LEGAL TENDER.

yES YOU'RE CORRECT ABOUT MAGNA CARTA BUT THERE IS A WRIT OF HABEUS CORPUS SOMEWHERE THAT I CANT FIND THAT SAYS ONLY A JURY MAY IMPOSE FINES, ID ASSUMED IT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL HABEUS CORPUS ACT, BUT PERHAPS ITS IN ONE OF THE REVISIONS OR IT IS ONLY MAGNA CARTA.(IM NOT A FAN OF MAGNA CARTA ITS A MESS AND WAS SIGNED VI COACTUS, WHEREAS POST REVOLUTION THE MONARCHY SIGNED WILLINGLY)

mY CAPS LOCK IS STUCK, IM NOT EXCITED. ( MAYBE BORED WITH THE PARROTMINDED MENTALITY OF THE EDUCATED.YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE STANDARD FODDER FOR LAW STUDENTS. eITHER THAT OR THEY ALL HAVE FORMED THIS OPINION CONCURRENTLY BY ODD COINCIDENCE)

wHEN ANYONE COULD CREATE MONEY BY ISSUING A GOLD OR SILVER CERTIFICATE REDEEMABLE ON PRESNTATION FOR ACTUAL GOLD OR SILVER, wE HAD THE BEGINNINGS OF FIAT MONEY. tHE LOCAL BANK MIGHT ISSUE 100 POUNDS OF CERTIFICATES ON 10 POUNDS OF SILVER AND BET ON THE UNLIKELIHOOD OF EVERYONE TRYING TO REDEEM THEIR CERTIFICATES AT THE SAME TIME. tHE PURPOSE OF THE LAWS FOR GOLD AND SILVER COIN IN THE CONSTITUTION IS TO STOP THIS HAPPENING, NOT THE OPPOSITE AS YOU SUGGEST.
oTHERWISE THE DEBTS ARE ALL PAID IN CERTIFICATES WITH NO BACKING, AND AS THE GOVERNMENT MAY REDEEM THEM ALL AT ONCE YOU HAVE A CRISIS.
tHE PURPOSE WAS NOT TO HAND THIS POWER TO THE GOVERNMENT SO THAT THEY COULD CREATE CERTIFICATES WITHOUT BACKING, IF IT WAS THE PURPOSE THEY WOULD HAVE MADE THAT POINT VERY PLAIN. aND IN FACT NOT BOTHERED TO WRITE LAWS ON GOVERNMENT BORROWINGS. tHEY WOULD NOT NEED TO BORROW IF THEY COULD CREATE THEIR OWN UNBACKED CURRENCY. (IN FACT THEY DON'T NEED TO BORROW NOW, BUT ONLY DO SO BECAUSE ITS ENGINEERED TO COLLAPSE AND WE WONT WEAR THE DEBTS OF THE 1930S SINCE WE WEREN'T ALIVE THEN, SO THEY NEED US TO HAVE OUR OWN DEBTS TO MAKE US SWALLOW IT WHEN IT HAPPENS)

iF YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL GOLD SILVER CONTENT OF SO CALLED LEGAL TENDER IN aUSTRALIA ON A TIMELINE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS LAW HAS BEEN INCREMENTALLY BROKEN UNTIL WE COME TO A TIME WHERE PEOPLE ACCEPT AN UNLAWFUL STATE OF AFFAIRS. iF INDEED YOU WERE RIGHT THEN THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHY THE COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT WOULD NEED TO INCREMEMNTALLY PHASE OUT REAL INTRINSIC VALUE IN THE MONEY. tHEY COULD DO IT STRAIGHT AWAY , IN FACT IT WOULD BE FINANCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE NOT TO DO SO.

wHY DO YOU THINK WE HAD REAL SILVER IN THE FIRST BATCH OF DECIMAL CURRENCY? bECAUSE THROWING AWAY GOOD SILVER IS FUN?

i DONT THIINK COUNCILS ARE ILLEGAL BY THE WAY BUT UNLAWFUL. tHEY SHOULD BE ILLEGAL BUT AS IVE SAID BEFORE- WE HAVE NO EXCECUTIVE
yOU MUSVE VOTED IN THE REFERENDUM TO MAKE THEM LAWFUL, IT WASNT SO LONG AGO. wE SAID NO.
nOT THAT IT MATTERS, BECAUSE THEY GO AHEAD AND DO WHAT THEY LIKE ANYHOW BECAUSE WE ARE ALL SUCH NUMPTIES.