Supreme Court rules Australian Constitution "discredited"

aLL THIS IS POINTLESS ANYHOW WITHOUT A JURY. tHE LAWYERS FIRST JOB IS TO COVER ALL THIS UP AND IF LAWYERS ARE INTERPRETING OUR LAW FOR US WE HAVE NO HOPE WHATSOEVER.

 

RC I don't know how much clearer it can be - I've quoted it at least twice now in this thread but yet you say you want me to quote it again... ok... here goes

That's it. Nothing about gold or silver. The parliament can make any laws it wants to about legal tender. It can make any laws it want to about coins and currency, and any laws it want to about banks, banking and the issue of paper money.

And before you jump down my throat, yes any laws passed must of course be within the confines of the constitution and any remnant inherited laws. But as far as I have been able to discover, there's nothing constraining the parliament regarding these 2 sections.

S115 affects the States, not the Commonwealth so the mention of gold and silver coin does not imact the commonwealth's powers regarding legal tender or currecy etc

S115 is a restriction on the powers of a State - it is a "you must NOT do this" provision

It also mentions "gold and silver coin", not plain "gold and silver" ie coin, bullion etc. There is a difference.

And I suspect it was gold and silver coin, as I said in my earlier post, to give the States, should they need it, ability to define legal tender in the period between establishment of the commonwealth and the issue of currency. I would expect that the specification for coin rather than notes was to allow some continuity between states in commerce and I would think the framers of the constitution thought gold and silver coins (as opposed to coins AND notes) best suited to that continuity. But I don't know, and it's irrelevant anyway. The section says gold and silver coin so that's what it must be.

Well that's pretty much what s51(xii) says.

Or maybe the opinion was formed because on a plain reading of the language, that's what the real result actually is.....

 

Roman Control, your last two posts seem to be about backing and lawyers. Neither are adding to your argument about the constitution, which is a good argument that I have learned from.

Yyou seem to think that the current currency, which you consider to be fiat, is not backed by anything? There are more valuable things than gold and silver backing it.

The constitution is not covered up by lawyers, it's a lot more complex than that. But what makes it okay is that you need to consider the current context we are in, and interpret accordingly. We have moved on somewhat from the early creation of the constitution,

 

Yeah, but isn't the constitution set in stone and requires a referendum to make changes?

 

Yes it is Sulla.

 

Spode, there is nothing backing the Australian dollar. The only thing that gives it value is people belief that it holds some value.

 

Fixed it... would hardly call it progress

 

Or more like IGNORED it ...

 

Actually I am right, and logically sound.


The annototated version I use is "Commentaries on the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia" by Sir Robert Garran 1901. It's a history of the framing of the consitution and each of the clauses in an historical background, with comparisons to other constitutions (notably Canada and the USA) and how those impacted on the drafting of the constitution.

I've actually downloaded these since it's easier to refer to them that way rather than on-line each time so if that's the one you are referring to and couldn't find, here's a couple of links....

A digitised copy which I find easier to read....

The original book scanned which is a very large file and I find it a PITA to read compared to the digitised one


A few observations from that book (the italics are direct quotes from the book, and bolding is mine).

"Paper money" (p579 of the original text - 183)

183. "The Issue of Paper Money."
The Federal Parliament has power to legalize or prohibit the issue of paper money. In this respect it has received a grant of power conspicuously more liberal than that which was intended, by the framers of the American Constitution, to be conceded to Congress.

That't pretty much all he says on this as what follows for the next 5 pages or so is a very interesting history of the reasons why paper currency powers were not explicitly given to the US Congress, and how the US Supreme Court has ruled that they effectively were. He does not however give any further commentary on the power in Aus. Basically therefore the commonwealth can legislate how it likes regarding paper money.


"Legal Tender" (p575 original text - 178)

178. "Legal Tender."

Definition. Legal tender is the act of tending, in the performance of a contract, or in satisfaction of a claim, that which the law prescribes or permits, and at such time and place as the law prescribes or permits. ( Webster's Internat Dict ) In the United Kingdom all coin current under proclamation, whether British, foreign, or colonial, is legal tender. British gold coin is legal tender for any amount, unless defaced or deficient in weight ; British silver up to forty shillings, and British bronze up to a shilling (Coinage Act, 1870 [33 and ."U Vic. c. 10] s. 4.) Bank of England notes are legal tender in England for all suras above 5, except by the Bank itself and its branches. (Bank of England Act. 1833 [3 and 4 Wm. IV. c. 98, s. 6].) The notes are treated as cash and not as securities for money, and they pass by mere delivery. (Miller r.Race[1758]1Burr.452.) The notes of a county bank are good tender, if not objected to at the time of tender. (Polglass v. Oliver [1831] 2 Crompt. and Jarv. 15.)

In Australasia and New Zealand, by an Order in Council of 1896, it is provided that the rules as to the amount for which British coin is legal tender are the same as in the United Kingdom. (ImperialStatutoryRulesandOrders,1896.)

Coinage and Legal Tender.By section 114 (sic. I assume this is meant to refer to 115 and is a typo) the States are forbidden to coin any money or to make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts. The prohibition is similar to Art. I. sec. 10, subs. 1 of the United States Constitution.

Hence it appears that under both Constitutions the creation and regulation of the monetary system is a power conferred on the Federal Parliament. It is a general power; the Parliament is not limited in the choice of metals to which it will give the quality of money. It may choose some other metal than gold and silver, and impress upon it a legal tender quality. But if a State endeavoured to compel a person to accept anything but gold or silver as a legal tender, the person aggrieved could appeal to the Courts of the Commonwealth for relief. (Burgess, Political Sci. II. p. 143.)




States not to coin money. (p950 original text)

115. A State shall not coin money (460), nor make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender (461) in payment of debts.

United States. No State shall ... coin money ; ... make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. Art. I., sec. x., sub-s. 1.

Historical Note. The clause in the Commonwealth Bill of 1891 was in identical wordswith the exception of "or" for " nor." At the Adelaide session, 1897, it was introduced and passed as it now stands. (Conv. Deb., Adel., p. 1204.) At the Melbourne session, a suggestion by the Legislative Council of Tasmania, to insert after "money" the words "unless the Parliament otherwise provides" was negatived. A suggestion by the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, to omit the provision as to legal tender, and insert "unless the Parliament otherwise determines," was also negatived. (Conv. Deb., Melb., pp. 653-4.)

460. '' A State shall not Coin Money."

Coinage is a prerogative of the Crown (see Note, 177, sufra). A State is forbidden to coin money ; it cannot create a metal currency ; it cannot give to metal any more than to paper the quality of money. The combined effect of this negation, coupled with the operation of sec. 51 xii., is that the coinage and legitimation of metal money, and in fact the regulation of the whole of the monetary system of the Commonwealth, is exclusively vested in the Federal Parliament, as against the States. That Parliament alone will be able to create money and regulate its value, as well as create paper money,and regulate its value. Its laws of course will only be operative within the Commonwealth, and may, in accordance with the usual practice, be reserved for Imperial consideration, in order to maintain the uniformity of coinage laws throughout the Empire.

461. " Nor Make anything but Gold and Silver Coin a Legal Tender."

The provision of this section, that the States may not make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts, would appear, at first view, to authorize a State to make gold and silver a legal tender, in the absence of Federal legislation, and consequently to give the States a concurrent power within those limits. It must be noted, however, that gold and silver coin can only be impressed with the quality of money by Federal legislation, and Federal legislation may withdraw that quality at any time. Then the power of the States to make gold and silver a legal tender would cease ; gold and silver metal can not be made legal tender until it is converted into coin ;it can only be converted into coin by the Federal authority. (Burgess, Political Sc. ii. 142.)


So there ya go mate. Hope that helps you.

 

I'm calling BS on any arguments put forward that rely on references to Jews, Masons, The Vatican and Lawyers. Facts and logic only or you have no credibility.

 

Well when you find it let please me know as I've never seen anything which says that.

What I have seen are the requirements to allow due process, and prohibitions on unjust arrests and the impositions of fines unless done by a jury OR by the law of the land, but I've never seen anything which is a blanket prohibition on fines unless imposed by a jury.

 

Good point.

 

Yea I thought it covered everything pretty well

 

Thanks XB i will humbly stand corrected. Thanks for those links.