Thoughts on Constitutional Change By Ian Wilson LL.B

     The article referred to here:, is from the US and is a controversial creative reworking of part of its constitution from a Christian traditionalist perspective.

     Its goal is to provide an alternative framework to the existing undermining which the legal new class have done to the US constitution. What interests me is the criticisms following the article by readers which detail all the difficulties in trying to put together a Christian constitution, or even one that escapes the attacks of the new class lawyers:
see further:

     It is instructive reading, and a good background to the point which I will now make regarding our coming constitutional battle.

     Personally, I think it would be difficult to draft a constitution which is lawyer proof, given that they are allowed to play perverse games with even the basic principles of constitutional interpretation, such that the original intention of the Founding Fathers can be abandoned in favour of a “living interpretation,” which basically means anything which they want. That is the ultimate danger with any referendum changes today with a traitorous new class. The change of a single word would enable them to go off on a politically correct frolic of their own, creating new laws by the wheelbarrow load.

     Beyond all else, that is why we need to fight for the “No!” case. As well-argued by Senator James Paterson (“Our Constitution Already Gives First Nations a Say,” The Australian, June 2, 2017, p. 14) “ Indigenous leaders at the summit and those who participated in the consultations around Australia leading up to Uluru, in the words of Referendum Council co-chairwoman Pat Anderson, “rejected totally outright having some sort of an acknowledgment in the Constitution”.
Instead, participants favoured more “substantive” changes to the Constitution.

     This overturns the loose Canberra consensus that recognition, perhaps in the form of a statement in a preamble, was the right proposal to put to a referendum. It’s also a spectacular repudiation of the official Recognise campaign, funded with $30 million of taxpayers’ money since 2012, and perhaps prematurely backed by much of corporate Australia.

     Constitutional conservatives should be pleased with this development because of the very high risk that a symbolic statement of recognition would not remain symbolic for long. High Court justice Stephen Gageler, writing in 1996 with Mark Leeming, now a NSW Supreme Court justice, advised “extreme care” should be taken in formulating a modern preamble because the “effect of the inclusion of broad statements of contemporary values … would be highly uncertain.”

     This is one of the core arguments against constitution change, even for people of the Left sympathetic to Aboriginal causes. The changes proposed will have unintended consequences that may far outweigh any hypothetical “feel good” effect temporarily produced.

     Enshrining a “First Nation’s” voice (assuming that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that Aborigines are a “first nation,” and many so-called scientific claims about pre-history have been over-turned recently – see Brian Simpson’s articles), would be folly of the highest degree because it would be degrading parliamentary supremacy, a core constitutional value.

     It would also be arguably unconstitutional, and perhaps beyond the powers of referendum to implement anyway, if the elites were to play by the rule of law, which, of course, they do not.
    No, no, 26 million times, No!



No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Saturday, 22 June 2024

Captcha Image