On 3/19/06, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Why is he quoting the GPL *preamble*? Preambles aren't supposed to > > have legal effect, are they? > > I guess JS is as thoroughly confused about legal matters as he is > about device naming. > > > (Interesting looking at the case of the preamble question in > > Australia's 1999 constitutional referendum - the 'no' case says that > > the preamble could have had legal effect.) > > Could you elaborate on this, or provide some pointers?
The 1999 referendum asked two questions - one about becoming a republic and one about inserting a constitutional preamble. Under Australian law the MPs who vote for the amendment and the MPs who vote against must write a 'yes' and a 'no' case to be printed and distributed to voters before the referendum is held. The no case for the preamble mentioned that several people, including former High Court chief justices and Federal Court judges, had said that the preamble could have significant legal effect, even though another section was added to say that the preamble didn't have effect. They also pointed out that the Prime Minister had included a reference to 'Aboriginal kinship' but not a reference to 'Aboriginal ownership' as shown in Mabo v Queensland. Both questions were defeated by about 70%. More can be found at the website of the Australian Electoral Commission (http://aec.gov.au). andrew > > -- > Måns Rullgård > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
