At 05:03 PM 17/03/00 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] forwarded a message of J R
Hugo: Subject: Re the Emporers new clothes? This stated that "our
Governments are bereft of any semblance of constitutional authority."
The reason is that "Her Majesty�s" Letters Patents were signed by
Australian politicians and not by the Queen.
While I cannot give a complete answer to the implications of all of what
John states it is necessary to clear up a number of falsities in the
arguments presented.
John states,
1.. It is stated that " We (the royal we) revoke the Letters Patent dated
29 October 1900". Now the real Queen and Her staff would know that the
Letters Patent of Queen Victoria were no longer valid at Her death, so why
revoke something that had no legal authority?
The reality.
Letters Patent do not go invalid on the death of a Monarch. They are signed
by the Monarch but carry the authority of the Crown or Throne. The
constitutional doctrine is that the Throne can never be empty as there is
always a need for a source of power to run the government of the country.
The absurdity of John's position can be seen in light of the structure of
the British Empire. On the death of a Monarch the first job of the incoming
Monarch would be to issue new Letters Patents to all the dominion
governors. And before this time the whole of the dominion government would
be without valid power.
In Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Levick [1999] FCA 1580 (1 December
1999) the following was stated,
"27 The office of Governor-General was constituted by Letters
Patent of Queen Victoria dated 29 October 1900. They are to
be found, as revised in 1904 in Statutory Rules 1901-1927,
Vol IV, p 3622. Clause 7 of the Letters Patent was amended in
1911 and again in 1921. The amendment is not of present relevance.
Under the Letters Patent which are stated to be intended
to be "permanent" and not to be replaced each time a new
Governor-General is appointed, Her Majesty declared that there
should be a Governor-General to be appointed by Commission.
The Letters Patent provided that they could be revoked or
amended by a successor to her Majesty, that is to say the
office itself survived the death of the sovereign....
the letters patent governing the office continue...
notwithstanding either the retirement, removal or death
of a Governor-General or the death of the sovereign."
Before there is the normal cry of "BUT THIS IS ONLY THE WORDS OF THE
CORRUPT COURTS PROTECTING THEIR POLITICAL MATES" let me say that this is
entirely consistent with the noted constitutional scholars like Chitty and
Anson.
John states,
2.. It states that all concerned should make the Oath or Affirmation
according to that which is in the "constitution". That is made to a Monarch
"under the Crown of Great Britain and Ireland". The Crown of Great Britain
and Ireland became extinct when Ireland was granted her independence in 1922.
The reality.
This is, for practical purposes, merely a play on words. The courts will
not strike down the continuation of the Constitution on a technicality of a
name. They look to the substance and not the from. Clearly the Crown of the
United Kingdom is still there and it binds us. It is no different today as
Scotland goes for independence.
Once again think of the Constitutional havoc in all the dominions as the
Crown that binds them becomes extinct from a political change in Great
Britain.
Kerry Spencer-Salt B.E., LL.B (Hons)
The National Watchman
Australian Community Organisation
P.O. Box 136, Surry Hills NSW 2010
Phone : (02) 9360 0610
E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website : www.rockroll.com.au/watchman
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion.
To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe
For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
For archives
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
