So Australia is -- in practice -- a republic, despite it technically being a constitutional monarchy. Do I have that right?

What is section 57?

As much as the government wants to change the constitution, the pre amble is set in concrete and does not any other form of the monarch such as the "king or queen of Australia." The Australia Act attempted to change the head of state, but failed.

☯️🌏🕵🏻‍♂️🪬♻️

This case is still BS. Besides the high court being on the stock market, which gives them no authority whatsoever. The high court just threw out clause 5? What about Section 106 section 108 and section 109? Section 92 stills stands and we should be able to trade, travel absolutely free.

If any law beneath this constitution act doesn’t inline with the commanwealth then the latter will prevail. If it means we can travel absolutely free we can travel anywhere free. So no tolls, full stop.

If any law beneath this constitution act doesn’t inline with the commanwealth then the latter will prevail. If it means we can travel absolutely free we can travel anywhere free. So no tolls, full stop.

No rights the constitution is fake …

That's a load of BS. For starters we don't have a responsible government - parliment is a circus show of clowns, you only have to watch parliament on TV on channel 2 to see that. Politicians are Liars, they pass bills & laws behind our backs(eg: when the world's attention is focused on a serious event). Australian citizens have NO rights. Having exples of America's bill of rights integrated into Australia's constitution- Would NOT be restricting us As Americans have SHOWN & PROVED to the world time & again that they have the freedom to exercise their rights by giving reminders of the amendments in their Bill of rights. In 1901 the Australian government PERPOSELY made sure that they didn't include simular amendments from America's bill of rights be added into the constitution because they could see how America had given too many rights & freedoms to its citizens already & they DIDNT want to give Australians the same freedom & rights to keep it easy for authority to control the people. These "expressed rights" ARE LIMITING Aussies to 5 small groups, it DOESNT AT ALL cover the nessasities of human rights what so ever.

I want to add America's bill of rights to our constitution but iv been told ONLY Australian politicians can propose & change the constitution

There was no Referendum? Wasn't or isn't a Referendum needed to change our Constitution? Or Wasn't our Constitution Changed?

Short answer, No. At least for a generation. Was so stuffed up this time the notion is entirely toxic to anyone alive now. Also, your constitutional analysis is so shallow it’s meaningless.

Great summary! Thank you

'Subject or citizen of a foreign power' was probably intended to mean, in modern parlance, 'someone born outside the king/queen's realms and territories'. In 1901 there was no concept of citizenship as we know it today, be it British or Australian. I am surprised the citizenship crisis didn't happen earlier. In 1986, when the Australia Act was being passed in Westminster, the Commonwealth Government should have asked the UK parliament to amend the 1901 Constitution Act by replacing the clause with 'someone holding the citizenship of a country outside the Queen's realms and territories' This would have allowed those with might qualify for the citizenship of the UK or another Commonwealth realm to be protected from disqualification. This could still happened, there is nothing binding the UK parliament from amending section 1 of 1986 Australia Act if requested to do so by the Aus govt. It sounds far fetched asking the old imperial power to do this, but the Constitution is rightly or wrongly British legislation and any amendments would only be those requested by the Canberra parliament.

Yes I agree with your analysis completely, but I am indulging a suspicion; All the authority to terminate the power of Westminster comes from Westminster's authority over the 7 states and territories. If we accept for the moment that the Australian Constitution is, and has the force of law because it is, a collection on UK Acts of Parliament (essentially 1901&1986) it could theoretically be possible for Westminster, pursuant to a request from Canberra, to amend the 1901 Act to allow change outside of that currently permitted, for example to add a preamble or replace 'subject or citizen of a foreign power' clause. But you would rightly point out that clause 1 of the 1986 (Westminster) Act rules that out because Westminster cannot legislate for Aus anymore! BUT the UK parliament cannot bind its successor and just as it can legislate it can repeal. If the parliament in Canberra asked Westminster to do something I can't see them refusing.

State Governments have NO Authority to Quarantine, as they do not have access to the funding!

Look at the corruption now. You have “government” that have ABN

Love your work. Is it possible to transcript this somehow at all? I love the explanation and it was great to help me start an IRAC for my Taxonomy. (Or ILAC)

This video is a God send. I am doing Constitutional law this trimester at uni and I was really stuggling with wrapping my head these principles, and you nailed it in 1 swoop. All the readings I have done it do far, were all tied together in this video. Thank you!

This KZbin makes up its own doctrine as a political move to attack Australian sovereignty. It's not history.

The principle of Terra Nullius was not applied to Australia in the 18th century. This KZbin is mistaken in saying that it was. The term 'terra nullius' was not used in international law before the late nineteenth century. The Crown recognised that the land was occupied. The doctrine was introduced to Australia by a judicial activist court in the the twentieth century.

Now that Trump is a convicted criminal, does that mean he would not be allowed to enter Australia?

Hi Dr Costa, I want to say thank you for uploading these videos on Constitutional Law for free! I wish you were my lecturer. The way you explain the mechanisms behind the laws makes the bigger picture so much easier to understand. I have been cross-referencing my notes and case summaries against these videos to see if there are any interesting points I have missed. The references and quotes are particularly helpful because they really solidify the principles explained in each case, which I sometimes miss. Awesome work! I hope one day I have the same finesse to explain these concepts as eloquently as you do.

We can't change UK law , we can change th constitution if we vote too . The Australia act we voted no too in 1998_9 . The government I believe sits in treason

To travel freely uninhibited by states, does that mean license & registration are unconstitutional.??

Thank u so much

How does an illegal occupation even begin to deem anything positive. Colonist occupation is illegal, maintaining it through weaponary power or financial power does not legitimise it, it shows we are all held hostage to the racial discrimination of the ultimate racists, Colonisers.

Came here from a comment on a land without people in Palestine. Now it makes more sense why that slogan was used.

Essay worth reading, "From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy", by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

As a year 11 politics and law student this video is just great! thanks so much!

this was so helpful!!!

Their preamble is pure can't to justify their intrusion into politics.😊

High Court has taken to itself legislative power, they have perverted the constitution.

What if I Went in and wiped my ass with it and then stuck it in the box?

Model code of conduct, area plasce firecrackers not allowed elcation period, front party office,this is moral constitutional , empliment discipline disorder,

We may not have a bill of rights or rights enshrined i the constitution but we do a lot better than many other countries that do.

Hii..... Your way of teaching is very good....... love from India ❤

This is fantasy. The Australian government does what they want. They don't even follow their own laws.

How do you actually become a member though, is there someone I need to email or a place to sign up?

Se é brasileiro né cara

Stay out of it FRENCHIE

We demand a bill of rights to protect us against politicians below the following argument Argument Against the Adequacy of Constitutional Protections for Individual Rights and Liberties in Australia The Australian Constitution, as it stands, does not provide a comprehensive framework for the protection of individual rights and liberties. This absence is not merely an oversight but a structural feature that effectively maintains political power over the populace through legislation. The limited explicit rights enshrined within the Constitution are narrow in scope and do not encompass the breadth of freedoms recognized in international human rights discourse. The argument that the High Court can imply rights from the Constitution’s text and structure is insufficient. These implied rights are not only limited but also subject to the interpretive whims of the judiciary, which can fluctuate with the composition of the Court. This creates an unstable and unpredictable foundation for the protection of rights. Moreover, the reliance on statutory law to protect rights places an inordinate amount of trust in the very body that holds legislative power-the Parliament. This arrangement allows politicians to define, limit, and even retract rights as they see fit, often influenced by the political climate rather than an unwavering commitment to individual liberties. The lack of a bill of rights or similar constitutional document that explicitly enumerates and protects a comprehensive set of individual rights and liberties means that the Australian people are at the mercy of their legislators. Without such a bill, there is no robust check on parliamentary power, leaving citizens vulnerable to the ebb and flow of political priorities and ideologies. In conclusion, the Australian Constitution’s failure to include a bill of personal rights effectively relinquishes individuals’ autonomy to the legislative agenda of politicians. This gap in the constitutional framework undermines the very principle of democracy, which is to empower the individual against the might of the state.

Incredibly helpful videos! Thank you so much for your time, effort and dedication. Much appreciated.

It is really interesting this kind of content. Thank you colleague !

It's amazing 👍🏼

The night before my introduction to law and justice exam…Thankyou💓

Defining tax is easy, it is a scam that is held up by threats to the individuals who think they are required to pay. Man's law is not the ultimate authority, and our birthright supercedes any individuals delusions of superiority.

Thank you!!

You really need to read up on Australian history - not the sanitised versions. Look at the actual legislation of the time - what was the democracy construct of the time , who had voting rights in England of the time, and the function of a prison colony. The transported convicts were commuted death penalties often for trivial issues. You need to factor in the reality that you are an immigrant from a country with a completely different legal and historical set up and history.

Thank you. My Lecture & Textbooks did not explain the Objects of Commands test clearly enough for me to understand, but you did :) lifesaver