Assassination, Treason and a Pikestaff

[@step1drag1dwnunda]

That was very informative, thank you for this. Your efforts are appreciated.

[@martinpollard8846]

Excellent, thank you.

[@landcruiser1055]

Thanks for all your videos. I stumbled across one and became hooked.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Excellent. Enjoy.

[@frenzalrhomb6919]

And I can see why too! I have only just discovered this channel today, and I'm going to subscribe now!!

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

@@frenzalrhomb6919 Welcome aboard.

[@thelastaustralian7583]

A List of all the Australian Constitutional Laws That have been broken, with the intent for Foreign Profiteering, .Would be Interesting to see Professor !

[@Shalott63]

Thank you for this video, Anne; as usual it is fascinating and very well presented. I was highly amused by the situation where the NSW government passed legislation that was so extremely pro-British that it embarrassed the British authorities (perhaps less likely to happen today?), and also the one where the voters of Galway were not at all put off by their favoured candidate's record of treasonable activity against Britain. It's not very often that one sees a video with the word 'pikestaff' in the title! BTW As a result of discovering and watching your videos, and also because elections and constitutional reform are very topical here in the UK just at the moment, I've been looking at videos of state openings of parliament, and guides to parliament buildings etc., in various contries (Canada, Australia, NZ, and Ireland) and it's been really interesting to see the differences (and similarities) among all those institutions.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes, for parliamentary nerds, it's great fun visiting other Parliaments and seeing the differences, similarities and individual histories. I certainly enjoy it.

[@Shalott63]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 PS Sorry for all those typos - I've cleaned it up a bit now. I must have been tired when I wrote that!

[@user34274]

Another insightful video. Could I please suggest uploading the audio of these videos as podcasts?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. I hadn’t really thought of that. I’ll look into it. (I’m not terribly tech savvy so it’s taken me up until now to get to grips with KZbin).

[@robertwalker7924]

so interesting. Thanks Anne

[@billmago7991]

Thank you Professor, i enjoy your channel

[@setonixI]

Does KZbin just outright delete comments, or do they offer you a chance to review potentially problamatic (to youtube's system) words in comments? Because I made one just now, and when viewed in incognito it doesn't appear and only appear on my end.

[@OilBaron100]

@@setonixI I can see your comment.

[@j.kapiris]

It's her channel, and she can choose to moderate it as ever she likes. If you want to spread your nonsense, start your own page

[@setonixI]

@@j.kapiris When did I "spout my nonsense" or even dare to suggest whether or she can or can't or how the professor moderates her channel. You are an incredible -ick(male anatomy).

[@setonixI]

​@@OilBaron100That is not the comment I'm talking about. Mine was a reply to some nonsense about disavowing an oath of allegiance.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I set the KZbin moderation at 'strict' - which means it does moderate using some kind of AI. I haven't looked at the comments until now, so it wasn't me who personally deleted it (although I do sometimes delete comments if they are abusive, call people names, make accusations of corruption, defame people or spread misinformation). At least some of the comments that KZbin deletes turn up in a separate 'held for review' box, which I look at every few days. Sometimes its choice is inexplicable, and I can restore the comment, so it may pop back in a few days. It seems, in particular, to wipe out anything with a hyperlink to a video - presumably because it does not know whether the content of that video is offensive. Beyond that, it's processes are a mystery to me.

[@neilgarrad4931]

Thanks

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

You're welcome.

[@peterhelm6003]

Thank you. Very useful information for those who are not students of constitutional law.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

You’re most welcome.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

@PaxAlotin-j6r Again, nothing to do with me. Probably more likely to do with supporting a particular form of technology.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

@PaxAlotin-j6r It seems that some of my own responses in the comments section on this channel have also been deleted. I'm not sure what's going on, but it has become far more prevalent in the last few days. Maybe another bad software update!

[@douglasfield141]

Another excellent exposition.If she was English she would be described there as a “National Treasure” Is there an Aussie equivalent?

[@johnlonie7899]

I did find it all quite fascinating, even amusing at times. Thankyou. Does the commonwealth treason legislation take precedence over the state?

[@ETALAL]

Yes

[@matthewheath7839]

I really appreciate your videos, Anne. For people unable to attend University, its a great resource

[@mitch_mishyy]

I'm wondering what the reasoning is behind the usage of 'attainted' for treason as opposed to 'convicted' like the rest of the offences? Great video as always.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes, it's a curiously old term. It probably goes back to bills of attainder which were passed by Parliament to condemn people for treason. The idea was that your blood was 'tainted', so that your heirs did not inherit your property and it went to the monarch. This was most useful when Henry VIII was having very rich Dukes made the subject of a bill of attainder. Not only did he get rid of them, but he got all their properties!

[@nicegan8902]

The topic of Britain overruling colonial legislation made me think of the saga of Justice Boothby of the South Australian Supreme Court and the Colonial Laws Validity Act. Might be a good future video for you!

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes indeed, it's a good story.

[@JerryPatterson001]

Thank you :)

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Glad you enjoyed it.

[@danielmacdougall2697]

fascinating .... thankyou :)

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

You're welcome.

[@SauronsEye]

2:44 Indignation meetings. Isn't that, Ladies of breeding. On the lawn, sipping cups of tea, with their pinky fingers in the air. Tsk, tsking and raising their eye brows a lot?

[@SauronsEye]

@PaxAlotin-j6r It was meant to be taken in a humorous way. A bit like the Little Britain skits with the obvious blokes in caged crinoline dresses saying in a falsetto voice, "I'm a Lady"

[@johnfitzpatrick2469]

G,day Messrs Any of your explanations of Acts still In Force? What was the treason matter with the former Prime Minister Hon J Gillard (Labor)? 🌏🇦🇺

[@auspseudolaw]

It was a filing naming Julia Gillard as respondent by vexatious litigant Brian Shaw, one of hundreds of identical filings against anyone he could think of, most of which had nothing to do with his primary filing against the then Attorney General of Victoria Rob Hulls. None of the filings actually made it to court as they were provably frivolous and vexatious, regarding the removal of references to "the Crown" in some Victorian legislation, mainly the Courts and Tribunals Legislation (Further Amendment) Act 2000 (Vic) amending section 6(1)(c) of the Legal Practice Act 1996 (Vic). It was based in his misconceptions of what "the Crown" is, and that it actually represents a body politic, not the monarch in a personal sense, as held in Isaacson v Durant (1886) 17 QBD 54 when Lord Coleridge CJ overturned Calvin's case and said (at 65-66) that: "...allegiance was due to the King in his politic, and not in his personal, capacity."

[@auspseudolaw]

Google Freeman Delusion. I have published 800 individual articles on various pseudolaw concepts and the KZbin algorithm won't allow me to post links to my website, (or even to a KZbin video on my account). Even written comments disappear, which becomes a complete waste of my time responding. The articles "Oaths and Affirmations of Public Office" and "Brian Shaw" are accessible through the Index. The last part of the first article discusses the "Removal of the Crown" concept.

[@rachelhead4986]

​@auspseudolaw you're such a victim trying to steal other sites traffic but being thwarted by "the system" 😂😂

[@auspseudolaw]

@@rachelhead4986 I've actually been assisting Anne with her videos, and she refers to my website for research. The KZbin algorithm is a hassle though.

[@auspseudolaw]

Wolter Joosse, who ran the very first case in the High Court regarding the "Queen of Australia" premise challenging the validity of the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973 in Joosse v ASIC [1998] HCA 77 just commented on one my Facebook posts claiming that Australian Citizenship is constitutionally invalid as there is no source of power, citing John Quick at the 1890's Conventions. I thought I'd share my response I wrote it in 15 minutes, going to add a few more references and publish a new article on the website. Perhaps this would make a new subject for your excellent video presentations Anne. There was no such thing as a "citizen" at Federation, we were all British Subjects throughout the empire. In Ah Sheung [1906] HCA 44, Griffith CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ observed: "We are not disposed to give any countenance to the novel doctrine that there is an Australian nationality as distinguished from a British nationality". Things changed after the Statute of Westminster 1930. As stated in Re Patterson; ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (at 226): "The post-war legislation in both countries, the 1948 UK Act and the Citizenship Act (Cth), recognised that the metaphysical indivisibility of the Imperial Crown no longer made constitutional or political sense. Notions of allegiance as the factum upon which nationality laws and status turned were accommodated to international realities consequent upon the disappearance of the British Empire. .. There remained nothing in notions of allegiance to the Crown in the one Imperial politic capacity." Whatever was said at the Conventions is irrelevant, when section 76(i) of the Constitution gives the High Court the power to interpret it according to changing times. As Windeyer J noted in Ex parte Professional Engineers’ Association [1959] HCA 47 (at 267): “Law is to be accommodated to changing facts." As stated in Re Patterson; ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (at 111): "This method of interpretation is equally applicable to the term "aliens" in s 51(xix) of the Constitution. Indeed, it was applied to that term in Nolan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1988] HCA 45. Six Justices of this Court held that, although at the time of federation the term would not have included British subjects, it now included British subjects who were not citizens of Australia..." (See also Shaw v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 72). See also Singh v The Commonwealth [2004] HCA 43 (at 57): "The essence of the term "alien" was the lack of permanent allegiance to the Crown. While the Crown remained indivisible, a British subject was outside the denotation of the term "alien". However, when the Crown divided, so to speak, the denotation of the term "subject of the Queen" changed. As a result, British subjects no longer owed permanent allegiance to the Queen of Australia and became "aliens" in Australia." (at 131): "This change in the application of the term is the result of a number of significant developments since federation. They include: (a) the gradual emergence of Australia as an independent, sovereign nation (which arguably culminated with the passage of the Australia Acts 1986 (Cth) and (UK)); (b) the acceptance of the divisibility of the Crown (implicit in the development of the Commonwealth as an association of independent nations); (c) the creation of a distinct Australian citizenship commencing in 1948 with the passage of the Nationality and Citizenship Act and the British Nationality Act 1948 (UK); and (d) the acceptance by this Court that the phrase "subject of the Queen" in the Constitution no longer means "subject of the Queen of the United Kingdom" but "subject of the Queen of Australia"." As you can see, the High Court has long upheld Australian Citizenship, and the use of the "Aliens" power in section 51 as the constitutional source of power for it. (See more recently, Chetcuti v The Commonwealth [2021] HCA 25, and Love v Commonwealth [2020] HCA 3).

[@petergale9200]

Would the NSW Act have been applied when a shot was fired toward Prince Charles at Darling Harbour ?

[@virginiacharlotte7007]

Hi Professor Twomey, I am wondering if you might, in due course, comment on the case of Tickle v. Giggle, should Giggle end up making a Constitutional challenge re. the sex discrimination act of 1984 and the 2013 gender identity amendments. Thank you. VC

[@tonyandjackieholmes9546]

Non-Lawyer - but really enjoy these posting - Really interesting content. Thank you

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks so much.

[@glennsimpson7659]

I made a comment yesterday but now it’s gone. Not sure why. Didn’t think it was defamatory or unfair but who knows.

[@KF-bj3ce]

Thanks for this.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

My pleasure!

[@clydesummers394]

Who is the Queen or King of Australia? Who is this person? You know the person all Parliamentary members swear their oath?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

The oath is set out in the Schedule to the Constitution. The oath is now taken to King Charles III.

[@clydesummers394]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Open your eyes and mind. There were numerous changes to the Commonwealth Constitution INCLUDING the title. It became the Australian Constitution in 1973 along with other changes. ANY change to the Constitution requires referendum approval from the people. Or you are just a government shill.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

@@clydesummers394 No - the name of the Constitution has not changed. People might call it the Australian Constitution as shorthand, but it is still 'The Constitution' in section 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. You can see it for yourself on the Commonwealth's own website - the Federal Register of Legislation: www.legislation.gov.au/C2004Q00685/latest/text. The only reason you say that its title changed in 1973 along with other provisions is because this is what some random person on the internet told you. Look for yourself. Examine the current Constitution (see the link above) against the version as passed by the British: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/63-64/12/enacted. This isn't hard to do. Just sit down and do it and you will see that the only changes were those made in 8 referendums approved by the people. You will then realise that all those people telling you about changes made in 1973 were lying to you, and you should ask yourself why.

[@auspseudolaw]

@@clydesummers394 The oath in the schedule to the Constitution, and associated allegiance, relates to the body politic, rather than the monarch personally, and these references are to the office, rather than the person of the monarch. It has been this way since before federation, in Isaacson v Durant (1886) 17 QBD 54, when Lord Coleridge CJ overturned Calvin's case and said (at 65-66) that: "...allegiance was due to the King in his politic, and not in his personal, capacity." As explained in Flowers v State of New South Wales (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 887 (from 111) in regard to judicial oaths: "The allegiance and service to which a judicial officer swears in the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath is allegiance to the monarch, not in his or her personal capacity, but, rather, to the body politic. The allegiance, for example, would not apply to applying or enforcing Canadian law or English law. The Crown as a body politic is “an abstraction”, used in a metaphysical or metaphorical sense. Hence, we speak of the Crown in the Right of New South Wales as a distinct entity from the Crown in the Right of Victoria. As the High Court explained in Re Patterson; ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (at 224), the body politic is a creation of law and, as a consequence, the allegiance would be changed by any validly made law or by a lawmaking authority. The allegiance is to the body politic, being the State as an entity, not the government and not the monarch personally."

[@karenm7449]

Thank you again for a very interesting talk. Stay warm. :)

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks, you too!

[@suz4keeps]

Quite interesting thank you

[@auspseudolaw]

The pseudolaw phenomenon in Australia is misrepresented with the constant false labelling and false association by the use of the US "sovereign citizen" nomenclature. It is logically fallacious, and anyone in media or so-called "experts" using that nomenclature desperately needs to better understand the phenomenon. The motivation and basis for the majority of pseudolaw argumentation in Australia is rather well summed up in the words of Latham CJ at page 408 of South Australia v The Commonwealth [1942] HCA 14, regarding what he called "pretended laws" and that "A pretend law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all." Latham CJ goes on to explain that civil disobedience to a "pretended law" is justified, and that "Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it." regardless of whether they have a court ruling in their favour or not. It is about constitutional invalidity. Once that point is understood in isolation from any other considerations, it follows that the main problem here, is the lack of public education on how the legal system actually works, the division of legislative powers, as well as the development of Australian nationhood. It is about constitutional misconceptions, based in events which have mostly occurred in the last 50 years without referendum, and are very difficult for the layman to understand. The divisibility of the Crown expressed by the change in Royal Titles, the notion that the Crown is not the monarch in a personal sense but a body politic, and generally, how we went from being colonies of the British Empire, subservient to Westminster, to being a sovereign nation completely independent from the UK, without the consent of the Australian people. In fact, the failed 1999 republican referendum is often pointed to in this regard. The inevitable conclusion in these matters is that all laws made since at least 1973 are made in excess of power, and are not, nor never have been laws at all, deserving only of civil disobedience. This realisation leads to a vulnerability, that causes the adherent to become open to a wide range of other concepts, including foreign concepts that only contaminated our own domestic pseudolaw argumentation in the 2000's. This contamination does not mean the former concerns and conclusions are obsolete, far from it, they are still the basis of the majority of Australian argumentation. Therefore, attempts to label adherents as "sovereign citizens" is unwarranted and unhelpful, a logically fallacious red herring, in attempt to divert from the basis of the phenomenon, which is entirely homegrown. ​ Secondly, it is likewise unhelpful to categorise some concepts that provably have no basis in law as "pseudolaw", and other concepts that provably have no basis in law as acceptable and justified, depending on one's political leanings. I'm talking here about the whole "Aboriginal sovereignty" concept represented by the Tent Embassy. Despite the moral considerations, it is treated the same way by the courts as the other pseudolaw concepts, because it equally has no basis in Australian law. If we are to accept the decisions of the courts as the final arbiter, and consequentially condemn pseudolaw adherents for their beliefs, as far as calling them delusional, the same must be applied here, or the view is obviously biased. It is an interesting observation, that prior to the establishment of the greater "sovereign citizen" phenomenon in the US, the High Court in Coe v Commonwealth of Australia [1979] HCA 68 had already dealt with the contention that there exists an "Aboriginal National" with a different legal status to an "Australian citizen", to which Australian law cannot apply because of the alleged sovereignty held under this status, which is of course the whole basis of the strawman duality theory some observers claim originated in the US.

[@glennsimpson7659]

Not sure why “it inevitably follows that…”. What is magic about 1973?

[@auspseudolaw]

@@glennsimpson7659 Adherents generally hold that by the enactment of the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973, Gough Whitlam created an invalid "paper queen" known as the "Queen of Australia". It comes down to a misunderstanding of the concept better known as the "divisibility of the Crown", from what was once an "indivisible Crown throughout the British Empire". It is true that the 1973 Act had serious consequences, as it removed any reference to the United Kingdom, causing the High Court to redefine "in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom" (in covering clause 2) in Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30, and discuss this and other senses in which the term "the Crown" has been used in constitutional theory, in determining that a candidate with dual UK citizenship could not sit in the Commonwealth Parliament, pursuant to section 44(i) of the Constitution, which prior to this divisibility was well accepted as normal. Secondly, it caused an internal inconsistency, two different titles, with Commonwealth legislation given assent in the name of the "Queen of Australia" while legislation passed by states was still given assent in the name of the "Queen of the United Kingdom" until the Australia Acts 1986. (See for example, Commonwealth v Queensland [1975] HCA 43, the "Queen of Queensland" case). Thirdly, due to the combined Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973 and the Australia Acts 1986 it closed the final loophole for British Subjects permanently residing in Australia who prior to 1986 were expressly excluded from the definition of "alien". In Shaw v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 72 it was held they became subjects of the "Queen of Australia" by an evolutionary process that had transformed the "Queen of the United Kingdom" into the "Queen of Australia". The Chameleon Crown by Anne Twomey is an excellent resource on this subject.

[@glennsimpson7659]

@@auspseudolaw thank you very much for this detailed explanation. It appears that I have come late to the debate, and meet=d to catch up. I cannot see the High, however constituted, being persuaded that all Commonwealth legislation since 1973 is invalid. Still, a most interesting argument.

[@auspseudolaw]

@@glennsimpson7659 ​ It's been attempted literally dozens of times, at every level of court, going back to at least 1995. When it did finally reach the High Court in Joosse v ASIC [1998] HCA 77. Hayne J. rejected the notion that the change in titles worked any fundamental constitutional change (at 20): "As I have noted earlier, the second of the three themes identified by the applicants relies on the Royal Style and Titles Act. As I understand it, the principal burden of the argument is that an Act of Parliament, changing the style or title by which the Queen is to be known in Australia, worked a fundamental constitutional change. The fact is, it did not. So far as Commonwealth legislation is concerned, it is ss 58, 59 and 60 of the Constitution that deal with the ways in which the Royal Assent may be given to bills passed by the other elements of the Federal Parliament. So far as now relevant, s 58 governs. It provides that the Governor-General "shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name". And there is no material that would suggest that has not been done in the case of each Commonwealth Act that now is challenged." This decision has frequently been referred to in rejecting the argument in other courts since. Wolter Joosse still sends me emails regularly discussing the point. It was actually the basis for former senator Rodney Culleton's "Great Australian Party", and still gets mentioned in courts, as recently as a few months ago.

[@SimonHasBeenMudGuts]

Pseudolaw? Isnt that what they practice in our courts now? 🤣

[@SimonHasBeenMudGuts]

It as plain as a pikestaff in my mind, that it is totally inappopriate and unethical, an act of irresponsible government under our current system, to have a Republican appointed as the Governor General (GG), when the Republican agenda is to seek to undermine the Crown in Australia. It is not an appropriate appointment when the GG has a double function to be responsible to the Crown and as our Constitutional head of the executive controlled by his or her advisors. The GG also has a duty for the execution and maintenance of the Constitution, to uphold its laws and administer the government. This includes the GG's duty and obligation under the provisions of the Constitution to respect and acknowledge the legislative power of the Queen or King in Parliament as per Sect 1 of the Constitution, and acting as his Majestys representative in the Australian Commonwealth as per Sect 2 of the Constitution. A republicans mission is to replace his Majesty with a non-royal Australian head of state and to abolish the crown in Australia. A Republican does not meet the job criteria to responsibly carry out duties of the GG on behalf of the crown and our Commonwealth under the current system, and the appointment should never have been allowed. It is farcical and underhanded. We the people have a general and reasonable expectation that the GG is 100% loyal to the current system we have and the crown. Let these Republicans not forget that the Framers intent was to create one "INDISSOLUABLE" Federal Commonwealth. What is the definition of indissoluable? = Unable to be destroyed; lasting.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Well that would wipe out a good majority of the vice-regal officers we have had at State and Commonwealth level for the last 30 or so years - and they seem to have done the job admirably, with perhaps one or two exceptions. As one vice-regal officer put it to me - the duty is to the Constitution and the people of the country. That includes the Constitution as validly amended by way of a referendum of the people from time to time. One can be absolutely committed to uphold the Constitution as it is, while still supporting valid change to it in the future. Indeed, only a fool would believe that the Constitution is perfect as it is and could not benefit from future change. The framers of the Constitution certainly thought change would be necessary, which is why they provided the mechanism to change the Constitution in the future. A vice-regal officer who was opposed to all change and refused to put a referendum or assent to a validly passed referendum would be much the greater danger.

[@SimonHasBeenMudGuts]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 I dont know of any person who believes the Constitution is perfect not even the framers knew it would be perfect moving into the future, that's why the framers provided us with the option of s128. The framers also made it quite clear in the CONSTITUTION ACT - PREAMBLE ( Their's and the UK Parliaments Intent) that it is "relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to UNITE in ONE INDISSOLUABLE Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established". This clearly states that their intent was for an ever lasting unbreaklable Federal Commonwealth that could not be turned into a Republic or broken up into pieces, and or turned back into individual colonies.

[@SimonHasBeenMudGuts]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 My thoughts are that if you are correct that a good majority of the vice-regal officers we have had at State and Commonwealth level for the last 30 or so years have been secretly anti Crown, anti Federalist and pro Republican, then they were not fit to hold that office regardless if some think they did the an admirable job. A loyal and responsible vice-regal officer should be opposed to change that violates the framers/peoples original intent, and should disallow an invalid referendum question that might undermine our constitutional order and responsible system of government, that a minority of subversive elitists seek to undermine due to globalist beliefs and foreign influence.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

@@SimonHasBeenMudGuts I don't know why you assume that because a person might vote in a referendum for a republic (depending on the model) this means that they are anti-federalist. Nor do I think it is much of a 'secret' that many vice-regal officers would be prepared to support a republic if it were put in a referendum. Indeed, it may also be the case that King Charles III supports a republic for Australia. Certainly, the position of the royal family had always been to support whatever outcome the Australian people chose, and I have a vague recollection that Prince Phillip said something to the effect that Australians were fools to vote against the republic last time - but I haven't checked, so perhaps I'm wrong on that.

[@auspseudolaw]

@@SimonHasBeenMudGuts "Constitutional references to the Queen are to the office, rather than the person of the Queen, and allegiance relates to the body politic, rather than the Queen personally. The duty of allegiance arises independently of the taking of any formal oath.. It arises by reason of birth within a country, or by naturalisation or even presence within a country. The oath itself is therefore 'ceremonial' in nature, but does not have any legal significance in terms of establishing bonds of allegiance. Peaceful advocacy of reform to the Constitution Act, which involves changes to the constitutional system such as the removal of links to the Queen, would not breach the oath of allegiance. The oath is given to Her Majesty's heirs and successors 'according to law'. The law may change the constitutional composition of the body politic, just as it may change succession to the throne. As long as these changes are made in a constitutionally valid manner, there is no breach of the oath of allegiance." - Anne Twomey; Constitution of New South Wales (pg 386)

[@OilBaron100]

First comment!

[@cameronmorrisson]

😂 I thought these videos would be safe from these comments...

[@auspseudolaw]

@@cameronmorrisson I disagree, you should be charged for treason because I disagree, this was not the first comment at all. Prove me wrong. 🤣🤣