The proposed change in the constitution
- I don't believe in written Constitutions as they are fixed documents from an age long gone .
- they are interpreted by unelected Lawyers ...
- The UK doesn't have one so Parliament can pass any law it likes ...Like becoming a republic for instance .
- In Australia we have to have referendums and get a majority in the majority of States . Which is hard and divisive .
- I don't think the Proposal for Aborigines to be uniquely recognised as a race in our constitution will get through .
- The U.S. Which is also a federation so has to consider States rights still has supremacy of Parliments ..and doesn't require Referendums ,.
- In the U.S. Congress, both the House of Representativesand the Senate approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote, a joint resolution amending the Constitution. Amendments so approved do not require the signature of the President of the United States and are sent directly to the states for ratification.17th Amendment
- Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or
2 comments
2 comments
Numerous Indigenous activists have invoked the 1875 Pacific Islanders Protection Act, passed by the House of Lords and ratified by Queen Victoria, which declared that
"Aboriginals and Torres Straight Islanders ought to be acknowledged and treated as the original owners of the continent. "
While this and other Imperial Acts of the British Parliament have no legal force in Australia today, let it be known that the Queen was among the first Anglo-Celtic leaders to pay homage to the traditional owners of the land.