Discussion:
Government of the minority, chosen by a minority, on behalf of a minority, is not what Lincoln had in mind at Gettysburg.
(too old to reply)
Rudy Canoza
2020-08-04 23:34:34 UTC
Permalink
Trump Doesn’t Need the Most Votes. What if He Doesn’t Even Want Them?

By Jamelle Bouie

Opinion Columnist

Aug. 4, 2020

Nearly everyone involved in reporting on, analyzing or forecasting the
upcoming presidential election agrees that Donald Trump could win another
term in office. But no one save his most dedicated sycophants thinks he
could do so with a majority of the public on his side. We have accepted, as
a matter of course, that Trump could be constitutionally re-elected through
the Electoral College, but not democratically selected by the voting public.

That’s how he won in 2016, and the reason is straightforward. Enough of the
president’s base is concentrated in swing states like Florida, Michigan,
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Because of that fact, he can lose by as many as
five million votes and still win an Electoral College majority.

As much as this contradicts our democratic expectations, you can imagine a
scenario where, aware of his minority position, Trump governed with an eye
toward consensus and popular legitimacy. The Electoral College misfire
would have been a problem, but not a dangerous one. Instead, President
Trump and his allies embraced this plainly anti-democratic feature of our
political system to liberate themselves from majoritarian politics and
coalition building. It’s not just that they can win with a plurality, but
that they intend to, with no interest in persuading the majority of
American voters and no concern for the consequences of that choice.

It was clear from the start of his administration that Trump saw his
Electoral College advantage as license for an intentionally divisive style
of politics, stoking anger and racial prejudice whenever it seemed
politically advantageous. He bases key governing decisions on whether he
won a state or group of states in the previous election. If the United
States does not have a national strategy for the pandemic, it is at least
in part because — as a report in Vanity Fair suggests — the administration
originally believed the problem was restricted to “blue” states.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/04/opinion/trump-2020-electoral-college.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

This is one reason among many why the electoral college is a white
supremacy-driven atrocity that should be abolished.
Dechucka
2020-08-04 23:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Trump Doesn’t Need the Most Votes. What if He Doesn’t Even Want Them?
By Jamelle Bouie
Opinion Columnist
    Aug. 4, 2020
Nearly everyone involved in reporting on, analyzing or forecasting the
upcoming presidential election agrees that Donald Trump could win
another term in office. But no one save his most dedicated sycophants
thinks he could do so with a majority of the public on his side. We have
accepted, as a matter of course, that Trump could be constitutionally
re-elected through the Electoral College, but not democratically
selected by the voting public.
That’s how he won in 2016, and the reason is straightforward. Enough of
the president’s base is concentrated in swing states like Florida,
Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Because of that fact, he can lose
by as many as five million votes and still win an Electoral College
majority.
As much as this contradicts our democratic expectations, you can imagine
a scenario where, aware of his minority position, Trump governed with an
eye toward consensus and popular legitimacy. The Electoral College
misfire would have been a problem, but not a dangerous one. Instead,
President Trump and his allies embraced this plainly anti-democratic
feature of our political system to liberate themselves from majoritarian
politics and coalition building. It’s not just that they can win with a
plurality, but that they intend to, with no interest in persuading the
majority of American voters and no concern for the consequences of that
choice.
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
max headroom
2020-08-05 13:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Dechucka
2020-08-05 20:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
max headroom
2020-08-06 01:50:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
Your "figurehead" GG fired your prime minister... or was that Her Britannic Majesty?
Dechucka
2020-08-06 02:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
Your "figurehead" GG fired your prime minister... or was that Her Britannic Majesty?
Yep he did so on the advice of Fraser who in my opinion didn't really
have that right, luckily Whitlam didn't take it to the High Court but
went to the election and got thrashed. Constitutionally we were allowed
to vote for the next mob, the twist that led to that have been fixed
btw. If only Gough had got to the GG to give the advice.
You on the other hand have no such right to choose your POTUS, your
betters choose how to elect him.
max headroom
2020-08-06 03:02:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
Your "figurehead" GG fired your prime minister... or was that Her Britannic Majesty?
Yep he did so on the advice of Fraser who in my opinion didn't really
have that right, luckily Whitlam didn't take it to the High Court but
went to the election and got thrashed. Constitutionally we were allowed
to vote for the next mob, the twist that led to that have been fixed
btw. If only Gough had got to the GG to give the advice.
You on the other hand have no such right to choose your POTUS, your
betters choose how to elect him.
And your betters choose your prime minister.
Dechucka
2020-08-06 03:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
Your "figurehead" GG fired your prime minister... or was that Her Britannic Majesty?
Yep he did so on the advice of Fraser who in my opinion didn't really
have that right, luckily Whitlam didn't take it to the High Court but
went to the election and got thrashed. Constitutionally we were allowed
to vote for the next mob, the twist that led to that have been fixed
btw. If only Gough had got to the GG to give the advice.
You on the other hand have no such right to choose your POTUS, your
betters choose how to elect him.
And your betters choose your prime minister.
Which is in no way similar to your State appointed POTUS
max headroom
2020-08-06 04:38:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
Your "figurehead" GG fired your prime minister... or was that Her Britannic Majesty?
Yep he did so on the advice of Fraser who in my opinion didn't really
have that right, luckily Whitlam didn't take it to the High Court but
went to the election and got thrashed. Constitutionally we were allowed
to vote for the next mob, the twist that led to that have been fixed
btw. If only Gough had got to the GG to give the advice.
You on the other hand have no such right to choose your POTUS, your
betters choose how to elect him.
And your betters choose your prime minister.
Which is in no way similar to your State appointed POTUS
Except we elect the electors and you elect the selectors.
Dechucka
2020-08-06 05:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
Your "figurehead" GG fired your prime minister... or was that Her Britannic Majesty?
Yep he did so on the advice of Fraser who in my opinion didn't really
have that right, luckily Whitlam didn't take it to the High Court but
went to the election and got thrashed. Constitutionally we were allowed
to vote for the next mob, the twist that led to that have been fixed
btw. If only Gough had got to the GG to give the advice.
You on the other hand have no such right to choose your POTUS, your
betters choose how to elect him.
And your betters choose your prime minister.
Which is in no way similar to your State appointed POTUS
Except we elect the electors
You have no constitutional right to vote for those who elect your very
powerful POTUS
Post by max headroom
and you elect the selectors.
Of our figurehead GG who acts on the advice of the PM.
max headroom
2020-08-06 05:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
Your "figurehead" GG fired your prime minister... or was that Her Britannic Majesty?
Yep he did so on the advice of Fraser who in my opinion didn't really
have that right, luckily Whitlam didn't take it to the High Court but
went to the election and got thrashed. Constitutionally we were allowed
to vote for the next mob, the twist that led to that have been fixed
btw. If only Gough had got to the GG to give the advice.
You on the other hand have no such right to choose your POTUS, your
betters choose how to elect him.
And your betters choose your prime minister.
Which is in no way similar to your State appointed POTUS
Except we elect the electors
You have no constitutional right to vote for those who elect your very
powerful POTUS
We do, second hand. We elect those who select the electors.
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
and you elect the selectors.
Of our figurehead GG who acts on the advice of the PM.
And of the prime minister.
Dechucka
2020-08-06 05:58:57 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Which is in no way similar to your State appointed POTUS
Except we elect the electors
You have no constitutional right to vote for those who elect your very
powerful POTUS
We do, second hand. We elect those who select the electors.
Of course you can't be trusted to vote in the most powerful person,
politically, in the US
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
and you elect the selectors.
Of our figurehead GG who acts on the advice of the PM.
And of the prime minister.
The PM and Prime Minister are one and the same, the leader of the group
who has the confidence of the House
max headroom
2020-08-06 06:06:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Which is in no way similar to your State appointed POTUS
Except we elect the electors
You have no constitutional right to vote for those who elect your very
powerful POTUS
We do, second hand. We elect those who select the electors.
Of course you can't be trusted to vote in the most powerful person,
politically, in the US
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
and you elect the selectors.
Of our figurehead GG who acts on the advice of the PM.
And of the prime minister.
The PM and Prime Minister are one and the same, the leader of the group
who has the confidence of the House
But not necessarily of the people.

You elect the selectors of your prime minister. You can't be trusted to vote in the most powerful
person, politically, in Australia.
Dechucka
2020-08-06 07:08:07 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Of our figurehead GG who acts on the advice of the PM.
And of the prime minister.
The PM and Prime Minister are one and the same, the leader of the group
who has the confidence of the House
But not necessarily of the people.
You elect the selectors of your prime minister. You can't be trusted to vote in the most powerful
person, politically, in Australia.
Unfortunately, for you, apart from getting to live in the Lodge and
being part of the executive the PM is just another member with one vote
on the floor.
bigdog
2020-08-06 18:08:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
Your "figurehead" GG fired your prime minister... or was that Her Britannic Majesty?
Yep he did so on the advice of Fraser who in my opinion didn't really
have that right, luckily Whitlam didn't take it to the High Court but
went to the election and got thrashed. Constitutionally we were allowed
to vote for the next mob, the twist that led to that have been fixed
btw. If only Gough had got to the GG to give the advice.
You on the other hand have no such right to choose your POTUS, your
betters choose how to elect him.
And your betters choose your prime minister.
Which is in no way similar to your State appointed POTUS
That's a good thing. Why the fuck would we want to be like Australia?
Dechucka
2020-08-06 20:11:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
Your "figurehead" GG fired your prime minister... or was that Her Britannic Majesty?
Yep he did so on the advice of Fraser who in my opinion didn't really
have that right, luckily Whitlam didn't take it to the High Court but
went to the election and got thrashed. Constitutionally we were allowed
to vote for the next mob, the twist that led to that have been fixed
btw. If only Gough had got to the GG to give the advice.
You on the other hand have no such right to choose your POTUS, your
betters choose how to elect him.
And your betters choose your prime minister.
Which is in no way similar to your State appointed POTUS
That's a good thing. Why the fuck would we want to be like Australia?
Because you have no right to vote for your POTUS or the Electoral college
SortingItOut
2020-08-07 06:36:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by bigdog
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
Your "figurehead" GG fired your prime minister... or was that Her Britannic Majesty?
Yep he did so on the advice of Fraser who in my opinion didn't really
have that right, luckily Whitlam didn't take it to the High Court but
went to the election and got thrashed. Constitutionally we were allowed
to vote for the next mob, the twist that led to that have been fixed
btw. If only Gough had got to the GG to give the advice.
You on the other hand have no such right to choose your POTUS, your
betters choose how to elect him.
And your betters choose your prime minister.
Which is in no way similar to your State appointed POTUS
That's a good thing. Why the fuck would we want to be like Australia?
Because you have no right to vote for your POTUS or the Electoral college
You keep saying this like it's a bad thing. Do EU citizens vote directly on the top EU leaders? Do you think they should?
Dechucka
2020-08-07 07:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by SortingItOut
Post by Dechucka
Post by bigdog
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
Your "figurehead" GG fired your prime minister... or was that Her Britannic Majesty?
Yep he did so on the advice of Fraser who in my opinion didn't really
have that right, luckily Whitlam didn't take it to the High Court but
went to the election and got thrashed. Constitutionally we were allowed
to vote for the next mob, the twist that led to that have been fixed
btw. If only Gough had got to the GG to give the advice.
You on the other hand have no such right to choose your POTUS, your
betters choose how to elect him.
And your betters choose your prime minister.
Which is in no way similar to your State appointed POTUS
That's a good thing. Why the fuck would we want to be like Australia?
Because you have no right to vote for your POTUS or the Electoral college
You keep saying this like it's a bad thing. Do EU citizens vote directly on the top EU leaders?
Yes well it depends on what you mean by that
Post by SortingItOut
Do you think they should?
SortingItOut
2020-08-09 07:26:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by SortingItOut
Post by Dechucka
Post by bigdog
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
Your "figurehead" GG fired your prime minister... or was that Her Britannic Majesty?
Yep he did so on the advice of Fraser who in my opinion didn't really
have that right, luckily Whitlam didn't take it to the High Court but
went to the election and got thrashed. Constitutionally we were allowed
to vote for the next mob, the twist that led to that have been fixed
btw. If only Gough had got to the GG to give the advice.
You on the other hand have no such right to choose your POTUS, your
betters choose how to elect him.
And your betters choose your prime minister.
Which is in no way similar to your State appointed POTUS
That's a good thing. Why the fuck would we want to be like Australia?
Because you have no right to vote for your POTUS or the Electoral college
You keep saying this like it's a bad thing. Do EU citizens vote directly on the top EU leaders?
Yes well it depends on what you mean by that
Post by SortingItOut
Do you think they should?
I mean the top EU leaders, whoever they are...can normal citizens of Germany, France, Austria, etc. vote directly for these leaders. Is there a ballot in all of the EU nations that lets them vote for these individuals. And if not, do you think there should be.
Dechucka
2020-08-09 07:39:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by SortingItOut
Post by Dechucka
Post by SortingItOut
Post by Dechucka
Post by bigdog
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
Your "figurehead" GG fired your prime minister... or was that Her Britannic Majesty?
Yep he did so on the advice of Fraser who in my opinion didn't really
have that right, luckily Whitlam didn't take it to the High Court but
went to the election and got thrashed. Constitutionally we were allowed
to vote for the next mob, the twist that led to that have been fixed
btw. If only Gough had got to the GG to give the advice.
You on the other hand have no such right to choose your POTUS, your
betters choose how to elect him.
And your betters choose your prime minister.
Which is in no way similar to your State appointed POTUS
That's a good thing. Why the fuck would we want to be like Australia?
Because you have no right to vote for your POTUS or the Electoral college
You keep saying this like it's a bad thing. Do EU citizens vote directly on the top EU leaders?
Yes well it depends on what you mean by that
Post by SortingItOut
Do you think they should?
I mean the top EU leaders, whoever they are...can normal citizens of Germany, France, Austria, etc. vote directly for these leaders. Is there a ballot in all of the EU nations that lets them vote for these individuals. And if not, do you think there should be.
Go and do some research and figure out what you are trying to ask.
Just Wondering
2020-08-06 07:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
Your "figurehead" GG fired your prime minister... or was that Her Britannic Majesty?
Yep he did so on the advice of Fraser who in my opinion didn't really
have that right, luckily Whitlam didn't take it to the High Court but
went to the election and got thrashed. Constitutionally we were allowed
to vote for the next mob, the twist that led to that have been fixed
btw. If only Gough had got to the GG to give the advice.
You on the other hand have no such right to choose your POTUS, your
betters choose how to elect him.
And your betters choose your prime minister.
And nothing but circumstances of birth chooses Oz's chief
executive officer.
Dechucka
2020-08-06 07:33:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no
Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
Your "figurehead" GG fired your prime minister... or was that Her Britannic Majesty?
Yep he did so on the advice of Fraser who in my opinion didn't really
have that right, luckily Whitlam didn't take it to the High Court but
went to the election and got thrashed. Constitutionally we were allowed
to vote for the next mob, the twist that led to that have been fixed
btw. If only Gough had got to the GG to give the advice.
You on the other hand have no such right to choose your POTUS, your
betters choose how to elect him.
And your betters choose your prime minister.
And nothing but circumstances of birth chooses Oz's chief
executive officer.
I assume you mean our Head of State who acts on the advice of the
Executive/PM.
Just Wondering
2020-08-06 08:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no
Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
Your "figurehead" GG fired your prime minister... or was that Her
Britannic Majesty?
Yep he did so on the advice of Fraser who in my opinion didn't really
have that right, luckily Whitlam didn't take it to the High Court but
went to the election and got thrashed. Constitutionally we were allowed
to vote for the next mob, the twist that led to that have been fixed
btw. If only Gough had got to the GG to give the advice.
You on the other hand have no such right to choose your POTUS, your
betters choose how to elect him.
And your betters choose your prime minister.
And nothing but circumstances of birth chooses Oz's chief
executive officer.
I assume you mean our Head of State who acts on the advice of the
Executive/PM.
Australia Constitution Sec. 61: "61. Executive power The
executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen ..."
Constitutionally speaking, old Lizzie Windsor may take other
people's advice but has the power to act without that advice
or even in disregard of it. And your Constitution doesn't
even MENTION a PM.
Dechucka
2020-08-06 09:28:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
Your "figurehead" GG fired your prime minister... or was that Her
Britannic Majesty?
Yep he did so on the advice of Fraser who in my opinion didn't really
have that right, luckily Whitlam didn't take it to the High Court but
went to the election and got thrashed. Constitutionally we were allowed
to vote for the next mob, the twist that led to that have been fixed
btw. If only Gough had got to the GG to give the advice.
You on the other hand have no such right to choose your POTUS, your
betters choose how to elect him.
And your betters choose your prime minister.
And nothing but circumstances of birth chooses Oz's chief
executive officer.
I assume you mean our Head of State who acts on the advice of the
Executive/PM.
Australia Constitution Sec. 61:  "61. Executive power  The
executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen ..."
Constitutionally speaking, old Lizzie Windsor may take other
people's advice but has the power to act without that advice
or even in disregard of it.  And your Constitution doesn't
even MENTION a PM.
You might want to read the whole document and not cherry pick especially
the bits on what advice the GG acts on.

When it gets down to it I'd prefer a figurehead GG as our absolute Head
of State elected by a 2/3rds majority at a Joint Sitting of Parliament
or one elected by the people on the same terms as Constitutional
referendums. Constitutional problems to be settled by the High Court maybe.
And your Constitution doesn't
even MENTION a PM.
It refers to Ministers in State, we just follow the UK tradition and
call him the PM, doesn't mention what to call the other Ministers
either, go figure
Just Wondering
2020-08-06 17:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
Your "figurehead" GG fired your prime minister... or was that Her
Britannic Majesty?
Yep he did so on the advice of Fraser who in my opinion didn't really
have that right, luckily Whitlam didn't take it to the High Court but
went to the election and got thrashed. Constitutionally we were allowed
to vote for the next mob, the twist that led to that have been fixed
btw. If only Gough had got to the GG to give the advice.
You on the other hand have no such right to choose your POTUS, your
betters choose how to elect him.
And your betters choose your prime minister.
And nothing but circumstances of birth chooses Oz's chief
executive officer.
I assume you mean our Head of State who acts on the advice of the
Executive/PM.
Australia Constitution Sec. 61:  "61. Executive power  The
executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen ..."
Constitutionally speaking, old Lizzie Windsor may take other
people's advice but has the power to act without that advice
or even in disregard of it.  And your Constitution doesn't
even MENTION a PM.
You might want to read the whole document and not cherry pick especially
the bits on what advice the GG acts on.
ULtimately your GG is subject to the crown and is constitutionally duty-
bound to obey Old Lizzie Windsor even if she instructs him to do
something directly in opposition to what your Parliament wants.
Post by Dechucka
When it gets down to it I'd prefer a figurehead GG as our absolute Head
of State elected by a 2/3rds majority at a Joint Sitting of Parliament
or one elected by the people on the same terms as Constitutional
referendums. Constitutional problems to be settled by the High Court maybe.
And your Constitution doesn't even MENTION a PM.
It refers to Ministers in State, we just follow the UK tradition and
call him the PM, doesn't mention what to call the other Ministers
either, go figure
It doesn't contemplate elevating any one minister over another. You
just say you have a parliamentary form of government and then make
stuff up that doesn't exist in your Constitution.

And the fact remains that the Australian common citizen doesn't
vote for the Queen, or the Governor General, or to select which
of numerous ministers is your Prime Rib Minister.
Dechucka
2020-08-06 20:16:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
Your "figurehead" GG fired your prime minister... or was that
Her Britannic Majesty?
Yep he did so on the advice of Fraser who in my opinion didn't really
have that right, luckily Whitlam didn't take it to the High Court but
went to the election and got thrashed. Constitutionally we were allowed
to vote for the next mob, the twist that led to that have been fixed
btw. If only Gough had got to the GG to give the advice.
You on the other hand have no such right to choose your POTUS, your
betters choose how to elect him.
And your betters choose your prime minister.
And nothing but circumstances of birth chooses Oz's chief
executive officer.
I assume you mean our Head of State who acts on the advice of the
Executive/PM.
Australia Constitution Sec. 61:  "61. Executive power  The
executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen ..."
Constitutionally speaking, old Lizzie Windsor may take other
people's advice but has the power to act without that advice
or even in disregard of it.  And your Constitution doesn't
even MENTION a PM.
You might want to read the whole document and not cherry pick
especially the bits on what advice the GG acts on.
ULtimately your GG is subject to the crown and is constitutionally duty-
bound to obey Old Lizzie Windsor even if she instructs him to do
something directly in opposition to what your Parliament wants.
Interesting interpretation
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Dechucka
When it gets down to it I'd prefer a figurehead GG as our absolute
Head of State elected by a 2/3rds majority at a Joint Sitting of
Parliament or one elected by the people on the same terms as
Constitutional referendums. Constitutional problems to be settled by
the High Court maybe.
And your Constitution doesn't even MENTION a PM.
It refers to Ministers in State, we just follow the UK tradition and
call him the PM, doesn't mention what to call the other Ministers
either, go figure
It doesn't contemplate elevating any one minister over another.  You
just say you have a parliamentary form of government and then make
stuff up that doesn't exist in your Constitution.
As my forefathers voted for a Parliamentary system based on the British
system when the people, not the States as in your case, voted for the
original Constitution they knew the system they were getting into with
all the checks and balances of the British system.
Post by Just Wondering
And the fact remains that the Australian common citizen doesn't
vote for the Queen, or the Governor General, or to select which
of numerous ministers is your Prime Rib Minister.
The GG is a figurehead and the PM only another Minister.
Just Wondering
2020-08-06 21:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Just Wondering
ULtimately your GG is subject to the crown and is constitutionally duty-
bound to obey Old Lizzie Windsor even if she instructs him to do
something directly in opposition to what your Parliament wants.
Interesting interpretation
You don't deny it's true. You can't deny it in good faith,
because it's 100% true.
Dechucka
2020-08-06 21:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Just Wondering
ULtimately your GG is subject to the crown and is constitutionally duty-
bound to obey Old Lizzie Windsor even if she instructs him to do
something directly in opposition to what your Parliament wants.
Interesting interpretation
You don't deny it's true.  You can't deny it in good faith,
because it's 100% true.
It isn't true under our system which is based on black letter
constitutional law and the precedence's of the Westminster system going
back to the Magna Carta. You do realise that he UK doesn't have an
actual written down Constitution but also relies on the precedence's etc
of the past, rather like common law, which is the same as our system of
Parliamentary sovereignty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
"However, the UK Supreme Court recognises that there are constitutional
principles, including Parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law,
democracy, and upholding international law.[2] The UK Supreme Court also
recognises that some Acts of Parliament have special constitutional
status.[3] These include Magna Carta, which in 1215 required the King to
call a "common counsel" (now called Parliament) to represent people, to
hold courts in a fixed place, to guarantee fair trials, to guarantee
free movement of people, to free the church from the state, and to
guarantee rights of "common" people to use the land.[4] After the
English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, the Bill of Rights 1689
and the Claim of Right Act 1689 cemented Parliament's supremacy over the
monarch, the church and the courts, and said that the "election of
members of Parliament ought to be free"."

The rest of my post was a bit hard for you to address was it? Maybe
you've just conceded the points I made.
Just Wondering
2020-08-07 01:27:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Just Wondering
ULtimately your GG is subject to the crown and is constitutionally duty-
bound to obey Old Lizzie Windsor even if she instructs him to do
something directly in opposition to what your Parliament wants.
Interesting interpretation
You don't deny it's true.  You can't deny it in good faith,
because it's 100% true.
It isn't true under our system which is based on black letter
constitutional law and the precedence's of the Westminster system going
back to the Magna Carta. You do realise that he UK doesn't have an
actual written down Constitution but also relies on the precedence's etc
of the past, rather like common law, which is the same as our system of
Parliamentary sovereignty.
The subject isn't the United Kingdom system of government. The UK
is England, Scotland, and Wales (i.e. Great Britain) and Northern
Ireland. The subject is Australia's system of government.
Australia is not part of the UK and does have an actual written
down Constitution. Here's a link to it:
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005
Point out which section empowers a governor-general under any
circumstance to disobey instructions from the Queen.
Dechucka
2020-08-07 04:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Just Wondering
ULtimately your GG is subject to the crown and is constitutionally duty-
bound to obey Old Lizzie Windsor even if she instructs him to do
something directly in opposition to what your Parliament wants.
Interesting interpretation
You don't deny it's true.  You can't deny it in good faith,
because it's 100% true.
It isn't true under our system which is based on black letter
constitutional law and the precedence's of the Westminster system
going back to the Magna Carta. You do realise that he UK doesn't have
an actual written down Constitution but also relies on the
precedence's etc of the past, rather like common law, which is the
same as our system of Parliamentary sovereignty.
The subject isn't the United Kingdom system of government.  The UK
is England, Scotland, and Wales (i.e. Great Britain) and Northern
Ireland.  The subject is Australia's system of government.
and that is where your understanding is lacking. The UK system as is the
Australian system is based on precedents going back to the Magna Carta.
Australia is not part of the UK and does have an actual written
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005
Point out which section empowers a governor-general under any
circumstance to disobey instructions from the Queen.
? Nowhere does it say that the GG has to do what the Queen says. The GG
acts with theExecutive
Just Wondering
2020-08-07 05:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Just Wondering
ULtimately your GG is subject to the crown and is constitutionally
duty-bound to obey Old Lizzie Windsor even if she instructs him to do
something directly in opposition to what your Parliament wants.
Interesting interpretation
You don't deny it's true.  You can't deny it in good faith,
because it's 100% true.
It isn't true under our system which is based on black letter
constitutional law and the precedence's of the Westminster system
going back to the Magna Carta. You do realise that he UK doesn't have
an actual written down Constitution but also relies on the
precedence's etc of the past, rather like common law, which is the
same as our system of Parliamentary sovereignty.
The subject isn't the United Kingdom system of government.  The UK
is England, Scotland, and Wales (i.e. Great Britain) and Northern
Ireland.  The subject is Australia's system of government.
and that is where your understanding is lacking. The UK system as is the
Australian system is based on precedents going back to the Magna Carta.
Australia is not part of the UK and does have an actual written
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005
Point out which section empowers a governor-general under any
circumstance to disobey instructions from the Queen.
? Nowhere does it say that the GG has to do what the Queen says.
The GG acts with the Executive
You're touting black letter law. The Aussie GG is the queen's
representative, that is to say her agent. Black letter law
says that a principal/agent/servant is legally bound to follow
the instructions of his principal/master.

But you're avoiding the question. Where is the authority
for your proposition that Dave Hurley can tell Liz Hurley
to go screw herself if she gives him an order he doesn't like?
Dechucka
2020-08-07 05:48:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Just Wondering
ULtimately your GG is subject to the crown and is
constitutionally duty-bound to obey Old Lizzie Windsor even if
she instructs him to do something directly in opposition to what
your Parliament wants.
Interesting interpretation
You don't deny it's true.  You can't deny it in good faith,
because it's 100% true.
It isn't true under our system which is based on black letter
constitutional law and the precedence's of the Westminster system
going back to the Magna Carta. You do realise that he UK doesn't
have an actual written down Constitution but also relies on the
precedence's etc of the past, rather like common law, which is the
same as our system of Parliamentary sovereignty.
The subject isn't the United Kingdom system of government.  The UK
is England, Scotland, and Wales (i.e. Great Britain) and Northern
Ireland.  The subject is Australia's system of government.
and that is where your understanding is lacking. The UK system as is
the Australian system is based on precedents going back to the Magna
Carta.
Australia is not part of the UK and does have an actual written
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005
Point out which section empowers a governor-general under any
circumstance to disobey instructions from the Queen.
? Nowhere does it say that the GG has to do what the Queen says. The
GG acts with the Executive
You're touting black letter law.  The Aussie GG is the queen's
representative, that is to say her agent.  Black letter law
says that a principal/agent/servant is legally bound to follow
the instructions of his principal/master.
Doesn't apply in this situation, the Queen is just a figurehead
But you're avoiding the question.  Where is the authority
for your proposition that Dave Hurley can tell Liz Hurley
to go screw herself if she gives him an order he doesn't like?
Having met both of them she'd probably give back as much as she got, her
name is Linda btw
Just Wondering
2020-08-07 07:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Just Wondering
ULtimately your GG is subject to the crown and is
constitutionally duty-bound to obey Old Lizzie Windsor even if
she instructs him to do something directly in opposition to what
your Parliament wants.
Interesting interpretation
You don't deny it's true.  You can't deny it in good faith,
because it's 100% true.
It isn't true under our system which is based on black letter
constitutional law and the precedence's of the Westminster system
going back to the Magna Carta. You do realise that he UK doesn't
have an actual written down Constitution but also relies on the
precedence's etc of the past, rather like common law, which is the
same as our system of Parliamentary sovereignty.
The subject isn't the United Kingdom system of government.  The UK
is England, Scotland, and Wales (i.e. Great Britain) and Northern
Ireland.  The subject is Australia's system of government.
and that is where your understanding is lacking. The UK system as is
the Australian system is based on precedents going back to the Magna
Carta.
Australia is not part of the UK and does have an actual written
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005
Point out which section empowers a governor-general under any
circumstance to disobey instructions from the Queen.
? Nowhere does it say that the GG has to do what the Queen says. The
GG acts with the Executive
You're touting black letter law.  The Aussie GG is the queen's
representative, that is to say her agent.  Black letter law
says that a principal/agent/servant is legally bound to follow
the instructions of his principal/master.
Doesn't apply in this situation, the Queen is just a figurehead
Not according to your Constitution. Your Constitution makes Liz Windsor
the supreme government authority in Australia. You have ignore your
Constitution to make her "just a figurehead". Which basically means
that unlike the USA Constitution which is the supreme law of the land,
in Australia the Constitution is just another piece of paper, to be
disregarded when it's inconvenient.
Post by Dechucka
But you're avoiding the question.  Where is the authority
for your proposition that Dave Hurley can tell Liz Hurley
to go screw herself if she gives him an order he doesn't like?
Having met both of them she'd probably give back as much as she got, her
name is Linda btw
My fingers got ahead of my brain. I meant to type Liz Windsor.
Dechucka
2020-08-07 07:57:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Just Wondering
ULtimately your GG is subject to the crown and is
constitutionally duty-bound to obey Old Lizzie Windsor even if
she instructs him to do something directly in opposition to
what your Parliament wants.
Interesting interpretation
You don't deny it's true.  You can't deny it in good faith,
because it's 100% true.
It isn't true under our system which is based on black letter
constitutional law and the precedence's of the Westminster system
going back to the Magna Carta. You do realise that he UK doesn't
have an actual written down Constitution but also relies on the
precedence's etc of the past, rather like common law, which is the
same as our system of Parliamentary sovereignty.
The subject isn't the United Kingdom system of government.  The UK
is England, Scotland, and Wales (i.e. Great Britain) and Northern
Ireland.  The subject is Australia's system of government.
and that is where your understanding is lacking. The UK system as is
the Australian system is based on precedents going back to the Magna
Carta.
Australia is not part of the UK and does have an actual written
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005
Point out which section empowers a governor-general under any
circumstance to disobey instructions from the Queen.
? Nowhere does it say that the GG has to do what the Queen says. The
GG acts with the Executive
You're touting black letter law.  The Aussie GG is the queen's
representative, that is to say her agent.  Black letter law
says that a principal/agent/servant is legally bound to follow
the instructions of his principal/master.
Doesn't apply in this situation, the Queen is just a figurehead
Not according to your Constitution.  Your Constitution makes Liz Windsor
the supreme government authority in Australia.  You have ignore your
Constitution to make her "just a figurehead".
Your understanding of the actual Constitution and it'd practicality is
lacking. Liz isn't even the titular head of our armed forces
Which basically means
that unlike the USA Constitution which is the supreme law of the land,
in Australia the Constitution is just another piece of paper, to be
disregarded when it's inconvenient.
Nice strwaman
Post by Dechucka
But you're avoiding the question.  Where is the authority
for your proposition that Dave Hurley can tell Liz Hurley
to go screw herself if she gives him an order he doesn't like?
Having met both of them she'd probably give back as much as she got,
her name is Linda btw
My fingers got ahead of my brain.  I meant to type Liz Windsor.
The Queen can order General Hurley to do what she likes but he doesn't
take orders or advice from her.
Just Wondering
2020-08-07 19:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Just Wondering
ULtimately your GG is subject to the crown and is
constitutionally duty-bound to obey Old Lizzie Windsor even if
she instructs him to do something directly in opposition to
what your Parliament wants.
Interesting interpretation
You don't deny it's true.  You can't deny it in good faith,
because it's 100% true.
It isn't true under our system which is based on black letter
constitutional law and the precedence's of the Westminster system
going back to the Magna Carta. You do realise that he UK doesn't
have an actual written down Constitution but also relies on the
precedence's etc of the past, rather like common law, which is
the same as our system of Parliamentary sovereignty.
The subject isn't the United Kingdom system of government.  The UK
is England, Scotland, and Wales (i.e. Great Britain) and Northern
Ireland.  The subject is Australia's system of government.
and that is where your understanding is lacking. The UK system as
is the Australian system is based on precedents going back to the
Magna Carta.
Australia is not part of the UK and does have an actual written
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005
Point out which section empowers a governor-general under any
circumstance to disobey instructions from the Queen.
? Nowhere does it say that the GG has to do what the Queen says.
The GG acts with the Executive
You're touting black letter law.  The Aussie GG is the queen's
representative, that is to say her agent.  Black letter law
says that a principal/agent/servant is legally bound to follow
the instructions of his principal/master.
Doesn't apply in this situation, the Queen is just a figurehead
Not according to your Constitution.  Your Constitution makes Liz Windsor
the supreme government authority in Australia.  You have ignore your
Constitution to make her "just a figurehead".
Your understanding of the actual Constitution and it'd practicality is
lacking. Liz isn't even the titular head of our armed forces
Oz Constitution
Sec. 61: The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the
Queen and is exercisable by the Governor‑General as the Queen’s
representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of
this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
Sec. 68: The command in chief of the naval and military forces
of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor‑General as the
Queen’s representative.

Constitutionally speaking, the line of authority is:
Queen
-> Governor-General as Queen's representative
-> Minister for Defence
-> Chief of the Defence Staff and Secretary of Defence
-> Australian Defence Force and Department of Defence

Military personnel take this oath:
I, (insert name) swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty
Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law,
as a member of the (insert Royal Australian Navy , Australian Army , or
Royal Australian Air Force) ... SO HELP ME GOD!
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_reg/dr2016201601568163/sch1.html

Interesting that the military oath is to serve the Queen, not
the country.

https://quizlet.com/266497794/australia-government-and-economy-flash-cards/
Q: Who has these duties: approves elections, signs bills into law,
commander-in-chief of the military and acts as head of state for Australia?
A: the Queen
Post by Dechucka
Which basically means
that unlike the USA Constitution which is the supreme law of the land,
in Australia the Constitution is just another piece of paper, to be
disregarded when it's inconvenient.
Nice strwaman
If by strwaman you mean accurate description, then you are correct.
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
But you're avoiding the question.  Where is the authority
for your proposition that Dave Hurley can tell Liz Hurley
to go screw herself if she gives him an order he doesn't like?
Having met both of them she'd probably give back as much as she got,
her name is Linda btw
My fingers got ahead of my brain.  I meant to type Liz Windsor.
The Queen can order General Hurley to do what she likes but
he doesn't take orders or advice from her.
Sh is his boss. He can obey or be fired, just like any
other subordinate.
Dechucka
2020-08-07 22:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Just Wondering
ULtimately your GG is subject to the crown and is
constitutionally duty-bound to obey Old Lizzie Windsor even
if she instructs him to do something directly in opposition
to what your Parliament wants.
Interesting interpretation
You don't deny it's true.  You can't deny it in good faith,
because it's 100% true.
It isn't true under our system which is based on black letter
constitutional law and the precedence's of the Westminster
system going back to the Magna Carta. You do realise that he UK
doesn't have an actual written down Constitution but also relies
on the precedence's etc of the past, rather like common law,
which is the same as our system of Parliamentary sovereignty.
The subject isn't the United Kingdom system of government.  The UK
is England, Scotland, and Wales (i.e. Great Britain) and Northern
Ireland.  The subject is Australia's system of government.
and that is where your understanding is lacking. The UK system as
is the Australian system is based on precedents going back to the
Magna Carta.
Australia is not part of the UK and does have an actual written
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005
Point out which section empowers a governor-general under any
circumstance to disobey instructions from the Queen.
? Nowhere does it say that the GG has to do what the Queen says.
The GG acts with the Executive
You're touting black letter law.  The Aussie GG is the queen's
representative, that is to say her agent.  Black letter law
says that a principal/agent/servant is legally bound to follow
the instructions of his principal/master.
Doesn't apply in this situation, the Queen is just a figurehead
Not according to your Constitution.  Your Constitution makes Liz Windsor
the supreme government authority in Australia.  You have ignore your
Constitution to make her "just a figurehead".
Your understanding of the actual Constitution and it'd practicality is
lacking. Liz isn't even the titular head of our armed forces
Oz Constitution
Sec. 61:  The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the
Queen and is exercisable by the Governor‑General as the Queen’s
representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of
this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
Sec. 68:  The command in chief of the naval and military forces
of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor‑General as the
Queen’s representative.
Queen
 -> Governor-General as Queen's representative
    -> Minister for Defence
        -> Chief of the Defence Staff and Secretary of Defence
            -> Australian Defence Force and Department of Defence
I, (insert name) swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty
Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law,
as a member of the (insert Royal Australian Navy , Australian Army , or
Royal Australian Air Force)  ... SO HELP ME GOD!
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_reg/dr2016201601568163/sch1.html
Interesting that the military oath is to serve the Queen, not
the country.
https://quizlet.com/266497794/australia-government-and-economy-flash-cards/
Q:  Who has these duties: approves elections, signs bills into law,
commander-in-chief of the military and acts as head of state for Australia?
A:  the Queen
So the GG is the head of the armed forces
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Dechucka
Which basically means
that unlike the USA Constitution which is the supreme law of the land,
in Australia the Constitution is just another piece of paper, to be
disregarded when it's inconvenient.
Nice strwaman
If by strwaman you mean accurate description, then you are correct.
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
But you're avoiding the question.  Where is the authority
for your proposition that Dave Hurley can tell Liz Hurley
to go screw herself if she gives him an order he doesn't like?
Having met both of them she'd probably give back as much as she got,
her name is Linda btw
My fingers got ahead of my brain.  I meant to type Liz Windsor.
The Queen can order General Hurley to do what she likes but he doesn't
take orders or advice from her.
Sh is his boss.  He can obey or be fired, just like any
other subordinate.
By our Executive since 1930 and Sir Isaac Isaacs, remember since then
the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Act have come into force.
Oh well I suppose it is difficult for an outsider to understand a system
not based entirely on written word but history going back to 1215.
However the fact remains Americans have no right to vote for their most
powerful political figure
Just Wondering
2020-08-08 03:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Just Wondering
ULtimately your GG is subject to the crown and is
constitutionally duty-bound to obey Old Lizzie Windsor even
if she instructs him to do something directly in opposition
to what your Parliament wants.
Interesting interpretation
You don't deny it's true.  You can't deny it in good faith,
because it's 100% true.
It isn't true under our system which is based on black letter
constitutional law and the precedence's of the Westminster
system going back to the Magna Carta. You do realise that he UK
doesn't have an actual written down Constitution but also
relies on the precedence's etc of the past, rather like common
law, which is the same as our system of Parliamentary sovereignty.
The subject isn't the United Kingdom system of government.  The UK
is England, Scotland, and Wales (i.e. Great Britain) and Northern
Ireland.  The subject is Australia's system of government.
and that is where your understanding is lacking. The UK system as
is the Australian system is based on precedents going back to the
Magna Carta.
Australia is not part of the UK and does have an actual written
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005
Point out which section empowers a governor-general under any
circumstance to disobey instructions from the Queen.
? Nowhere does it say that the GG has to do what the Queen says.
The GG acts with the Executive
You're touting black letter law.  The Aussie GG is the queen's
representative, that is to say her agent.  Black letter law
says that a principal/agent/servant is legally bound to follow
the instructions of his principal/master.
Doesn't apply in this situation, the Queen is just a figurehead
Not according to your Constitution.  Your Constitution makes Liz Windsor
the supreme government authority in Australia.  You have ignore your
Constitution to make her "just a figurehead".
Your understanding of the actual Constitution and it'd practicality
is lacking. Liz isn't even the titular head of our armed forces
Oz Constitution
Sec. 61:  The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the
Queen and is exercisable by the Governor‑General as the Queen’s
representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of
this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
Sec. 68:  The command in chief of the naval and military forces
of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor‑General as the
Queen’s representative.
Queen
  -> Governor-General as Queen's representative
     -> Minister for Defence
         -> Chief of the Defence Staff and Secretary of Defence
             -> Australian Defence Force and Department of Defence
I, (insert name) swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty
Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law,
as a member of the (insert Royal Australian Navy , Australian Army ,
or Royal Australian Air Force)  ... SO HELP ME GOD!
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_reg/dr2016201601568163/sch1.html
Interesting that the military oath is to serve the Queen, not
the country.
https://quizlet.com/266497794/australia-government-and-economy-flash-cards/
Q:  Who has these duties: approves elections, signs bills into law,
commander-in-chief of the military and acts as head of state for Australia?
A:  the Queen
So the GG is the head of the armed forces
"as the Queen’s representative".
Post by Dechucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Dechucka
Which basically means
that unlike the USA Constitution which is the supreme law of the land,
in Australia the Constitution is just another piece of paper, to be
disregarded when it's inconvenient.
Nice strwaman
If by strwaman you mean accurate description, then you are correct.
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
But you're avoiding the question.  Where is the authority
for your proposition that Dave Hurley can tell Liz Hurley
to go screw herself if she gives him an order he doesn't like?
Having met both of them she'd probably give back as much as she
got, her name is Linda btw
My fingers got ahead of my brain.  I meant to type Liz Windsor.
The Queen can order General Hurley to do what she likes but he
doesn't take orders or advice from her.
She is his boss.  He can obey or be fired, just like any
other subordinate.
By our Executive since 1930 and Sir Isaac Isaacs, remember since then
the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Act have come into force.
Oh well I suppose it is difficult for an outsider to understand a system
not based entirely on written word but history going back to 1215.
However the fact remains Americans have no right to vote for their most
powerful political figure
Australians have no right to vote for THEIR most powerful
political figure. Matthew 7:1-5
Dechucka
2020-08-08 05:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Just Wondering
ULtimately your GG is subject to the crown and is
constitutionally duty-bound to obey Old Lizzie Windsor even
if she instructs him to do something directly in opposition
to what your Parliament wants.
Interesting interpretation
You don't deny it's true.  You can't deny it in good faith,
because it's 100% true.
It isn't true under our system which is based on black letter
constitutional law and the precedence's of the Westminster
system going back to the Magna Carta. You do realise that he
UK doesn't have an actual written down Constitution but also
relies on the precedence's etc of the past, rather like common
law, which is the same as our system of Parliamentary
sovereignty.
The subject isn't the United Kingdom system of government.  The UK
is England, Scotland, and Wales (i.e. Great Britain) and Northern
Ireland.  The subject is Australia's system of government.
and that is where your understanding is lacking. The UK system
as is the Australian system is based on precedents going back to
the Magna Carta.
Australia is not part of the UK and does have an actual written
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005
Point out which section empowers a governor-general under any
circumstance to disobey instructions from the Queen.
? Nowhere does it say that the GG has to do what the Queen says.
The GG acts with the Executive
You're touting black letter law.  The Aussie GG is the queen's
representative, that is to say her agent.  Black letter law
says that a principal/agent/servant is legally bound to follow
the instructions of his principal/master.
Doesn't apply in this situation, the Queen is just a figurehead
Not according to your Constitution.  Your Constitution makes Liz Windsor
the supreme government authority in Australia.  You have ignore your
Constitution to make her "just a figurehead".
Your understanding of the actual Constitution and it'd practicality
is lacking. Liz isn't even the titular head of our armed forces
Oz Constitution
Sec. 61:  The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the
Queen and is exercisable by the Governor‑General as the Queen’s
representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of
this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
Sec. 68:  The command in chief of the naval and military forces
of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor‑General as the
Queen’s representative.
Queen
  -> Governor-General as Queen's representative
     -> Minister for Defence
         -> Chief of the Defence Staff and Secretary of Defence
             -> Australian Defence Force and Department of Defence
I, (insert name) swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty
Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to
law, as a member of the (insert Royal Australian Navy , Australian
Army , or Royal Australian Air Force)  ... SO HELP ME GOD!
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_reg/dr2016201601568163/sch1.html
Interesting that the military oath is to serve the Queen, not
the country.
https://quizlet.com/266497794/australia-government-and-economy-flash-cards/
Q:  Who has these duties: approves elections, signs bills into law,
commander-in-chief of the military and acts as head of state for Australia?
A:  the Queen
So the GG is the head of the armed forces
  "as the Queen’s representative".
Post by Dechucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Dechucka
Which basically means
that unlike the USA Constitution which is the supreme law of the land,
in Australia the Constitution is just another piece of paper, to be
disregarded when it's inconvenient.
Nice strwaman
If by strwaman you mean accurate description, then you are correct.
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
But you're avoiding the question.  Where is the authority
for your proposition that Dave Hurley can tell Liz Hurley
to go screw herself if she gives him an order he doesn't like?
Having met both of them she'd probably give back as much as she
got, her name is Linda btw
My fingers got ahead of my brain.  I meant to type Liz Windsor.
The Queen can order General Hurley to do what she likes but he
doesn't take orders or advice from her.
She is his boss.  He can obey or be fired, just like any
other subordinate.
By our Executive since 1930 and Sir Isaac Isaacs, remember since then
the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Act have come into force.
Oh well I suppose it is difficult for an outsider to understand a
system not based entirely on written word but history going back to 1215.
However the fact remains Americans have no right to vote for their
most powerful political figure
Australians have no right to vote for THEIR most powerful
political figure.  Matthew 7:1-5
We don't have one in the sense of your POTUS 1 Kings 11.11
Just Wondering
2020-08-08 07:12:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Dechucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
But you're avoiding the question.  Where is the authority
for your proposition that Dave Hurley can tell Liz Hurley
to go screw herself if she gives him an order he doesn't like?
Having met both of them she'd probably give back as much as she
got, her name is Linda btw
My fingers got ahead of my brain.  I meant to type Liz Windsor.
The Queen can order General Hurley to do what she likes but he
doesn't take orders or advice from her.
She is his boss.  He can obey or be fired, just like any
other subordinate.
By our Executive since 1930 and Sir Isaac Isaacs, remember since then
the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Act have come into
force. Oh well I suppose it is difficult for an outsider to
understand a system not based entirely on written word but history
going back to 1215.
However the fact remains Americans have no right to vote for their
most powerful political figure
Australians have no right to vote for THEIR most powerful
political figure.  Matthew 7:1-5
We don't have one in the sense of your POTUS
Strawman. Whether Queen, GG, or PM, someone is Australia's most
powerful political figure, and he or she is not elected by
popular vote.

1 Kings 11.11

Are you suggesting that God stripped power from Liz Windsor because
she turned her heart from God and had foreign lovers?
Dechucka
2020-08-08 07:25:56 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Dechucka
We don't have one in the sense of your POTUS
Strawman.  Whether Queen, GG, or PM, someone is Australia's most
powerful political figure, and he or she is not elected by
popular vote.
Parliament is supreme
1 Kings 11.11
Are you suggesting that God stripped power from Liz Windsor because
she turned her heart from God and had foreign lovers?
No I just randomly posted a bible cite because you had
Just Wondering
2020-08-08 20:19:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Dechucka
We don't have one in the sense of your POTUS
Strawman.  Whether Queen, GG, or PM, someone is Australia's most
powerful political figure, and he or she is not elected by
popular vote.
Parliament is supreme
1 Kings 11.11
Are you suggesting that God stripped power from Liz Windsor because
she turned her heart from God and had foreign lovers?
No I just randomly posted a bible cite because you had
Not random. Matthew 7:1-5 suggests that before Australians
criticize the USA for having a chief executive officer not
elected by popular vote, they should address the same
problem in their own country first.
Dechucka
2020-08-08 20:28:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Dechucka
We don't have one in the sense of your POTUS
Strawman.  Whether Queen, GG, or PM, someone is Australia's most
powerful political figure, and he or she is not elected by
popular vote.
Parliament is supreme
1 Kings 11.11
Are you suggesting that God stripped power from Liz Windsor because
she turned her heart from God and had foreign lovers?
No I just randomly posted a bible cite because you had
Not random.  Matthew 7:1-5 suggests that before Australians
criticize the USA for having a chief executive officer not
elected by popular vote, they should address the same
problem in their own country first.
WOW little old Aus gets a mention in the Bible, does some sky fairy book
have any relevance to anything?
Mattb
2020-08-07 23:58:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
I don't really want to vote for Racist/sexist Trump or
racist/sexist Biden. Would you?
Dechucka
2020-08-08 00:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
I don't really want to vote for Racist/sexist Trump or
racist/sexist Biden. Would you?
Don't vote but then don't bitch about who gets elected. If you're lucky
the States will decided without any imput from you.
Mattb
2020-08-08 01:11:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
Post by max headroom
Post by Dechucka
Remember that the States choose their Electoral College members any way
they want. They could just change their legislation and appoint them
without a popular vote.
Americans have no American Constitutional right to vote for the POTUS.
I guess we're no better than Australians in that regard, eh?
Not wrong we don't vote for our figurehead GG you have no Constitutional
right to vote for your powerful POTUS
I don't really want to vote for Racist/sexist Trump or
racist/sexist Biden. Would you?
Don't vote but then don't bitch about who gets elected. If you're lucky
the States will decided without any imput from you.
I do vote but not for either of these men. I just wish we had a
good candidate. 2 decades with only shit for presidents. Then anyone
with intelligence wouldn't want the job IMO.
Loading...