Romans discover Australia !!
- Thread starter Melvin Loh
- Start date
So, who else would make a good US vassal? Lessee here...well, we have France, but it's of dubious value. Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran would make very good vassals, as would North Korea. Egypt and Libya would make great vassals...Mauritania, Tunisia, and Algeria would, too. South Africa would be great. Indonesia would be great. Malaysia would be great. Thailand and the Phillipines would be great. Laos would be great. Cambodia and Vietnam would be great. Myanmar would be great. I'd gobble up Guangxi in a heartbeat. Same goes for Heilongjiang.
They will once I've put chemicals in the water supply and canisters of mind control gas in the air vents, not to mention subliminal messages and what not on the airwaves.
Right. Now, is there a large tract of land the Australians could sell to someone for, oh, say, a hundred dollars or so?
Well, I gotta go know. Even megalomaniacs with large Swiss bank accounts need their sleep.
Leo Caesius
Banned
Well, most Koreans I know will give any religion a whirl (unfortunately, as the Reverend Sun Myung Moon has proven), but the CIA World Factbook says that there are euqal numbers of Buddhists and Christians in South Korea, and both are a minority:BTD said:
no affiliation 46%, Christian 26%, Buddhist 26%, Confucianist 1%, other 1%
Something tells me the Religious Right would be getting more than it bargained for.
I read an article earlier this year which mentioned that the fastest growing religion in Korea is Islam, on account of the many Korean guestworkers who travel to the Gulf for construction work and convert while they're in the area.
'Indissoluble' is in the preamble, and so is this
**********************************************************
The States shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called a State.
**********************************************************
If New Zealand is listed the same as Western Australia, then Western Australia isn't a member unless it signed up. It signed up with the preamble there already. No wiggle room on 'indissoluble'.
Now, if Australia lets Western Australia go...
Then it's the Queen's property again until she grants it independence? Or grants independence to parts of it?
This is of interest to me. I am going to move to Australia and I was thinking about specifically Western Australia. I would like to make sure that it's going to be one country when I get there, and afterwards.
**********************************************************
The States shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called a State.
**********************************************************
If New Zealand is listed the same as Western Australia, then Western Australia isn't a member unless it signed up. It signed up with the preamble there already. No wiggle room on 'indissoluble'.
Now, if Australia lets Western Australia go...
Then it's the Queen's property again until she grants it independence? Or grants independence to parts of it?
This is of interest to me. I am going to move to Australia and I was thinking about specifically Western Australia. I would like to make sure that it's going to be one country when I get there, and afterwards.
wkwillis said:
Well there is wiggle room & lots of it. The section of the Preamble that deals with the "indissoluble" issue is in the first paragraph of the Preamble. No where does it state, in reference to "indissoluble", Western Australia or New Zealand. The part that you've stated is Clause 6. They are two very different the things. Furthermore, Western Australia was pushed into the Commenwealth by London.
You must understand that Australian Consititutional Law is very different to the way you Americans do things. There is no looking at Federal Papers or anything like that in order to gain an understanding when there's to be a Judicial Review. The judges of the Australian High Court may only look at the Australian Constitution prima facie. As such the Preamble is off limits per se.
The only way, thus, that the "indissoluble" Commonwealth can be declared Constitutional is the round about way I discussed in an earlier posting. Essentially they must show where it is implied in the Constitution. When that is successful, well there's no problem about the Commonwealth being "indissoluble". But the legal team must clearly have the sympathy of the majority of the Bench, or otherwise this will be rejected.
The pro-secessionists have much in their favour though. As mentioned the anti-secessionsts must have a favourable High Court Bench to finally allow the Preamble. But, as I mentioned in the earlier psoting, the West Australian Parliament enjoys Parliamentary Priviledge which means you probably can't changed them with sedition. If so, then Section 51, para vi, wouldn't apply in the sedition case. And if this is so, the Commonwealth isn't "indissoluble", regardless of the Preamble. Needless to say, by this stage, the Preamble to completely off limits anyway.
Then there's the issue over the wording of the Preamble as I mentioned above. If Western Australia isn't mentioned as part of the "indissoluble" Federal Commonwealth , even though technically they are an original state as mentioned in Clause 6 of the Preamble, Western Australia should have the right to secede if it wishes, unlike those states mentioned in the first paragraph.
So both sides do have valid arguements. In the end, its more or less a flip of a coin to see who is right. Completely confused? Welcome to Australian Constitutional Law 101
RRAGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (hulk like transformation)
i dont visit for 4 days and this is the treatment i get?
eh im bored with the who secssion topic anyway (or is that what i want you to think?) does anyone know of a good website where the russians sell their nukes? for my own personal use of couse. just a question on US polics, since thats the way this forum is going, can a state that has a popular majority towards one party have its electoral colage votes go to anouther party?
i dont visit for 4 days and this is the treatment i get?
eh im bored with the who secssion topic anyway (or is that what i want you to think?) does anyone know of a good website where the russians sell their nukes? for my own personal use of couse. just a question on US polics, since thats the way this forum is going, can a state that has a popular majority towards one party have its electoral colage votes go to anouther party?
Scarecrow said:RRAGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (hulk like transformation)
i dont visit for 4 days and this is the treatment i get?
Well the cricket is on in Perth at the moment & we're winning. So we're all one big happy family for the moment
Scarecrow said:
Try eBay. They had a Russian sub on it a few years ago, so you never know your luck.
Scarecrow said:
Only two states (from memory) may split the Electoral College vote depending upon the overall pattern of votes within that state. But as a general rule the answer is no.