From Newsgroup: aus.politics

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

I don't believe you, its entirely the steaming turd
you have dropped countless times before
And that's what grok says too
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_128a3e35-caaa-4f22-88a9-347c7e909777

I had GROK do it's version

Grok never said that, you pathological liar https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_454364f6-b392-4f47-b825-480f9fef556b

The original drafts of the Australian Constitution contained no
reference to God. The words rCLhumbly relying on the blessing of> Almighty GodrCY were inserted into the preamble of the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 after deliberate debate and petition
at the Federal Conventions. That insertion formed part of the
constitutional compact as finally adopted.
Sir John Downer KC, speaking at the moment of adoption and expressly
for future generations, declared that rCLOur Australian Commonwealth
from its first stage will be a Christian Commonwealth.rCY In the> vocabulary of the framers the word rCLreligionrCY referred only to the
several denominations of Christianity. That was the sole meaning the
term carried in the constitutional text they enacted. The Christian
character of the new polityrCoexpressed in the monarchical oath under
God, the Almighty God clause of the covering Act, and the received
common-law heritagerCowas therefore an assumed and operative premise of
the Constitution as they understood and adopted it.
Section 116 of the Constitution denies the Commonwealth any power to
change the meaning of religion. The section provides that the
Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion,
imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of> any religion, and that no religious test shall be required for office
under the Commonwealth. In the understanding of the framers the word rCLreligionrCY referred only to the Christian denominations. Section 116 therefore locks that meaning against Commonwealth alteration. The
definition and regulation of religion, beyond the specific
prohibitions in section 116, is the domain of the States. Any attempt
by the CommonwealthrCowhether by legislation or by judicial
redefinitionrCoto expand rCLreligionrCY beyond the Christian denominations known to the framers is contrary to the original text and requires the> authority of the people under section 128.
Because the founding Christian culture and language formed part of the> original meaning, any judicial reading that treats rCLany religionrCY as
an open, pluralist category unknown to the framers rewrites the
Constitution without authority.
A genuine change from the Christian commonwealth the framers
established to a secular multicultural framework can be made only by
the people themselves under section 128. It cannot be effected by case> law. That is the coherent originalist position.
It is not the course the High Court has taken.
The Court has retained the text, treated the Christian heritage as
mere background, and then permitted modern interpretation to move far
beyond the framersrCO understandingrCowithout returning to the electors
under section 128.
The clearest illustration is the 1983 Scientology case (Church of the
New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-roll Tax).
There the High Court discarded the traditional meaning of
religionrColimited to the Christian denominations known to the
framersrCoand substituted a broad modern definition covering any belief system that involves a supernatural being, thing or principle together> with a code of conduct.
That expansion altered a core constitutional concept by judicial
decree rather than by referendum.
The originalist view is straightforward.
The Constitution belongs to the people.
When the meaning of a foundational term such as rCLreligionrCY is shifted from the Christian denominations the framers knew to a secular
multicultural category they never contemplated, the change must be put> to the Australian voters under section 128.
Judicial redefinition bypasses the democratic process and amends the
founding document without the peoplerCOs consent.
The alternative approach treated by the High Court as a rCLlivingrCY instrument allows the application of the words to evolve with
contemporary social conditions.
That path has carried Australian law a long distance from the framersrCO assumptions.
To those who hold that the original meaning governs until the people
alter it, the result is a quiet constitutional change effected without> a vote.
The same pattern appears in the treatment of symbols.
The Australia Act 1986 severed the remaining legislative and appellate> links with the United Kingdom.
Thereafter the continued display of the British Royal Arms in
Australian courts was characterised as an anachronism.
State legislation followed.
The New South Wales State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Act 2004 required
the British Royal Arms to be removed from courtrooms and parliamentary> buildings and replaced with the State Arms so as to reflect
independent sovereignty.
In newer buildings such as the ACT Supreme Court the walls behind the
bench have been left deliberately blank, the stated purpose being to
mark the judiciary as a separate branch of government rather than one
sitting under an historic emblem.
To the originalist these changes form part of the steady dismantling
of the founding architecture.
When the British coat of arms is taken down, the motto rCLDieu et mon droitrCY disappears with it.
That motto, the battle cry of Richard I at Gisors in 1198, asserted in> its proper medieval sense that the KingrCOs right was derived from
GodrCorCLGod is my legal rightrCYrCoand that he answered to no earthly authority.
Its removal, and the substitution of native fauna or blank walls,
severs a visible thread of the sovereignty the framers inherited and
assumed.
(By contrast, the Royal Coat of Arms remains in regular use in the
great majority of courtrooms throughout the United Kingdom.)
In short, the word rCLreligionrCY in the Constitution as originally understood referred only to the Christian denominations.
Section 116 denies the Commonwealth power to alter that meaning; the
domain remains with the States.
Any wider meaning requires the authority of the people expressed in a
section 128 referendum.
That is the presentation required by the original text and by the
legal advice that the change, if it is to be made, must be made by the> electors themselves.

https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_e5ecc77c-554c-4e25-a335-361d4aee3ade> Bottom line
The document correctly identifies the Christian cultural and legal
matrix in which the Constitution was framed, the deliberate insertion
of the Almighty God clause, DownerrCOs contemporaneous characterisation,
and the High CourtrCOs later expansive approach to rCLreligion.rCY It then draws the strong originalist conclusion that any move beyond the
framersrCO Christian denominational understanding of rCLreligion,rCY or any analogous change in constitutional symbolism, requires s 128 approval
and cannot validly be effected by judicial or ordinary legislative
action.
That is a coherent position within originalist theory.
It is not the position the High Court has adopted, nor the
understanding that has governed Australian public law and practice for> decades.
The gap between the two is precisely the ongoing debate over whether
the Constitution is to be read according to its original public
meaning until the people change it, or whether its application may
evolve with changed social conditions without formal amendment.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.politics

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

I don't believe you, its entirely the steaming turd
you have dropped countless times before

And that's what grok says too
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_128a3e35-caaa-4f22-88a9-347c7e909777

I had GROK do it's version

You need to show us the question you asked it and
you need to show the response the same way I do
so we can see that grok actually said it and that
you didn't make it up

I showed the link you snipped it out

More of your pathological lies

<https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_e5ecc77c-554c-4e25-a335-361d4aee3ade>

That's not what you claimed grok said, you pathological liar

What you previously claimed grok said was actually what you
ASKED grok, not what grok told you, you pathologial liar

And grok pissed on your stupid claim about what was meant
by religion at that time, rubbing your stupid claim in the FACT
that the discussion about what should be in the constitution
explicitly mentioned jews and 'mahomens'

And pissed on your stupid claim that there has been any
change to the constitution that requires a S128 referendum

And pisses on your stupid claim that
the preamble has ANY effect on S116

In Australia according to my legal advice from a professor at law

Who you never named, so you are clearly lying again, you pathological liar

<reams of YOUR stupid repeated shit flushed where it belongs>
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.politics

On Thu, 10 Sep 2026 08:58:01 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

I don't believe you, its entirely the steaming turd
you have dropped countless times before

And that's what grok says too
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_128a3e35-caaa-4f22-88a9-347c7e909777

I had GROK do it's version

You need to show us the question you asked it and
you need to show the response the same way I do
so we can see that grok actually said it and that
you didn't make it up

I showed the link you snipped it out

More of your pathological lies

<https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_e5ecc77c-554c-4e25-a335-361d4aee3ade>

That's not what you claimed grok said, you pathological liar

What you previously claimed grok said was actually what you
ASKED grok, not what grok told you, you pathologial liar

And grok pissed on your stupid claim about what was meant
by religion at that time, rubbing your stupid claim in the FACT
that the discussion about what should be in the constitution
explicitly mentioned jews and 'mahomens'

And pissed on your stupid claim that there has been any
change to the constitution that requires a S128 referendum

And pisses on your stupid claim that
the preamble has ANY effect on S116

In Australia according to my legal advice from a professor at law

Who you never named, so you are clearly lying again, you pathological liar

<reams of YOUR stupid repeated shit flushed where it belongs>

I just posted Groks conclusion which you would of seen if you scrolled
down to..
here
Bottom line
The document correctly identifies the Christian cultural and legal
matrix in which the Constitution was framed, the deliberate insertion
of the Almighty God clause, DownerAs contemporaneous characterisation,
and the High CourtAs later expansive approach to oreligion.o It then
draws the strong originalist conclusion that any move beyond the
framersA Christian denominational understanding of oreligion,o or any
analogous change in constitutional symbolism, requires s 128 approval
and cannot validly be effected by judicial or ordinary legislative
action. That is a coherent position within originalist theory. It is
not the position the High Court has adopted, nor the understanding
that has governed Australian public law and practice for decades. The
gap between the two is precisely the ongoing debate over whether the Constitution is to be read according to its original public meaning
until the people change it, or whether its application may evolve with
changed social conditions without formal amendment.
--
Petzl
In a democracy of course you always get a choice
Do you want to be governed by the red or by the blue
itAs entirely up to you
Do you want to be patronized or condescended to, by liars or by crooks
you get to choose.
Would you prefer your fundamental values to be insulted or ignored by
con-men or by charlatans
In short do you want your influence to be zero or nil
and when would you like to be listened to, never or not at all, itAs
your choice
Do you want, some more choices.
Take-it-or-leave-it
Now thereAs a real choice
we have proportional voting in Australia USE IT
IAd be happy with any kind of representation wouldn't you

I would like to see a new government and part of me doesn'tAgive a
damn whoAs in it as long as it doesn'tAinclude anybody from the Labor,
Liberal or Green party organizations that show itself to be without
shame or principle

All spineless and authoritarian both cowardly and war mongering at the
same time
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2