blah blah ... this is how the changes should look .. from constitutional monarchy page [with alterations] during the Queen’s[sovereign peoples] pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the [sovereign people]Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him/her [ Section 2] When a proposed law is presented to the Governor General, s/ he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the [original sovereign peoples]queen’s name, or that s/he withholds assent, or that s/he reserves the law for the [sovereigns]queen’s pleasure. [ Section 58] The [sovereign dreamtime people]queen may disallow any law which has been assented to by the Governor General, and such disallowance becomes effective when announced by the Governor General. [ Section 59] A proposed law reserved for the sovereign dreamtime people’s [queen’s] pleasure shall not have any force until the Governor-General announces that it has received the dreamtime peoples [queens] assent. [ Section 60] The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Sovereign dreamtime people [queen] and is exercisable by the Governor General as the Sovereign dreamtime People’s [queens] representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth. [ Section 61] If a referendum proposal is passed by the people, it shall be presented to the Governor General for the Sovereign Dreamtime People’s assent. [ Section 128] There you have it all in a nutshell. The three key items being… The Governor represents the Dreamtime People but s/he can only exercise his/her power at the Sovereign Dreamtime Peoples pleasure. The Governor–General can refer proposed legislation to the Original Sovereign Dreamtime People, who have the final say. And the Sovereign People can annul any law that has already been passed by the Australian Parliament and already assented to by the Governor-General …Fellow Monarchists, You can now relax! For those supporters who claim that it requires not only the words of the Constitution but also the interpretations as determined by the high Court of Australia is akin to saying that the words in the Constitution are flawed. Please help put those non-believers back in their place."
Posted on: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:22:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015