https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/443649747970949130/689910935132962851/image0-2.jpg?width=427&height=524

keep your boomer safe

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/505712968772616233/689900187983937647/image0-168.jpg

@Divinity
Avigan works.

MEXICO, PLEASE, IMPEACH AMLO

https://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion/politica/presume-amlo-sus-amuletos-contra-el-coronavirus

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/19/australian-government-must-help-health-workers-if-coronavirus-shuts-schools-labor-says?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&__twitter_impression=true

Anyone familiar enough with AU constitutional law to have an opinion of whether Tasmania's interstate human quarantine/travel ban is constitutional? s92 seems to indicate otherwise

There have been some limited exceptions granted historically for things like fruit fly quarantine but it's a big jump from not bringing in apples to preventing people entering and leaving

@The1stImmortal As an Australian, all I've ever seen in relation to the constitution is a complete ignorance or deflection of its original meaning and purpose. For example, passages about free speech, about the rights and lawmaking ability of states, about the inclusion of new zealand, about how much of the unwritten British 'constitution' remains implied and so on. after reading s92 in full, I'd suggest that you CAN interpret the words "shall be free" as "shall have no tariff or extra charge incurred". This is a shutdown of movement between states in 'extraordinary circumstances', not an imposition of financial restrictions.

It seems there is precedent set in 1988 and again in 1992 for this passage strictly on the subject of peoples and free movement. Precedent can (obviously) be dismissed or overruled, and my assessment is that most judges would uphold this law's legality - on the basis of this statement from the judge in 1992:
"subject to permissible regulation which might take the form "of excluding from passage across the frontier of a State creatures or things calculated to injure its citizens", but the severity and need for such measures must still be assessed"

There would be a reasonable argument to be made that prohibiting movement for the sake of people's health is valid.

With all that said, it comes down to the individual judges (should anyone officially challenge the law) and how much those judges hate Tasmania.

I'm not a fan of many of the ways the High Court has traditionally interpreted the Constitution. We've taken a much softer approach here than in the US - there seems to be a much lower bar to override constitutional restrictions here than there in general (see: s116 being essentially entirely gutted vs almost identical wording in the US 1st Amendment being a gold standard)
From what I can find - and I haven't found the sources you mention so I'd be curious there - passage of people is different to passage of goods, in that human movement seems to have been interpreted into s92 already as a standalone thing. Previous Federal laws on restricting people for quarantine reasons, particularly the Biosecurity Bill of 2014, seem to have focussed on having a "checklist" of criteria to be met, followed by individual orders being made. That specificity seems to have been what got such quarantines across the line previously.
What I'm worried about is a blanket ban on *all* travellers, without specificity, being imposed independently by a state. That seems to cross a line to me.
Of course, you're right - it'd depend on the judges of the High Court, assuming they even took the case in a timely fashion (one way to sidestep the issue would be to use the virus as an excuse to not hear the case until the matter was no longer relevant).

Oh it'd almost certainly take them a year or two

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_News_Pty_Ltd_v_Wills

On the original purpose thing though, I can't remember the case but the High Court explicitly decided original context behind the Const wasn't relevant <sigh>

yeah, I remember seeing that but law is not my field so I don't know which case either...

At some point in the not so distant past, our institutions decided that their reason for existing in the first place was a bunch of despicable people slaughtering indiscriminately and establishing an outpost of imperialist hate in the far south east.

See it's the proportionality thing. It *should* be a very high requirement to impose a blanket 14day quarantine on anyone entering a state, regardless of personal movement history or anything else, on pain of 6 months jail. That seems incredibly disproportionate

It's a shame really. We have a pretty decent const, were it to be adhered to more diligently

the whole executive branch as outlined in it is basically ignored for ex

technically, Prime Minister isn't even a constitutional role lol

exactly. I wish it were more certain about what it was saying. There's a lot of places where things are just "assumed" - and again, the original writers of the constitution make their intent clear in other statements, which are subsequently ignored.

and there's the habit of the fed govt sidestepping power limitations by agreements with the states - in the US tradition even if the states want the fed to do something, if it doesn't have the power to, it can't.

The only fix I can see is for the original intent of each and every passage to be included in the text itself - and therefore not easily dismissable

Constitutional literalism + constitutional supremacy could fix it too. Just go back to the exact letter of what it says, as it says it, rather than the const + "convention" <shudder> + whatever seems like a good idea to the judges of the day

well yes, agreed on principle.

but in reality, there's not much to be said for literal readings when subversives are the proclaimed readers. they'll close one eye and squint

it's still a start

with the current system "seems like a good idea" is basically enough to sidestep written law

yep... and that's been the basis of politics as far as I can see for the last 70 years

yup

I've gone from irritated and motivated to dejected in about half an hour now lol

that's just my effect on people 🙂

Even the few attempts we see to "fix" things - I'm ambivalent about monarchy but there's no bloody way I'd support a republican const amend today. The last one was a blatant power grab, and I don't trust them to do any better any time soon

exactly. I support the monarchy strongly because my understanding of republics around the world is that they provide no actual gain at very real risk of a lot of corruption

there's little gain to having such a cucked royal family, but there's also little harm

Yup. Most republics tend to be American style and while the US has managed to keep itself together there's a lot of dangerous power struggles in that model.

From how I understand things, the only thing stopping AU from modifying the royal styles and titles and acts of succession to effectively convert the monarchy into a presidency by mere legislation is an informal agreement to not fuck with things, made with other commonwealth countries. Nothing written down even. We could legislate that on EIIR's passing the title of King/Queen of Australia had to fall to an Australian Resident appointed by some means (parliament, vote, whatever), and we could retitle the successor as President. We could even impose terms. The titles and succession are within parliament's purview (assuming royal assent, which hasn't been withheld in centuries).

I'm far more scared of the European and Arabic style republics than the US model. France's political wasteland, Russia's powergrabs... unimaginable to us in our sheltered system.

And yes, since full legal independence we could technically fuck with things and get a republic without even consulting the people.

European republics are pretty stable, just prone to authoritarianism heh

yes

There's been a *lot* of failed states on the US model

US style tear themselves apart, european style turn into despotisms

on the US model, sure - but not a *lot* on the US model with a similar culture and GDP