Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Howard and constitutional interpretation

By David Long - posted Tuesday, 25 September 2007


And he rejects Kirby’s view that meanings of words change: in practice substantive linguistic change occurs very slowly, particularly in legal phraseology (763).

Callinan J accepts that the Constitution must be construed by looking to the original intention of the founders: The Court is … obliged, to have regard to the Convention Debates (763); but then, as if quoting from the American Founding Fathers, His Honour refers to a mischief that our federal democracy remedies: [federalism] is a feature that tends to protect liberty and to restrain the over-concentration of power. (612). This is not from the Convention debates.

And later he will say: To disregard entirely a ... fundamental "policy" of the Constitution, federalism, and the careful division of power that it involves, is to disregard … the object which … the framers intended, the people … adopted, and the Imperial Parliament implemented ... (741).

Advertisement

His Honour’s words resonate with sense - until he reaches the last clause. If the Constitution’s implementation is the result of British legislation, then it can be legally revoked by an amendment of the British parliament (assuming Australians bothered to take any notice). No British or Australian legislation can prevent this. Our independence, is therefore, a legal fiction; Unless there had been some revolutionary event which severed the legal connection with Britain.

This, in fact, occurred. The better view of the Constitution, is that it is a political document, a compact between the people who agree to be governed in a certain way for a definite purpose. Ratification by the citizens of the Australian colonies was the implementing power for the Constitution. The legal conundrums that followed were the direct result of a High Court that misconstrued the ratifying act of the people.

Justice Callinan, rightly, looks to the United States Constitution as the source of our Constitution; but the source and meaning of federalism can be found best explained in the Federalist Papers which were written by the American founders to convince New York State citizens to ratify their new Constitution.

We assume, without knowing, but knowing how well read he is, that His Honour has read them.

Had he included appropriate references to those essays in his judgment, he would have established a principle of constitutional interpretation whereby future constitutional lawyers could look to the original intent of the original founders. Inter alia, they would discover the purpose of a federal republic such as ours is to better secure the citizen’s natural rights, expressed by Abraham Lincoln to apply to all men (including Australians) at all times.

One can not help but be sympathetic to Callinan J’s opinion of the majority’s decision. It is worth considering that if “the peace order and good government” of corporations permits the Commonwealth to regulate employment contracts, how much more can be regulated by a law for “the peace order and good government” of our currency coinage and legal tender (they being another head of Commonwealth power)?

Advertisement

The expansion of the Commonwealth’s power to date has been more gradual and silent than sudden; but, thanks to the High Court, it is probably now complete.

Some looking at Australia must wonder if it doesn’t resemble more the Weimar Republic in 1931 waiting for the Ubermensch than the liberal democracy it once aspired to be.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

6 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Long is a lawyer and writer with an interest in classical political philosophy and Shakespeare. He has written previously for The Bulletin and The Review.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Long

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 6 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy