Comments on: Voice Referendum: not a standard Constitution Act modification

By: Referendum: Boycott vs. Voting No – Thinking Sovereignty

Referendum: Boycott vs. Voting No – Thinking Sovereignty — Sat, 24 Jun 2023 16:39:51 +0000

[…] numbers and by the referendum rules. And yeah, I am talking about a change to the constitution act, which isn’t exactly what was asked for in Uluru Statement, but it seems to be what’s happening this year […]

By: Reserved seats, response to: “Truth Telling and Treaty Circle” – Thinking Sovereignty

Mon, 06 Sep 2021 10:15:43 +0000

[…] the Uluru Statement requests a constitutional reenactment and not a text modification. This means the normal Section 128 rules might not apply. Would this majority of ALL states rule to […]

By: “Constitutionally enshrined”: is not necessarily in the written constitution. – Thinking Sovereignty

Thu, 02 Sep 2021 01:42:53 +0000

[…] we mean by….” is a tell-tale sign that what I have written on this before (here and here) is correct. The proposal does not ask for a change to the text of the Constitution […]

By: The Lawyers are the Problem. – Thinking Sovereignty

The Lawyers are the Problem. – Thinking Sovereignty — Tue, 10 Aug 2021 03:04:24 +0000

[…] the offer is the meaning of “the constitution“. Another ambiguity is the request for a referendum, as it is not certain that a section 128 amendment is being […]