Why is Australia's Constitution Binding? — the Reasons in 1900 and Now, and the Effect of Independence

@article{Lindell1986WhyIA,
  title={Why is Australia's Constitution Binding? — the Reasons in 1900 and Now, and the Effect of Independence},
  author={G. Lindell},
  journal={Federal Law Review},
  year={1986},
  volume={16},
  pages={29 - 49}
}
  • G. Lindell
  • Published 1986
  • Political Science
  • Federal Law Review
The enactment of legislation to sever the remaining constitutional links between the United Kingdom and Australia makes it desirable to address the question as to why Australia's Federal Constitution should be regarded as an instrument of higher law and thus legally binding. The answer which one gives to that question may be significantly different to the answer which a lawyer is likely to have given when the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)} was enacted. A possible answer… Expand
Section 51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution and 'Matters of International Concern': Is There Anything to Be Concerned about?
The ambit of s 51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution was most recently expounded by the High Court in XYZ v Commonwealth. Provisions of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) were upheld by a majority of theExpand
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
The constitutional distribution of powers and responsibilities in the Australian federation has proved to be exceptionally flexible. Originally conceived as a decentralized federation with the bulkExpand
The Significant Role of the Australia Acts in Australian Public Law
The Australia Acts accomplished more than symbolic change. They brought about a super-structural change to Australian constitutional law, and shortly afterwards a fundamental change to the public lawExpand
The Role of a Constitutional Court in a Federation a Comparison of the Australian and the United States Experience
The Australian National University, the Sir Robert Menzies Memorial Trust and the University of Virginia Law School have established an annual Menzies Lecture Series. The Lectures are held in honourExpand
Democracy, Community and Federalism in Electoral Apportionment Cases: The United States, Canada and Australia in Comparative Perspective
We speak often of 'representative democracy' and we tend to regard it as the dominant form of government in the modern West. But who or what is represented by the electoral systems of the modernExpand
Comparison and Co-existence: Sources and Purpose of Authority in the Australian, Madayin and Talmudic Legal Systems
The continuing assertion of the unitary nature of the Australian legal system has perpetuated an antagonist relationship with Aboriginal systems of law since colonisation.1 However, it is generallyExpand
The place of theory in Australian constitutional law: a review of T Blackshield and G Williams, Australian constitutional lawand theory, 2nd edition, Federation Press, 1998
The success of Blackshield and Williams' Australian Constitutional Law and Theory Commentary and Materials is well indicated by the speedy appearance of its second, edition. It has rapidly andExpand
Representing Democracy or Reinforcing Inequality?: Electoral Distribution and Mcginty V Western Australia
McGinty v Western Australia l is a significant indicator of present and prospective attitudes of the High Court to major issues of representative democracy, such as electoral representation andExpand
The Gibbs Court
The High Court under the chief justiceship of Sir Harry Gibbs was distinctive for three important reasons. The first was the consolidation and defence of the integrity of the Court in the context ofExpand
Australia's Constitution after Whitlam
...
1
2
...

References

SHOWING 1-7 OF 7 REFERENCES
134 CLR 495, 550. See also ibid 539 per Mason J. The latter case was affirmed despite an attempt to reopen its correctness in R v Lambert
  • 1976
His Honour's rejection of implications derived from the federal nature of the Constitution as a basis for the immunities enjoyed by the States was not accepted by a majority of the Court in that case
  • 1971
The Executive and the Governor-General (1983) generally 85-92 and also the American authorities referred to in Notes 398, 403, and 437
  • 1931
Those cases were R v Burah (1878) 3 AC 889, Hodge v The Queen (1883) 9 AC 117 and Powell v Appollo Candle Co (1885) 10 AC 282. 64 (1870) LR 6 QB 1
  • 1931
See also R v Public Vehicles Appeal Tribunal (Tasmania); ex parte Australian National Airways Pty Ltd
  • 1908
57 Compare Minister for Home Affairs v Fisher (1980] AC 319,329. See also J A Thomson supra n 3