<slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You have accused Adam of
misrepresenting the constitution, when he was paraphrasing it very
precisely. (Your subsequent claim that "shall be" and "is" have
different meanings in this context is false, and you have offered no
reason for your view.)
Again, this is simply not true. Several times I have pointed out the
similar wording in s101 where "shall be" cannot be equated to "is".
By
saying that the Constitution says that the Governor-General is the
representative of the Queen Adam is downplaying the historical aspect
of the text, and my point, expressed several times, is that we have
moved on. The Governor-General is no longer quite the representative
of the Queen and her government that he was at Federation. The role in
this respect has diminished and his role as representative of the
people rather than the government has increased.
The principle that the law is always speaking would allow for some
degree of interchangeability between the present and future tense.
Ec