[WikiEN-l] Re: Queen Elizabeth II

Tue Mar 8 13:50:57 UTC 2005

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:54:20 +0000, actionforum at comcast.net
<actionforum at comcast.net> wrote:
> -------------- Original message --------------
> 
> > Interesting. However, all laws must pass through the governor general
> > who is the Queen's representative.
> >
> > Also, a republic is a "a form of government whose head of state is not a
> > monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president".
> > Despite what you've said, our head of state is the Queen.
> >
> > See http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/q&a/qa_hos.htm - they ARM say that:
> >
> > Elizabeth II, the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is
> > Australia's Head of State because:
> >
> > The Constitution of Australia defines the Parliament as "the Queen, a
> > Senate, and a House of Representatives" and vests the Federal
> > legislative (law-making) power in the Parliament (section 1, Constitution).
> >
> > The executive power (the governing and administrative power) of the
> > Commonwealth of Australia is vested in the Queen (section 61,
> > Constitution).
> >
> > If the ARM can't get this right, then I don't know who can.
> >
> > TBSDY
> 
> Your citation of the constitution only lends credence to Austrailia as a republic, the true "head of state" is the constitution.  All purported human heads are subject to the limitations of the constitution.
> 
> Now if the queen or governer general could invalidate the constitution, you might have an argument that Austrailia was not a republic or true constitutional monarchy.  The fact that the constitution gives these positions their limited roles, makes Austrialia a type of republic, more correctly referred to as a constitutional monarchy, because that is more specific.
> 
>                         -- Silverback

I'm sorry to jump into the midst of this argument, but I wonder are
the parties in this debate aware of Ireland's previous situation,
between 1937 when we approved a new constitution (one with no
reference to the monarch) and 1949 (when we passed a law to officially
become a Republic). The monarch represented Ireland internationally
until 1949, despite our having a president. The question of who was
head of state is not clear cut (though I think people outside Ireland
tend to see it as the monarch who was head of state).

In other words, I think it's fair to say Australia isn't a Republic,
but probably, like Ireland, they would become one simply by passing
law, rather than the customary new constitution. I think Ireland is
the only country to date that has become a Republic in this fashion.

We do have articles on Wikipedia on the Irish historical situation
(which I probably should have double-checked before writing all this)
which you may find interesting. A good starting point is probably
[[President of Ireland]].

Zoney
-- 
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...