On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:54:20 +0000, actionforum(a)comcast.net
<actionforum(a)comcast.net> wrote:
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.
As I said before, I am not aware of any commonly accepted definition
of 'republic' which includes constitional monarchies.
In any case, I really doubt that everyone on this list is interested
in this discussion. I suggest [[Talk:Australia]] or
[[Talk:Republic]].
Steve