Discussion:
Hanson, Sect 92 and closed State borders
Add Reply
Dechucka
2020-05-27 05:06:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html

Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland borders
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of Thursday on
the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions in the state
or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the High Court.

I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
news18
2020-05-27 05:42:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions
in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the
High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not use
here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She probably
thinks there is a federal election in November and this is going to be
here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Dechucka
2020-05-27 07:29:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions
in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the
High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not use
here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She probably
thinks there is a federal election in November and this is going to be
here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
b***@topmail.co.nz
2020-05-27 10:05:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
Pauline was on the idiot box and it sounded like her challenge would take some
time. The original single lawyer not being enough, so she has a Gofundme page.
Put Clive with deeper pockets seems to be charging ahead.
news18
2020-05-27 10:35:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the
closures in the High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not
use here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She
probably thinks there is a federal election in November and this is
going to be here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
Talking. If he was serious, the ppers would have been lodged.
WA might find his Chinese partners fund the opposition to his case.
Rod Speed
2020-05-27 21:54:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions
in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the
High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not use
here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She probably
thinks there is a federal election in November and this is going to be
here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
And the HC will tell him to go and fuck himself, again.
Dechucka
2020-05-27 21:58:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions
in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the
High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not use
here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She probably
thinks there is a federal election in November and this is going to be
here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
And the HC will tell him to go and fuck himself, again.
On what basis?
Rod Speed
2020-05-27 22:10:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions
in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the
High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not use
here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She probably
thinks there is a federal election in November and this is going to be
here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
And the HC will tell him to go and fuck himself, again.
On what basis?
That there is nothing in the constitution that says states cant do
border restrictions on the movement of people in a pandemic.
Dechucka
2020-05-27 22:44:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions
in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the
High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not use
here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She probably
thinks there is a federal election in November and this is going to be
here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
And the HC will tell him to go and fuck himself, again.
On what basis?
That there is nothing in the constitution that says states cant do
border restrictions on the movement of people in a pandemic.
Sect 92 doesn't mention that it doesn't apply during pandemics.
Apparently Sect 92 is the most litigated sect of our constitution but
mainly to do with trade
Rod Speed
2020-05-27 23:11:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions
in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the
High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not use
here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She probably
thinks there is a federal election in November and this is going to be
here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
And the HC will tell him to go and fuck himself, again.
On what basis?
That there is nothing in the constitution that says states cant do
border restrictions on the movement of people in a pandemic.
Sect 92 doesn't mention that it doesn't apply during pandemics.
Sect 92 doesn’t apply to the movement of people.
Post by Dechucka
Apparently Sect 92 is the most litigated sect of our constitution
Hardly surprising given that trade is so common.
Post by Dechucka
but mainly to do with trade
And never to do with the movement of people.
Dechucka
2020-05-28 00:13:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a
"deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions
in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the
High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not use
here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She probably
thinks there is a federal election in November and this is going to be
here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
And the HC will tell him to go and fuck himself, again.
On what basis?
That there is nothing in the constitution that says states cant do
border restrictions on the movement of people in a pandemic.
Sect 92 doesn't mention that it doesn't apply during pandemics.
Sect 92 doesn’t apply to the movement of people.
Your ignorance run deeps. Look at NSW's Influx of Criminals Prevention
Act 1903 and John Benson and the HC ruling
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Apparently Sect 92 is the most litigated sect of our constitution
Hardly surprising given that trade is so common.
Post by Dechucka
but mainly to do with trade
And never to do with the movement of people.
Fran
2020-05-28 00:33:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a
"deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions
in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the
High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not use
here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She probably
thinks there is a federal election in November and this is going to be
here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
And the HC will tell him to go and fuck himself, again.
On what basis?
That there is nothing in the constitution that says states cant do
border restrictions on the movement of people in a pandemic.
Sect 92 doesn't mention that it doesn't apply during pandemics.
Sect 92 doesn’t apply to the movement of people.
?????????????????????????
Post by Dechucka
Your ignorance run deeps. Look at NSW's Influx of Criminals Prevention
Act 1903 and John Benson and the HC ruling
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Apparently Sect 92 is the most litigated sect of our constitution
Hardly surprising given that trade is so common.
Post by Dechucka
but mainly to do with trade
And never to do with the movement of people.
Bullshit. Look up 'Intercourse'
Rod Speed
2020-05-28 04:28:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fran
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions
in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the
High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not use
here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She probably
thinks there is a federal election in November and this is going to be
here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
And the HC will tell him to go and fuck himself, again.
On what basis?
That there is nothing in the constitution that says states cant do
border restrictions on the movement of people in a pandemic.
Sect 92 doesn't mention that it doesn't apply during pandemics.
Sect 92 doesn’t apply to the movement of people.
?????????????????????????
Post by Dechucka
Your ignorance run deeps. Look at NSW's Influx of Criminals Prevention
Act 1903 and John Benson and the HC ruling
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Apparently Sect 92 is the most litigated sect of our constitution
Hardly surprising given that trade is so common.
Post by Dechucka
but mainly to do with trade
And never to do with the movement of people.
Bullshit. Look up 'Intercourse'
Look at the title of that section, fuckwit;
Rod Speed
2020-05-28 04:18:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions
in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the
High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not use
here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She probably
thinks there is a federal election in November and this is going to be
here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
And the HC will tell him to go and fuck himself, again.
On what basis?
That there is nothing in the constitution that says states cant do
border restrictions on the movement of people in a pandemic.
Sect 92 doesn't mention that it doesn't apply during pandemics.
Sect 92 doesn’t apply to the movement of people.
Your ignorance run deeps.
We'll see...
Post by Dechucka
Look at NSW's Influx of Criminals Prevention Act 1903 and John Benson and
the HC ruling
Completely irrelevant to what states can do quarantine wise.

Look at the title of Sect 92, fuckwit.
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Apparently Sect 92 is the most litigated sect of our constitution
Hardly surprising given that trade is so common.
Post by Dechucka
but mainly to do with trade
And never to do with the movement of people.
Dechucka
2020-05-28 04:42:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions
in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the
High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not use
here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She probably
thinks there is a federal election in November and this is going to be
here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
And the HC will tell him to go and fuck himself, again.
On what basis?
That there is nothing in the constitution that says states cant do
border restrictions on the movement of people in a pandemic.
Sect 92 doesn't mention that it doesn't apply during pandemics.
Sect 92 doesn’t apply to the movement of people.
Your ignorance run deeps.
We'll see...
Post by Dechucka
Look at NSW's Influx of Criminals Prevention Act 1903 and John Benson
and the HC ruling
Completely irrelevant to what states can do quarantine wise.
It shows the movement of people is covered
Rod Speed
2020-05-28 06:00:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions
in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the
High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not use
here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She probably
thinks there is a federal election in November and this is going to be
here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
And the HC will tell him to go and fuck himself, again.
On what basis?
That there is nothing in the constitution that says states cant do
border restrictions on the movement of people in a pandemic.
Sect 92 doesn't mention that it doesn't apply during pandemics.
Sect 92 doesn’t apply to the movement of people.
Your ignorance run deeps.
We'll see...
Post by Dechucka
Look at NSW's Influx of Criminals Prevention Act 1903 and John Benson
and the HC ruling
Completely irrelevant to what states can do quarantine wise.
It shows the movement of people is covered
Bullshit it does.
Dechucka
2020-05-28 06:17:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Look at NSW's Influx of Criminals Prevention Act 1903 and John
Benson and the HC ruling
Completely irrelevant to what states can do quarantine wise.
It shows the movement of people is covered
Bullshit it does.
Of course it does, are you in absolute denial of the facts?
Rod Speed
2020-05-28 07:03:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Look at NSW's Influx of Criminals Prevention Act 1903 and John Benson
and the HC ruling
Completely irrelevant to what states can do quarantine wise.
It shows the movement of people is covered
Bullshit it does.
Of course it does,
Bullshit it does.
F Murtz
2020-05-30 07:37:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Look at NSW's Influx of Criminals Prevention Act 1903 and John
Benson and the HC ruling
Completely irrelevant to what states can do quarantine wise.
It shows the movement of people is covered
Bullshit it does.
Of course it does, are you in absolute denial of the facts?
This is a legal discussion group and this it does it does not and
bullshit it does or does not back and forth does not show any definite
enlightenment.
Rod Speed
2020-05-30 18:54:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by F Murtz
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Look at NSW's Influx of Criminals Prevention Act 1903 and John Benson
and the HC ruling
Completely irrelevant to what states can do quarantine wise.
It shows the movement of people is covered
Bullshit it does.
Of course it does, are you in absolute denial of the facts?
This is a legal discussion group
Wrong, as always.
Post by F Murtz
and this it does it does not and bullshit it does or does not back and
forth does not show any definite enlightenment.
No one is forcing you to read what you don’t find useful.

If someone is doing that, call the cops.
Fran
2020-05-28 00:29:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions
in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the
High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not use
here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She probably
thinks there is a federal election in November and this is going to be
here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
And the HC will tell him to go and fuck himself, again.
On what basis?
That there is nothing in the constitution that says states cant do
border restrictions on the movement of people in a pandemic.
Sect 92 doesn't mention that it doesn't apply during pandemics.
Apparently Sect 92 is the most litigated sect of our constitution but
mainly to do with trade
Freedom of movement would have to fit into the category of 'intercourse'
as opposed to the other categories of trade or customs and Palmer could
certainly claim under the 'commerce' section. Ya'd think he'd have to
have a halfway decent chance given the wording of S 92.
Dechucka
2020-05-28 00:35:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fran
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a
"deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions
in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the
High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not use
here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She probably
thinks there is a federal election in November and this is going to be
here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
And the HC will tell him to go and fuck himself, again.
On what basis?
That there is nothing in the constitution that says states cant do
border restrictions on the movement of people in a pandemic.
Sect 92 doesn't mention that it doesn't apply during pandemics.
Apparently Sect 92 is the most litigated sect of our constitution but
mainly to do with trade
Freedom of movement would have to fit into the category of 'intercourse'
as opposed to the other categories of trade or customs and Palmer could
certainly claim under the 'commerce' section.  Ya'd think he'd have to
have a halfway decent chance given the wording of S 92.
That was what Twomey (constitutional lawyer Syd Uni) raised in March and
said again the other day in the Fin Review. Hopefully the HC either
rules that borders can be shut for States to protect their population or
take so long it is irrelevant.
Fran
2020-05-28 00:48:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Fran
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a
"deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions
in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the
High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not use
here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She probably
thinks there is a federal election in November and this is going to be
here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
And the HC will tell him to go and fuck himself, again.
On what basis?
That there is nothing in the constitution that says states cant do
border restrictions on the movement of people in a pandemic.
Sect 92 doesn't mention that it doesn't apply during pandemics.
Apparently Sect 92 is the most litigated sect of our constitution but
mainly to do with trade
Freedom of movement would have to fit into the category of
'intercourse' as opposed to the other categories of trade or customs
and Palmer could certainly claim under the 'commerce' section.  Ya'd
think he'd have to have a halfway decent chance given the wording of S
92.
That was what Twomey (constitutional lawyer Syd Uni) raised in March and
said again the other day in the Fin Review.
LOL. So glad to find such agreement when I only gave a throw away, 2
seconds of thinking response.

Hopefully the HC either
Post by Dechucka
rules that borders can be shut for States to protect their population or
take so long it is irrelevant.
The latter I would suspect. But it's d be worth the States finding out
for sure. Not that either Palmer of Hanson give a toss about that one
way or the other.
Rod Speed
2020-05-28 04:27:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fran
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions
in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the
High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not use
here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She probably
thinks there is a federal election in November and this is going to be
here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
And the HC will tell him to go and fuck himself, again.
On what basis?
That there is nothing in the constitution that says states cant do
border restrictions on the movement of people in a pandemic.
Sect 92 doesn't mention that it doesn't apply during pandemics.
Apparently Sect 92 is the most litigated sect of our constitution but
mainly to do with trade
Freedom of movement would have to fit into the category of 'intercourse'
as opposed to the other categories of trade or customs and Palmer could
certainly claim under the 'commerce' section. Ya'd think he'd have to
have a halfway decent chance given the wording of S 92.
Pity about the title of that section, fuckwit.
Dechucka
2020-05-28 04:43:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Fran
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a
"deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions
in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the
High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not use
here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She probably
thinks there is a federal election in November and this is going to be
here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
And the HC will tell him to go and fuck himself, again.
On what basis?
That there is nothing in the constitution that says states cant do
border restrictions on the movement of people in a pandemic.
Sect 92 doesn't mention that it doesn't apply during pandemics.
Apparently Sect 92 is the most litigated sect of our constitution but
mainly to do with trade
Freedom of movement would have to fit into the category of
'intercourse' as opposed to the other categories of trade or customs
and Palmer could certainly claim under the 'commerce' section.  Ya'd
think he'd have to have a halfway decent chance given the wording of S
92.
Pity about the title of that section, fuckwit.
Pity the HC looks at the actual section and has done so in the relation
to the free movement of people
Rod Speed
2020-05-28 06:01:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Fran
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions
in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the
High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not use
here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She probably
thinks there is a federal election in November and this is going to be
here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
And the HC will tell him to go and fuck himself, again.
On what basis?
That there is nothing in the constitution that says states cant do
border restrictions on the movement of people in a pandemic.
Sect 92 doesn't mention that it doesn't apply during pandemics.
Apparently Sect 92 is the most litigated sect of our constitution but
mainly to do with trade
Freedom of movement would have to fit into the category of 'intercourse'
as opposed to the other categories of trade or customs and Palmer could
certainly claim under the 'commerce' section. Ya'd think he'd have to
have a halfway decent chance given the wording of S 92.
Pity about the title of that section, fuckwit.
Pity the HC looks at the actual section
It doesn’t ignore the title of that section.
Post by Dechucka
and has done so in the relation to the free movement of people
Wrong, as always.
Dechucka
2020-05-28 06:16:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Pity about the title of that section, fuckwit.
Pity the HC looks at the actual section
It doesn’t ignore the title of that section.
Post by Dechucka
and has done so in the relation to the free movement of people
Wrong, as always.
I cited the HC
Rod Speed
2020-05-28 07:02:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Pity about the title of that section, fuckwit.
Pity the HC looks at the actual section
It doesn’t ignore the title of that section.
Post by Dechucka
and has done so in the relation to the free movement of people
Wrong, as always.
I cited the HC
And a spectacular fool of yourself, as always.
Dechucka
2020-05-28 07:39:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Pity about the title of that section, fuckwit.
Pity the HC looks at the actual section
It doesn’t ignore the title of that section.
Post by Dechucka
and has done so in the relation to the free movement of people
Wrong, as always.
I cited the HC
And a spectacular fool of yourself, as always.
Sorry the facts and reality upset you
Rod Speed
2020-05-28 09:31:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Pity about the title of that section, fuckwit.
Pity the HC looks at the actual section
It doesn’t ignore the title of that section.
Post by Dechucka
and has done so in the relation to the free movement of people
Wrong, as always.
I cited the HC
And made a spectacular fool of yourself, as always.
Sorry the facts and reality
You wouldn’t know what either was if they bit you on your lard arse.
Fran
2020-05-28 07:02:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Fran
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions
in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the
High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not use
here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She probably
thinks there is a federal election in November and this is going to be
here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
And the HC will tell him to go and fuck himself, again.
On what basis?
That there is nothing in the constitution that says states cant do
border restrictions on the movement of people in a pandemic.
Sect 92 doesn't mention that it doesn't apply during pandemics.
Apparently Sect 92 is the most litigated sect of our constitution
but mainly to do with trade
Freedom of movement would have to fit into the category of
'intercourse' as opposed to the other categories of trade or customs
and Palmer could certainly claim under the 'commerce' section.  Ya'd
think he'd have to have a halfway decent chance given the wording of
S 92.
Pity about the title of that section, fuckwit.
Pity the HC looks at the actual section and has done so in the relation
to the free movement of people
Yep. Multiple times. Speed's an idiot.
Rod Speed
2020-05-28 09:29:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fran
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Fran
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions
in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the
High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not use
here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She probably
thinks there is a federal election in November and this is going to be
here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
And the HC will tell him to go and fuck himself, again.
On what basis?
That there is nothing in the constitution that says states cant do
border restrictions on the movement of people in a pandemic.
Sect 92 doesn't mention that it doesn't apply during pandemics.
Apparently Sect 92 is the most litigated sect of our constitution but
mainly to do with trade
Freedom of movement would have to fit into the category of
'intercourse' as opposed to the other categories of trade or customs
and Palmer could certainly claim under the 'commerce' section. Ya'd
think he'd have to have a halfway decent chance given the wording of S
92.
Pity about the title of that section, fuckwit.
Pity the HC looks at the actual section and has done so in the relation
to the free movement of people
Yep. Multiple times.
Bullshit.
news18
2020-05-27 23:44:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the
closures in the High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not
use here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She
probably thinks there is a federal election in November and this is
going to be here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
And the HC will tell him to go and fuck himself, again.
On what basis?
The right of the state to control health issues?
or however it is expressed, as a first guess.

Hint, as it was outlined years ago, the law/constitution prohits
barriers between states but that only applies to goods and not people.
Dechucka
2020-05-28 00:14:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the
closures in the High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Nah, she doesn't have the money to go to the high court. She will not
use here own money and until she raises that, it is a no goer. She
probably thinks there is a federal election in November and this is
going to be here election stunt. Isn't she jst copying Clive.
Palmer is talking about taking WA to the HC
And the HC will tell him to go and fuck himself, again.
On what basis?
The right of the state to control health issues?
If the HC is sensible they'll agree.
Post by news18
or however it is expressed, as a first guess.
Hint, as it was outlined years ago, the law/constitution prohits
barriers between states but that only applies to goods and not people.
Influx of Criminals Prevention Act 1903 and John Benson
Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
2020-05-27 06:10:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 27 May 2020 15:06:23 +1000
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the
closures in the High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Possibly not, a constitutional lawyer at Uni.of NSW pointed out some
problems.Have to prove not only protectionist, but also discrimination
applied.

In Fin Review, today, page 8. How come you missed it?
Dechucka
2020-05-27 07:38:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
On Wed, 27 May 2020 15:06:23 +1000
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the
closures in the High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Possibly not, a constitutional lawyer at Uni.of NSW pointed out some
problems.Have to prove not only protectionist, but also discrimination
applied.
The section on intercourse seems to what they'll go for
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
In Fin Review, today, page 8. How come you missed it?
Haven't picked up the newspapers yet
Rod Speed
2020-05-27 21:55:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
On Wed, 27 May 2020 15:06:23 +1000
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the
closures in the High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Possibly not, a constitutional lawyer at Uni.of NSW pointed out some
problems.Have to prove not only protectionist, but also discrimination
applied.
The section on intercourse seems to what they'll go for
There is no relevant section on intercourse.
Post by Dechucka
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
In Fin Review, today, page 8. How come you missed it?
Haven't picked up the newspapers yet
Dechucka
2020-05-27 22:00:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
On Wed, 27 May 2020 15:06:23 +1000
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the
closures in the High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Possibly not, a constitutional lawyer at Uni.of NSW pointed out some
problems.Have to prove not only protectionist, but also discrimination
applied.
The section on intercourse seems to what they'll go for
There is no relevant section on intercourse.
OK no specific section but you know Sect 92 of the Australian
constitution mentions it
Rod Speed
2020-05-27 22:13:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
On Wed, 27 May 2020 15:06:23 +1000
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the
closures in the High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Possibly not, a constitutional lawyer at Uni.of NSW pointed out some
problems.Have to prove not only protectionist, but also discrimination
applied.
The section on intercourse seems to what they'll go for
There is no relevant section on intercourse.
OK no specific section but you know Sect 92 of the Australian constitution
mentions it
Like I said, not relevant to border restrictions in a pandemic.
Dechucka
2020-05-27 22:29:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
There is no relevant section on intercourse.
OK no specific section but you know Sect 92 of the Australian
constitution mentions it
Like I said, not relevant to border restrictions in a pandemic.
We'll see if this ever gets to the HC. Black letter law could see the
the restrictions found unconstitutional, a sensible ruling should see it
tossed out imho.
Rod Speed
2020-05-27 23:09:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
There is no relevant section on intercourse.
OK no specific section but you know Sect 92 of the Australian
constitution mentions it
Like I said, not relevant to border restrictions in a pandemic.
We'll see if this ever gets to the HC. Black letter law could see the the
restrictions found unconstitutional,
No chance.
a sensible ruling should see it tossed out imho.
More fool you.
Dechucka
2020-05-28 00:16:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
There is no relevant section on intercourse.
OK no specific section but you know Sect 92 of the Australian
constitution mentions it
Like I said, not relevant to border restrictions in a pandemic.
We'll see if this ever gets to the HC. Black letter law could see the
the restrictions found unconstitutional,
No chance.
Post by Dechucka
a sensible ruling should see it tossed out imho.
More fool you.
I'm foolish for believing States should be able to close borders in this
situation? How bizarre
news18
2020-05-28 00:59:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
There is no relevant section on intercourse.
OK no specific section but you know Sect 92 of the Australian
constitution mentions it
Like I said, not relevant to border restrictions in a pandemic.
We'll see if this ever gets to the HC. Black letter law could see the
the restrictions found unconstitutional,
No chance.
Post by Dechucka
a sensible ruling should see it tossed out imho.
More fool you.
I'm foolish for believing States should be able to close borders in this
situation? How bizarre
After all, if Australia can close its border, then why not the state?
Proprty owners can close their borders, with certain exceptions, to all
persons.
Dechucka
2020-05-28 01:10:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
There is no relevant section on intercourse.
OK no specific section but you know Sect 92 of the Australian
constitution mentions it
Like I said, not relevant to border restrictions in a pandemic.
We'll see if this ever gets to the HC. Black letter law could see the
the restrictions found unconstitutional,
No chance.
Post by Dechucka
a sensible ruling should see it tossed out imho.
More fool you.
I'm foolish for believing States should be able to close borders in this
situation? How bizarre
After all, if Australia can close its border, then why not the state?
That is the question, can they do it under the Constitution?
Post by news18
Proprty owners can close their borders, with certain exceptions, to all
persons.
Rod Speed
2020-05-28 04:32:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
There is no relevant section on intercourse.
OK no specific section but you know Sect 92 of the Australian
constitution mentions it
Like I said, not relevant to border restrictions in a pandemic.
We'll see if this ever gets to the HC. Black letter law could see the
the restrictions found unconstitutional,
No chance.
Post by Dechucka
a sensible ruling should see it tossed out imho.
More fool you.
I'm foolish for believing States should be able to close borders in this
situation? How bizarre
After all, if Australia can close its border, then why not the state?
Bucasia Sec 92 is about TRADE, fuckwit.
Post by news18
Proprty owners can close their borders, with certain exceptions, to all
persons.
Dechucka
2020-05-28 04:44:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
There is no relevant section on intercourse.
OK no specific section but you know Sect 92 of the Australian
constitution mentions it
Like I said, not relevant to border restrictions in a pandemic.
We'll see if this ever gets to the HC. Black letter law could see the
the restrictions found unconstitutional,
No chance.
Post by Dechucka
a sensible ruling should see it tossed out imho.
More fool you.
I'm foolish for believing States should be able to close borders in this
situation? How bizarre
After all, if Australia can close its border, then why not the state?
Bucasia Sec 92 is about TRADE, fuckwit.
wrong
Rod Speed
2020-05-28 06:02:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
There is no relevant section on intercourse.
OK no specific section but you know Sect 92 of the Australian
constitution mentions it
Like I said, not relevant to border restrictions in a pandemic.
We'll see if this ever gets to the HC. Black letter law could see the
the restrictions found unconstitutional,
No chance.
Post by Dechucka
a sensible ruling should see it tossed out imho.
More fool you.
I'm foolish for believing States should be able to close borders in this
situation? How bizarre
After all, if Australia can close its border, then why not the state?
Bucasia Sec 92 is about TRADE, fuckwit.
wrong
Your sig is sposed to have a line with just -- on it in front of it,
fuckwit.
Dechucka
2020-05-28 06:15:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Rod Speed
Bucasia Sec 92 is about TRADE, fuckwit.
wrong
Your sig is sposed to have a line with just -- on it in front of it,
fuckwit.
You are wrong as shown by the 1903 ruling but a least you're consistent.
Rod Speed
2020-05-28 07:01:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Rod Speed
Bucasia Sec 92 is about TRADE, fuckwit.
wrong
Your sig is sposed to have a line with just -- on it in front of it,
fuckwit.
You are wrong
Nope.
Post by Dechucka
as shown by the 1903 ruling
Nope.
Dechucka
2020-05-28 07:45:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Rod Speed
Bucasia Sec 92 is about TRADE, fuckwit.
wrong
Your sig is sposed to have a line with just -- on it in front of it,
fuckwit.
You are wrong
Nope.
Post by Dechucka
as shown by the 1903 ruling
Nope.
Give us your interpretation of this important Sect 92 ruling
Rod Speed
2020-05-28 09:33:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Rod Speed
Bucasia Sec 92 is about TRADE, fuckwit.
wrong
Your sig is sposed to have a line with just -- on it in front of it,
fuckwit.
You are wrong
Nope.
Post by Dechucka
as shown by the 1903 ruling
Nope.
Give us your interpretation of this important Sect 92 ruling
Fuckwits too stupid to even work out the title of Sect 92
Dechucka
2020-05-28 10:16:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Give us your interpretation of this important Sect 92 ruling
Fuckwits too stupid to even work out the title of Sect 92
You're sounding like pez and the Preamble. I'll leave you to ponder your
ignorance
Rod Speed
2020-05-28 22:50:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Give us your interpretation of this important Sect 92 ruling
Fuckwits too stupid to even work out the title of Sect 92
You're sounding like pez and the Preamble.
You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

Nothing even remotely like that; He adds shit, Those fuckwits
did that too. Just another example of adding shit that was
never in Sect 92 in the first place. Sec 92 is about TRADE, fuckwit.
Fran
2020-05-28 11:09:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Rod Speed
Bucasia Sec 92 is about TRADE, fuckwit.
wrong
Your sig is sposed to have a line with just -- on it in front of it,
fuckwit.
You are wrong
Nope.
Post by Dechucka
as shown by the 1903 ruling
Nope.
Give us your interpretation of this important Sect 92 ruling
LOL. He won't because he doesn't understand the meaning of
'intercourse'. After he fails to explain the 1903 ruling, he can fail
to understand or to explain explain the rulings of Cole v Whitfield and
then Gratwick v Johnson.

But he won't. He's an idiot.
Rod Speed
2020-05-28 22:52:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Rod Speed
Bucasia Sec 92 is about TRADE, fuckwit.
wrong
Your sig is sposed to have a line with just -- on it in front of it,
fuckwit.
You are wrong
Nope.
Post by Dechucka
as shown by the 1903 ruling
Nope.
Give us your interpretation of this important Sect 92 ruling
LOL. He won't because he doesn't understand the meaning of 'intercourse'.
You don’t understand the meaning of TRADE in the title of 92, fuckwit.
Dechucka
2020-05-28 23:03:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Give us your interpretation of this important Sect 92 ruling
LOL.  He won't because he doesn't understand the meaning of
'intercourse'.
You don’t understand the meaning of TRADE in the title of 92, fuckwit.
If that is the basis for your constitutional argument so be it.
Anyhow after the directions hearing yesterday the documents and
submissions will be filed by June 26 it seems. Seems others have a
better understanding of Sect 92 than you do including the HC who have
heard cases about freedom of travel between states previously.
Fran
2020-05-29 00:00:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Give us your interpretation of this important Sect 92 ruling
LOL.  He won't because he doesn't understand the meaning of
'intercourse'.
You don’t understand the meaning of TRADE in the title of 92, fuckwit.
Yep. Fuckwit of the century, Rod Speedd yet again proves he doesn't
understand the meaning of the word 'intercourse' and is lazy and stupid
and ignorant and wont' look up or try to understand rulings for cases
given to him.
Post by Dechucka
If that is the basis for your constitutional argument so be it.
Anyhow after the directions hearing yesterday the documents and
submissions will be filed by June 26 it seems. Seems others have a
better understanding of Sect 92 than you do including the HC who have
heard cases about freedom of travel between states previously.
Yep. Stupid Rod Spud has been given those case names but like the other
village idiot, he to is in that river in Egypt.
Rod Speed
2020-05-29 03:50:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fran
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Fran
Post by Dechucka
Give us your interpretation of this important Sect 92 ruling
LOL. He won't because he doesn't understand the meaning of
'intercourse'.
You don’t understand the meaning of TRADE in the title of 92, fuckwit.
Yep. Fuckwit of the century, Rod Speedd yet again proves he doesn't
understand the meaning of the word 'intercourse'
You cant take any word in the constitution and proclaim
that it applys to everything in the constituting, fuckwit.
Seeker of the Truth
2020-06-08 02:43:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 29 May 2020 10:00:23 +1000
Post by Fran
Yep. Stupid Rod Spud has been given those case names but like the
other village idiot, he to is in that river in Egypt.
You need to forgive our Roddles.

Full of venom for at least 20 years.

Rod Speed
2020-05-29 03:47:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Fran
Post by Dechucka
Give us your interpretation of this important Sect 92 ruling
LOL. He won't because he doesn't understand the meaning of
'intercourse'.
You don’t understand the meaning of TRADE in the title of 92, fuckwit.
If that is the basis for your constitutional argument so be it.
Anyhow after the directions hearing yesterday the documents and
submissions will be filed by June 26 it seems.
Just some fuckwits pumping pockets. How unusual.
Post by Dechucka
HC who have heard cases about freedom of travel between states previously.
And havent found that Sec 92 prevents any state
from having border controls in a pandemic.
Dechucka
2020-05-29 04:32:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Anyhow after the directions hearing yesterday the documents and
submissions will be filed by June 26 it seems.
Just some fuckwits pumping pockets. How unusual.
Post by Dechucka
HC who have heard cases about freedom of travel between states previously.
And havent found that Sec 92 prevents any state
from having border controls in a pandemic.
That is up to the High Court as they look at intercourse in terms of
sect 92 of the constitution
Rod Speed
2020-05-29 06:30:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Anyhow after the directions hearing yesterday the documents and
submissions will be filed by June 26 it seems.
Just some fuckwits pumping pockets. How unusual.
Post by Dechucka
HC who have heard cases about freedom of travel between states previously.
And havent found that Sec 92 prevents any state
from having border controls in a pandemic.
That is up to the High Court as they look at intercourse in terms of sect
92 of the constitution
Which is ONLY about TRADE, fuckwit. Look at the title, fuckwit.
Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
2020-05-29 08:56:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 29 May 2020 16:30:16 +1000
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
That is up to the High Court as they look at intercourse in terms
of sect 92 of the constitution
Which is ONLY about TRADE, fuckwit. Look at the title, fuckwit.
Good to see your venom still there, Roddles.
Rod Speed
2020-05-29 18:04:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
On Fri, 29 May 2020 16:30:16 +1000
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
That is up to the High Court as they look at intercourse in terms
of sect 92 of the constitution
Which is ONLY about TRADE, fuckwit. Look at the title, fuckwit.
Good to see your venom still there, Roddles.
You wouldn't know what venom was if it bit you on your lard arse, Andwew.
Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
2020-05-29 18:53:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 30 May 2020 04:04:03 +1000
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
Good to see your venom still there, Roddles.
You wouldn't know what venom was if it bit you on your lard arse, Andwew.
You 'da Man, Roddles! LOL
Seeker of the Truth
2020-06-08 02:48:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 29 May 2020 16:30:16 +1000
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Anyhow after the directions hearing yesterday the documents and
submissions will be filed by June 26 it seems.
Just some fuckwits pumping pockets. How unusual.
Post by Dechucka
HC who have heard cases about freedom of travel between states previously.
And havent found that Sec 92 prevents any state
from having border controls in a pandemic.
That is up to the High Court as they look at intercourse in terms
of sect 92 of the constitution
Which is ONLY about TRADE, fuckwit. Look at the title, fuckwit.
Something the states may be relying on is Section 117, which looks a
doubtful defence.

"A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in
any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be
equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident
in such other State."

Depends how the High Court interprets "discrimination", and they may
even flick the case to the Federal Court.
Dechucka
2020-05-27 20:58:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
On Wed, 27 May 2020 15:06:23 +1000
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the
closures in the High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Possibly not, a constitutional lawyer at Uni.of NSW pointed out some
problems.Have to prove not only protectionist, but also discrimination
applied.
Did you read the Pelly's article? Anne Twomey from Sydney Uni said that
Palmer/Hanson would be going for the challenge on the basis of the
'intercourse' provisions and may be successful.
Rod Speed
2020-05-27 21:57:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
On Wed, 27 May 2020 15:06:23 +1000
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the
closures in the High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Possibly not, a constitutional lawyer at Uni.of NSW pointed out some
problems.Have to prove not only protectionist, but also discrimination
applied.
Did you read the Pelly's article? Anne Twomey from Sydney Uni said that
Palmer/Hanson would be going for the challenge on the basis of the
'intercourse' provisions and may be successful.
No chance, you watch. Its just fuckwit lawyers trying to pump pockets.
Dechucka
2020-05-27 22:08:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
On Wed, 27 May 2020 15:06:23 +1000
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the
closures in the High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Possibly not, a constitutional lawyer at Uni.of NSW pointed out some
problems.Have to prove not only protectionist, but also discrimination
applied.
Did you read the Pelly's article? Anne Twomey from Sydney Uni said
that Palmer/Hanson would be going for the challenge on the basis of
the 'intercourse' provisions and may be successful.
No chance, you watch. Its just fuckwit lawyers trying to pump pockets.
I suspect by the time it gets to Court the borders will be open anyway.
Rod Speed
2020-05-27 22:18:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
On Wed, 27 May 2020 15:06:23 +1000
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the
closures in the High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Possibly not, a constitutional lawyer at Uni.of NSW pointed out some
problems.Have to prove not only protectionist, but also discrimination
applied.
Did you read the Pelly's article? Anne Twomey from Sydney Uni said that
Palmer/Hanson would be going for the challenge on the basis of the
'intercourse' provisions and may be successful.
No chance, you watch. Its just fuckwit lawyers trying to pump pockets.
I suspect by the time it gets to Court the borders will be open anyway.
Very likely and Palmer will have pissed even more of someone else's money
against the wall.
news18
2020-05-27 23:46:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the
closures in the High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Possibly not, a constitutional lawyer at Uni.of NSW pointed out some
problems.Have to prove not only protectionist, but also
discrimination applied.
Did you read the Pelly's article? Anne Twomey from Sydney Uni said
that Palmer/Hanson would be going for the challenge on the basis of
the 'intercourse' provisions and may be successful.
No chance, you watch. Its just fuckwit lawyers trying to pump pockets.
I suspect by the time it gets to Court the borders will be open anyway.
And possibly closed shortly after after a the infected from vic & NSw
share the pain with other states.
Dechucka
2020-05-28 00:17:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the
closures in the High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Possibly not, a constitutional lawyer at Uni.of NSW pointed out some
problems.Have to prove not only protectionist, but also
discrimination applied.
Did you read the Pelly's article? Anne Twomey from Sydney Uni said
that Palmer/Hanson would be going for the challenge on the basis of
the 'intercourse' provisions and may be successful.
No chance, you watch. Its just fuckwit lawyers trying to pump pockets.
I suspect by the time it gets to Court the borders will be open anyway.
And possibly closed shortly after after a the infected from vic & NSw
share the pain with other states.
The HC is not known for bringing down rulings quickly. BTW what about
the infected in Q'land?
news18
2020-05-28 01:02:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-
of-
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline"
of Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions in the state or face a constitutional challenge to
the closures in the High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of
the Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of
intercourse
Possibly not, a constitutional lawyer at Uni.of NSW pointed out
some problems.Have to prove not only protectionist, but also
discrimination applied.
Did you read the Pelly's article? Anne Twomey from Sydney Uni said
that Palmer/Hanson would be going for the challenge on the basis of
the 'intercourse' provisions and may be successful.
No chance, you watch. Its just fuckwit lawyers trying to pump pockets.
I suspect by the time it gets to Court the borders will be open anyway.
And possibly closed shortly after after a the infected from vic & NSw
share the pain with other states.
The HC is not known for bringing down rulings quickly. BTW what about
the infected in Q'land?
W=
Is there many of them? NSW & Vic make up the numbers, and both have poor
record of passing on infections to other states.
Dechucka
2020-05-28 01:09:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-
of-
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
Post by Dechucka
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline"
of Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions in the state or face a constitutional challenge to
the closures in the High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of
the Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of
intercourse
Possibly not, a constitutional lawyer at Uni.of NSW pointed out
some problems.Have to prove not only protectionist, but also
discrimination applied.
Did you read the Pelly's article? Anne Twomey from Sydney Uni said
that Palmer/Hanson would be going for the challenge on the basis of
the 'intercourse' provisions and may be successful.
No chance, you watch. Its just fuckwit lawyers trying to pump pockets.
I suspect by the time it gets to Court the borders will be open anyway.
And possibly closed shortly after after a the infected from vic & NSw
share the pain with other states.
The HC is not known for bringing down rulings quickly. BTW what about
the infected in Q'land?
W=
Is there many of them?
There is the 30 yo guy who died and they've got no idea where it came from
Post by news18
NSW & Vic make up the numbers, and both have poor
record of passing on infections to other states.
Most populous states and the main ports of entry so that is expected.
news18
2020-05-28 01:58:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
I suspect by the time it gets to Court the borders will be open
anyway.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/27/
austerity-and-victim-blaming-scott-morrison-goes-back-to-the-old-politics
Post by Dechucka
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
Post by news18
And possibly closed shortly after after a the infected from vic & NSw
share the pain with other states.
The HC is not known for bringing down rulings quickly. BTW what about
the infected in Q'land?
W=
Is there many of them?
There is the 30 yo guy who died and they've got no idea where it came from
Who illustrates the case of seeking medical assistance early and could
yet be represented elsewhere.

but, number in other states are low. other states
Post by Dechucka
Post by news18
NSW & Vic make up the numbers, and both have poor record of passing on
infections to other states.
Most populous states and the main ports of entry so that is expected.
So, a good arguement for continued border closure.
Dechucka
2020-05-28 03:49:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
I suspect by the time it gets to Court the borders will be open
anyway.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/27/
austerity-and-victim-blaming-scott-morrison-goes-back-to-the-old-politics
Post by Dechucka
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
Post by news18
And possibly closed shortly after after a the infected from vic & NSw
share the pain with other states.
The HC is not known for bringing down rulings quickly. BTW what about
the infected in Q'land?
W=
Is there many of them?
There is the 30 yo guy who died and they've got no idea where it came from
Who illustrates the case of seeking medical assistance early and could
yet be represented elsewhere.
but, number in other states are low. other states
Post by Dechucka
Post by news18
NSW & Vic make up the numbers, and both have poor record of passing on
infections to other states.
Most populous states and the main ports of entry so that is expected.
So, a good arguement for continued border closure.
not wrong
F Murtz
2020-05-30 07:53:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
I suspect by the time it gets to Court the borders will be open
anyway.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/27/
austerity-and-victim-blaming-scott-morrison-goes-back-to-the-old-politics
Post by Dechucka
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
Post by news18
And possibly closed shortly after after a the infected from vic & NSw
share the pain with other states. that Queensland won'
The HC is not known for bringing down rulings quickly. BTW what about
the infected in Q'land?
W=
Is there many of them?
There is the 30 yo guy who died and they've got no idea where it came from
Who illustrates the case of seeking medical assistance early and could
yet be represented elsewhere.
but, number in other states are low. other states
Post by Dechucka
Post by news18
NSW & Vic make up the numbers, and both have poor record of passing on
infections to other states.
Most populous states and the main ports of entry so that is expected.
So, a good arguement for continued border closure.
not wrong
Is it true that NSW is taking Queensland travelers for their isolation
that Queensland won't admit? thereby skewing numbers
Rod Speed
2020-05-30 18:56:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by F Murtz
Post by Dechucka
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
I suspect by the time it gets to Court the borders will be open
anyway.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/27/
austerity-and-victim-blaming-scott-morrison-goes-back-to-the-old-politics
Post by Dechucka
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
Post by news18
And possibly closed shortly after after a the infected from vic & NSw
share the pain with other states. that Queensland won'
The HC is not known for bringing down rulings quickly. BTW what about
the infected in Q'land?
W=
Is there many of them?
There is the 30 yo guy who died and they've got no idea where it came from
Who illustrates the case of seeking medical assistance early and could
yet be represented elsewhere.
but, number in other states are low. other states
Post by Dechucka
Post by news18
NSW & Vic make up the numbers, and both have poor record of passing on
infections to other states.
Most populous states and the main ports of entry so that is expected.
So, a good arguement for continued border closure.
not wrong
Is it true that NSW is taking Queensland travelers for their isolation
that Queensland won't admit?
Nope, Qld just doesn’t allow non Qlders into
their state except in for some exceptions.
Post by F Murtz
thereby skewing numbers
Nope.
Fran
2020-05-28 00:36:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
On Wed, 27 May 2020 15:06:23 +1000
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the
closures in the High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Possibly not, a constitutional lawyer at Uni.of NSW pointed out some
problems.Have to prove not only protectionist, but also discrimination
applied.
Did you read the Pelly's article? Anne Twomey from Sydney Uni said that
Palmer/Hanson would be going for the challenge on the basis of the
'intercourse' provisions and may be successful.
No surprise there.
Rod Speed
2020-05-27 21:53:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
On Wed, 27 May 2020 15:06:23 +1000
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the
closures in the High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Possibly not, a constitutional lawyer at Uni.of NSW pointed out some
problems.Have to prove not only protectionist, but also discrimination
applied.
In Fin Review, today, page 8. How come you missed it?
He was blotto, as usual.
Dechucka
2020-05-27 22:02:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Andrew Forrest, True Aussie Patriot
On Wed, 27 May 2020 15:06:23 +1000
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland
borders One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the
closures in the High Court.
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of the
Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Possibly not, a constitutional lawyer at Uni.of NSW pointed out some
problems.Have to prove not only protectionist, but also discrimination
applied.
In Fin Review, today, page 8.  How come you missed it?
He was blotto, as usual.
If only :-(
Rod Speed
2020-05-27 21:41:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland borders
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of Thursday on
the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions in the state
or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the High Court.
Stupid cow.
Post by Dechucka
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of
< the Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse

Bullshit with a pandemic. The border doesn’t affect trade stupid.
Dechucka
2020-05-27 22:01:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland borders
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of Thursday
on the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions in the
state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the High
Court.
Stupid cow.
Post by Dechucka
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of
< the Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Bullshit with a pandemic. The border doesn’t affect trade stupid.
That is not the only thing Sect 92 mentions. Go look it up.
Rod Speed
2020-05-27 22:14:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland borders
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of Thursday on
the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions in the state
or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the High Court.
Stupid cow.
Post by Dechucka
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of
< the Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Bullshit with a pandemic. The border doesn’t affect trade stupid.
That is not the only thing Sect 92 mentions. Go look it up.
Don’t need to. Intercourse has nothing to do with the
movement of people the way its used in that section.
Dechucka
2020-05-27 22:27:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland borders
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the
closures in the High Court.
Stupid cow.
Post by Dechucka
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of
< the Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Bullshit with a pandemic. The border doesn’t affect trade stupid.
That is not the only thing Sect 92 mentions. Go look it up.
Don’t need to. Intercourse has nothing to do with the
movement of people the way its used in that section.
It does but if the 'quarantine' restrictions actually stop this
intercourse may be what any rulings depends on.
Rod Speed
2020-05-27 23:08:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland borders
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of Thursday
on the Queensland Labor government to lift border restrictions in the
state or face a constitutional challenge to the closures in the High
Court.
Stupid cow.
Post by Dechucka
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of
< the Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Bullshit with a pandemic. The border doesn’t affect trade stupid.
That is not the only thing Sect 92 mentions. Go look it up.
Don’t need to. Intercourse has nothing to do with the
movement of people the way its used in that section.
It does
Wrong, as always.
Post by Dechucka
but if the 'quarantine' restrictions actually stop this intercourse
It doesn’t.
Post by Dechucka
may be what any rulings depends on.
Nope.
Dechucka
2020-05-28 00:18:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland borders
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions in the state or face a constitutional challenge to
the closures in the High Court.
Stupid cow.
Post by Dechucka
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of
< the Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Bullshit with a pandemic. The border doesn’t affect trade stupid.
That is not the only thing Sect 92 mentions. Go look it up.
Don’t need to. Intercourse has nothing to do with the
movement of people the way its used in that section.
It does
Wrong, as always.
HC ruling on NSW's Influx of Criminals Prevention Act 1903
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
but if the 'quarantine' restrictions actually stop this intercourse
It doesn’t.
Post by Dechucka
may be what any rulings depends on.
Nope.
Fran
2020-05-28 00:45:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Dechucka
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pauline-hanson-imposes-deadline-of-thursday-to-reopen-queensland-borders-20200526-p54wnz.html
Pauline Hanson imposes 'deadline' of Thursday to reopen Queensland borders
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has imposed a "deadline" of
Thursday on the Queensland Labor government to lift border
restrictions in the state or face a constitutional challenge to the
closures in the High Court.
Stupid cow.
Post by Dechucka
I would have thought she may have a good chance under sect 92 of
< the Constitution given Cole V Whitfield and the def'n of intercourse
Bullshit with a pandemic. The border doesn’t affect trade stupid.
That is not the only thing Sect 92 mentions. Go look it up.
Don’t need to. Intercourse has nothing to do with the
movement of people the way its used in that section.
Bullshit.
Post by Dechucka
It does
Indeed it does.

but if the 'quarantine' restrictions actually stop this
Post by Dechucka
intercourse may be what any rulings depends on.
Yep.
Loading...