bigbadbyrnes
Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Posts
- 273
Everything is arguable in law, doubly so in constitutional law. This is a matter for the high court.
But here's my opening argument;
Section 92 of the highest law in the country sets out "On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free. "
Per Cole vs Whitfield 1988 "The notions of absolutely free trade and commerce and absolutely free intercourse are quite distinct". Sec92 clearly sets out the law for interstate trade, but also 'intercourse'.
And on the matter of what intercourse means, per Gratwick v Johnson 1945 it's the ability "to pass to and fro among the States without burden, hindrance or restriction".
Border closures, (and arguably although less certainly isolation requirements), are therefore inconsistent with the highest law in the country and should be set aside.
No one is talking about it, any legal eagles here explain? There's no room on the news for this at the moment, but if people start to fed up with the restrictions, it's worth getting them tested in the high court.
edit:
Could be worth testing if an individual could be proven to be not a thread to public health, but that would be the exception. Thanks MEL_Traveller for sharing the article.
/thread
But here's my opening argument;
Section 92 of the highest law in the country sets out "On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free. "
Per Cole vs Whitfield 1988 "The notions of absolutely free trade and commerce and absolutely free intercourse are quite distinct". Sec92 clearly sets out the law for interstate trade, but also 'intercourse'.
And on the matter of what intercourse means, per Gratwick v Johnson 1945 it's the ability "to pass to and fro among the States without burden, hindrance or restriction".
Border closures, (and arguably although less certainly isolation requirements), are therefore inconsistent with the highest law in the country and should be set aside.
No one is talking about it, any legal eagles here explain? There's no room on the news for this at the moment, but if people start to fed up with the restrictions, it's worth getting them tested in the high court.
edit:
Could be worth testing if an individual could be proven to be not a thread to public health, but that would be the exception. Thanks MEL_Traveller for sharing the article.
/thread
Last edited:
?
)
