Wait a minute - are you saying that if a politician rhetorically "declares war" on something that has nothing to do with actual war, then he can literally enter a "state of war" legally? I mean, it's clear that such war rhetoric can be used to pass horrible laws that give more or less dictatorial powers, but do these statements themselves have any legal ramifications? Maybe I'm naive, but... WTH!?
Yup - in fact under the laws of war they don't even have to announce occupation to the occupied people!
Article 1 of the Lieber Code:
A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial Law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest.
The presence of a hostile army proclaims its Martial Law.
So when they do mention 'war' they sometimes do so with duping delight.
The Prime Minister in the '70's, Whitlam, that kicked off the whole shebang was sacked by the Governor General, in what was referred to at the time as a 'constitutional crisis'. In his speech after he was sacked he didn't seem unhappy at all. Another example of duping delight I think.
His dismissal speech starts from 1:45
Whitlam had a lot of backing from the people because he introduced free medical and education - but there was method in that madness I think. He'd removed the Constitution from over 160 pieces of legislation, created a fake 'Queen of Australia' and signed up to UNIDROIT introducing private international and model law that could be held over constitutional/common law. Not a single politician since that time has attempted to undo what he put into place. There are new political candidates here that state that as an aim, but I'm not satisfied that they are not controlled opposition yet.
The original constitution states at s109:
"When a
law of a
State is inconsistent with a
law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall to the extent of the
inconsistency, be invalid."
Yet there are plenty of state laws that are inconsistent with the Commonwealth laws and not only are they enforced, but trying a defence based on constitutional law is almost impossible.
Also and with the idea of mandatory vaccinations in mind at s51(xxiiiA):
"the provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (
but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances;"
So constitutionally speaking they can't make anyone take a vaccine in order to protect federal social security benefits - but administratively speaking and because of 'private contracts', they can override that.
In the original Australian constitution, the states are prohibited from raising an army without the consent of the parliament. However, the nature of the police force has changed since the early 70's. They've gone from federal employees and public servant peace keepers to state employees and armed policy enforcers. First there is the original oath they swear, then in police acts it states that after they've done that, they can be contracted out. If they sign the contract, then the contract overrides constitutional/common law in favour of military/administrative law and the police enforce the latter.
