Comments by "John Woodrow" (@johnwoodrow8769) on "Qld police stopping vehicles with Vic number plates at the border" video.

@item6931 Think you need to actually read Section 92, it is much more than stamp duty. It says among other things "intercourse" shall be absolutely free. In the context of Section 92 "intercourse" means the ability to pass to and fro among the States without burden, hindrance or restriction. BUT .... then someone needs to understand the various High Court decision as to what Section 92 REALLY allows. And the most relevant is Nationwide News v Wills which stated ...." the above are subject to permissible regulation which might take the form "of excluding from passage across the frontier of a State creatures or things calculated to injure its citizens", but the severity and need for such measures must still be assessed. So basically State Public Health Offices CAN impose health restrictions at a border and not be in breach of Section 92.
2
@shellyaus How do I define 'absolutely free', by EXACTLY how anyone who understand how the law works would, if you'd taken the time to both read and understand my comment. And that is by way of how the High Court of Australia has interpreted it to mean. And they say .... things that can harm the citizens of a State are NOT "absolutely" free under Section 92. P.S. a brief 101 law lesson, seems its needed. You cannot understand a piece of legislation solely by reading the statute. You MUST look for relevant court decisions as to how the courts have ruled in relation to that relevant section of the legislation. Case law, precedents, (common law) is critical to understanding statute law.
2
@thechiabeast Every ruling of the US Supreme Court (or any court for that matter) is "common law". It is the very basis of just about how every civil case will be augured by each side. Judges won't be swayed much by what the legal representative of each side thinks, they will by reference to previous judicial rulings i.e 'common law'. You're controversial Roe v Wade is "common law". It can't be done away with.
2
@shellyaus The only think I'm guilty of is responding to idiots on the internet.
2
@lorraine1959 Probably time to take your medication and have a good lie down.
1
@shellyaus If you have a serious question, happy to try and answer it for you. If you just want to play around with stupidity, not interested.
1
@item6931 Happy to assist with peoples understanding of the law. Think it is important that people understand some basic legal principals e.g statute law, common law, different between 'ratio decidendi' and 'obiter dicta' when reading a court judgement (google will explain those principals, big fancy names, simple stuff really). All this stuff is what a first year university student will (should) learn in any course that has a legal component.
1
@lorraine1959 You clearly know nothing about the law. 'Common Law' is often described as 'judge made law' when trying to explain it to someone. The ultimate 'common law' judgement in Australia is the High Court. There is no jury in the High Court. The greatest protection Australians have is hundreds of years of British and Australian Common Law.
1
@lorraine1959 Yes, Australia uses a "foreign system of law", one based on the British system ..... best in the world by far. Take your meds and go back to sleep.
1
@shellyaus All you're achieving is (a) making a dick of yourself, and (b) demonstrating you know absolutely NOTHING about the Australian legal system. Every single concept I've mentioned I would expect a High School student who has done a unit of 'introduction to legal studies' to be totally familiar with.
1
@lorraine1959 Try then ..... you're an idiot.
1
@shellyaus How is pointing out you clearly know nothing about the law insulting? It's just a statement of fact.
1
@thechiabeast "Once called common law in America". There is only one jack ass, you! Or perhaps you know more about the law than the Cornell Law School https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/common_law
1
@thechiabeast Here's something to read so you actually will then know something about the law, not much, but at lease something. Take note of where it says "one-third of the world's population lives in common law jurisdictions", including the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
1
@thechiabeast Thank you for simply repeating exactly what I told you, when you were claiming common law had some to do with marriage?? (I stopped reading your nonsense about that point).
1
@thechiabeast Listen dipsh*t ... I simply informed someone that to really understand statute law they need to be aware of the common law decisions relating to that stature. To simply read a statute in isolation without understanding how the courts are interpreting it can be VERY misleading. Then F'ing idiots like you turn up
1
@lorraine1959 It's origins is the 11th Century English King courts. You are without a doubt the biggest dipshi*t even encountered on the internet. You're clearly a troll, but a really sh#those one.
1