Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[Roylion]

Who knew that Blackstone got it so wrong!!!


The third absolute right, inherent in every Englishman, is that of property: which consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land … The laws of England are … extremely watchful in ascertaining and protecting this right. Upon this principle the great charter has declared that no freeman shall be disseised, or divested, of his freehold, or of his liberties, or free customs, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.

William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (The Legal Classics Library, 1765) Book 2.


King John would be proud of your efforts to make shit up as you go along Roylyin'.

You know very little about King John.

There's little doubt that by the 17th century onwards the Magna Carta was associated with British liberty and freedom, even though the original document had very little to do with either. It became a rallying cry during a parliamentary struggle against the arbitrary power of the monarch mainly in the early to mid 17th century. It's why many professional historians regard Magna Carta's exalted reputation as the beginning of liberties for all as a myth. The Charter did little or nothing to promote good government. Nor did it serve to protect the legal rights of the great majority of people in England. It served only the barons. It's glorification was a later invention, attributable to myth-making lawyers like Edward Coke (who described it as England's "ancient constitution") in the seventeenth century and William Blackstone in the eighteenth. It was nothing of the sort.

William Sharp McKechnie a historian and lecturer in Constitutional Law and History, argued that the intent of the barons in 1215 was thoroughly backward-looking as they "professed to be demanding nothing new." McKechnie stated that the correct reading of "freemen" was those who could claim protection was restricted to "landowner" with a manorial court.

 

[Roylion]

But it is.

Not by me.

Wait till the King drops in next time ; people embarrass themselves falling all over them and bowing and scraping.

The same as many a celebrity I guesss

I go out on a limb and suggest you'll be one of them? .

Will I? I'll be making as much effort to meet the King as I currently do in meeting the Governor-General.

 

[Number37]

You know very little about King John.

There's little doubt that by the 17th century onwards the Magna Carta was associated with British liberty and freedom, even though the original document had very little to do with either. It became a rallying cry during a parliamentary struggle against the arbitrary power of the monarch mainly in the early to mid 17th century. It's why many professional historians regard Magna Carta's exalted reputation as the beginning of liberties for all as a myth. The Charter did little or nothing to promote good government. Nor did it serve to protect the legal rights of the great majority of people in England. It served only the barons. It's glorification was a later invention, attributable to myth-making lawyers like Edward Coke (who described it as England's "ancient constitution") in the seventeenth century and William Blackstone in the eighteenth. It was nothing of the sort.

William Sharp McKechnie a historian and lecturer in Constitutional Law and History, argued that the intent of the barons in 1215 was thoroughly backward-looking as they "professed to be demanding nothing new." McKechnie stated that the correct reading of "freemen" was those who could claim protection was restricted to "landowner" with a manorial court.

I see.
It didn't at the time, but it subsequently did, when Coke and Blackstone made it up.
Interesting. Very interesting.

"Arbitrary power of the monarchy."
Sounds a bit 'rule of law-ish'.

Got yourself in a bit of a pickle, haven't you.
That's what happens when you cut and paste without any critical thinking.

 

[The Punter]

exactly . it's archaic bullshit which Roy thinks is better than what many successful republics around the world can do. Of the 56 nations in the Commonwealth, 41 are already republics.Im sure their news papers arent as filled with crap about which royal wives aren't talking to each other.

C'mon, Reg, the American media love themselves some royal scuttlebutt.

 

[Number37]

Ahh. Your new buzz-phrase.


I quite clearly said in 1215, the 'people' received no rights from the Magna Carta.

Historian Simon Schama wrote that Magna Carta was not the birth certificate of freedom but rather the death certificate of despotism.


I've explained already to you what was meant by 'freeman' in 1215.

The Magna Carta dealt with the long standing grievances of the barons, limiting the King’s rights in specific areas of feudal taxation and administration. It benefited the Church and the highest ranking in society. In 1215, the peasantry who made up 80% of the population at the time, were not 'free men' and therefore it did not apply to them. "Free man' was not accepted in 1215 as meaning the common person. Put simply, a "free man" in the 1200s, referred to workers who weren’t bound to a particular lord

Dr Claire Breay, lead curator of Medieval manuscripts at the British Library says that the reference to free men did not mean everybody.


The Habeas Corpus Act 1640 established that the authority of the monarch was not in itself justification for imprisonment. And this originally stems from the Assize of Clarendon of 1166 in the reign of Henry II.


This is increasingly a matter of debate. Anne Twomey says whether the judicial review of prerogative powers is contentious. She says that in Australia courts have long claimed the power to determine the existence and extent of a prerogative power. Section 75 of the Constitution states that the High Court of Australia has jurisdiction to review the legality of the exercise of executive power by any officer of the Commonwealth.

In the UK the prerogative of mercy for example, could be the subject of judicial review. If say, the Home Secretary, as an officer of the Crown exercising the prerogative, had refused to pardon someone solely on the grounds of their sex, race or religion, the courts could be entitled to intervene.



Parliament certainly exercises prerogative power.

So the Chagossians were English barons eh, not in 1215 but the 1970's.
More interesting stuff from you.
I wonder how they went from ex-slaves to English noblemen.


Stop writing nonsense Roy.

Educate yourself.

Here is a helpful link.
It's only from the APH so you may not believe it because it doesn't agree with your bullshit.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parlia...heet_20_-_The_Australian_system_of_government

The powers that the Governor-General has to act without advice are referred to as ‘prerogative’ or ‘reserve’ powers and are not clearly defined in the Constitution. Constitutional experts do not agree on their precise extent or on the nature of the exceptional circumstances in which they may be exercised.


The Constitution gives the King the power to disallow an Australian Act of Parliament, but this has never been done and it is extremely unlikely that it would ever be done.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

C'mon, Reg, the American media love themselves some royal scuttlebutt.

there's a country that wishes they had royal families. This business of son's, wives and other assorted rellies being considered for presidency is warped. You can tell that Trump thinks his DNA should rule there forever

 

[Roylion]

I see.
It didn't at the time, but it subsequently did, when Coke and Blackstone made it up.

As I've said, many professional historians regard Magna Carta's exalted reputation as the beginning of liberties for all as a myth.

It's glorification as the beginning of English liberties was a later invention, attributable to myth-making lawyers like Edward Coke in the 17th century (at the height of the 1640's dispute between the King and Parliament) and William Blackstone in the eighteenth century. Hence quoting William Blackstone means absolutely nothing, other than what Blackstone interpreted the Magna Carta as, in his own time.... and he derived his ideas from Edward Coke.

"Arbitrary power of the monarchy."

In the seventeenth century. Heard of the English Civil War between Parliament and the Stuart Kings? The early Stuart Kings did in fact claim their right to rule was derived solely from God and there were few if any limits to their authority. The Bill of Rights / Declaation of Rights in 1689, ended that doctrine as it applied to the British monarchy.

Sounds a bit 'rule of law-ish'.

Not in 1215.

Got yourself in a bit of a pickle, haven't you.

Not at all. It's you that has the muddled view of history.

That's what happens when you cut and paste without any critical thinking.

You're not a critical thinker. You accept what you've been told blindly. Like the Magna Carta was the beginning of the rule of law and the originator of English liberties. It wasn't. Use a bit of critical thought will you?

 

[Roylion]

So the Chagossians were English barons eh, not in 1215 but the 1970's.

Did I say that? You're not verging into the territory of your former buzzword are you?

More interesting stuff from you.
I wonder how they went from ex-slaves to English noblemen.

Uh-oh. Not your former buzzword again I hope.

Stop writing nonsense Roy.

Educate yourself.

Here is a helpful link.
It's only from the APH so you may not believe it because it doesn't agree with your bullshit.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parlia...heet_20_-_The_Australian_system_of_government

The powers that the Governor-General has to act without advice are referred to as ‘prerogative’ or ‘reserve’ powers and are not clearly defined in the Constitution. Constitutional experts do not agree on their precise extent or on the nature of the exceptional circumstances in which they may be exercised.

I've told you what four constitutional historians / lawyers have said about royal assent. Give me at least one specific constitutional expert that supports your claim that... "Lots of Constitution experts would say that in the event that the monarch won't accept the advice of the govt, then it becomes a Mexican standoff."

The Constitution gives the King the power to disallow an Australian Act of Parliament, but this has never been done and it is extremely unlikely that it would ever be done.

And why is that? Go back and read what I said.

 

[Number37]

You're not a critical thinker. You accept what you've been told blindly. Like the Magna Carta was the beginning of the rule of law and the originator of English liberties. It wasn't. Use a bit of critical thought will you?

LOL
You've pickled yourself now you're floundering.

Did I say that? You're not verging into the territory of your former buzzword are you?


Uh-oh. Not your former buzzword again I hope.


I've told you what four constitutional historians / lawyers have said about royal assent. Give me at least one specific constitutional expert that supports your claim that... "Lots of Constitution experts would say that in the event that the monarch won't accept the advice of the govt, then it becomes a Mexican standoff."


And why is that? Go back and read what I said.

The Australian Parliament's website disputes your categorical statements that you've cut and pasted without any critical thought.

Stop cutting and pasting without engaging some critical thought.
You can do it.

 

[Roylion]

LOL
You've pickled yourself now you're floundering.

I'm not floundering at all. You've repeatedly shown your lack of knowledge or understanding of King John, the Magna Carta, and the granting of royal assent. I've either had to correct you or explain the background to you in order to show how your statements are rubbish.

You're the one floundering. You're now bringing up cases like the Chagossians in a vain attempt to justify your statements.

Found that one specific constitutional expert yet? You know the one that might support your claim that... "Lots of Constitution experts would say that in the event that the monarch won't accept the advice of the govt, then it becomes a Mexican standoff."

The Australian Parliament's website disputes your categorical statements that you've cut and pasted without any critical thought.

And which "categorical statements" would these be?

You highlighted "Constitutional experts do not agree on their precise extent or on the nature of the exceptional circumstances in which they may be exercised."

Which ones don't agree? What do they say exactly? Is this some attempt to justify your "Lots of constitutional experts...."? Explain the link between that and what I've said about the granting of royal assent by the monarch on formal advice from the monarch's responsible ministers.

Looks like you've just cut and pasted from the website without applying any critical thought as to what it means or how it supports your argument.

Stop cutting and pasting without engaging some critical thought.
You can do it.

Take some of your own advice.

 

[Number37]

I'm not floundering at all. You've repeatedly shown your lack of knowledge or understanding of King John, the Magna Carta, and the granting of royal assent. I've either had to correct you or explain the background to you in order to show how your statements are rubbish.

You're the one floundering. You're now bringing up cases like the Chagossians in a vain attempt to

Found that one specific constitutional expert yet? You know the one that might support your claim that... "Lots of Constitution experts would say that in the event that the monarch won't accept the advice of the govt, then it becomes a Mexican standoff." ?




And which "categorical statements" would these be?

You highlighted "Constitutional experts do not agree on their precise extent or on the nature of the exceptional circumstances in which they may be exercised."

Which ones don't agree? What do they say exactly? Is this some attempt to justify your "Lots of constitutional experts...." Explain the link between that and what I've said about the granting of royal assent by the monarch on formal advice from the monarch's responsible ministers.

Looks like you've just cut and pasted from the website without applying any critical thought as to what it means or how it supports your argument.




Take some of your own advice.

You said, the King MUST follow advice.
I just showed you where the Australian parliament website says the King has the prerogative to not follow advice.
You said, the Magna Carta only applied to barons.
I showed you where High Court judges referenced the Magna Carta in relation to people that weren't barons.
You said, it was just my opinion that it had never been tested.
I showed you where the Australian parliament website says we don't know because it has never been tested.
You said the Magna Carta had nothing to do with the 'rule of law'.
I showed you where Blackstone, one of the most revered legal scholars, stated that rights can be traced back to the Great Charter (the Magna Carta)...you said he something something Blackstone bla-bla-bla.
You said the King has no power to do nuffin.
In the Constitution, command of the ADF is vested in the GG.
It is written in bold font on all Australian naval vessels "HMAS". What does that stand for?

I don't need to find any constitutional expert to refute your nonsense.
It is just opinion. You can dress it up in any way that you choose. Putting the words 'scholarly' or 'expert" in front of opinion doesn't change the fact it is still opinion.

You have demonstrated many times how badly you suck at history.
On top of demonstrating, again, how badly you suck at history, this time you have also demonstrated how badly you suck at constitutional law.

 

[Roylion]

You said, the King MUST follow advice.

The King must follow the formal advice of his responsible ministers. I did say that.

In 2006, Anne Twomey showed how Queen Elizabeth II made it clear to her Australian ministers that she was reluctant to appoint state governors on the advice of state premiers because she worried they might put her in an awkward position with the Commonwealth government. Although state premiers were eager to advise her directly on these appointments, Commonwealth ministers were reluctant to force the issue even though this meant that the British Foreign Secretary would continue to play a role in the appointment of Australian state governors. Eventually, the Commonwealth had a change of heart, and in 1985 the Queen was informed that Prime Minister Bob Hawke would formally advise her to accept direct access from state premiers. Faced with a determined government in Canberra, the Queen had no choice but to back down and follow their formal advice.

I just showed you where the Australian parliament website says the King has the prerogative to not follow advice.

The exact quote you provided was:

"Constitutional experts do not agree on their precise extent or on the nature of the exceptional circumstances in which they may be exercised."

I've provided you with FOUR constitutional experts that say the monarch MUST follow the advice of his responsible ministers in giving royal assent.

You said, the Magna Carta only applied to barons.

The Magna Carta in 1215 was an agreement between the barons and the monarch and the clauses contained within referred to the aristocracy and the church. The original document wasn't even known as the Magna Carta - it was called the "Articles of the Barons".

Indeed, as W.L. Warren wrote on page 240 of his work 'King John': "Historically John's Charter is of great interest, but legally it is little more than a curiosity ... Within a couple of months ... it had been dropped to the ground ... and then knocked on the head by the pope."

I showed you where High Court judges referenced the Magna Carta in relation to people that weren't barons.

So what. Probably the foremost historical scholar on King John, W.L Warren (also on page 240 of his work) said

"It's actual provisions exercised little influence on the Constitution, until misinterpreted by 17th century lawyers to mean trial by jury and no taxation without the consent of representatives."

Professor Edward Jenks an eminent legal historian, also raised a number of misconceptions about the nature of the guarantees found in the Magna Carta. He concluded that judgment by one's peers was not a guarantee of trial by jury. Nor was it a guarantee of the right to seek habeus corpus. The reference to judgment by the law of the land was not a guarantee of the right to due process.

Coke and Blackstone (amongst others) were mythmakers. I'm speaking about the 1215 Magna Carta from a historical viewpoint as to what it actually was.

You said, it was just my opinion that it had never been tested.

It won't be tested as the monarch is constitutionally bound follow the formal advice of his responsible ministers. You'll never see it tested.

I showed you where the Australian parliament website says we don't know because it has never been tested.

What it did say was "....in other than exceptional circumstances, the Governor-General will follow the advice of a Prime Minister who retains the confidence of the House."

And exceptional circumstance would be when the Prime Minister doesn't retain the confidence of the house (for whatever reason) and the Prime Minister (and hence his government) refuses to resign in favour of an alternative Government.

In 1975 it was the rejection of Government bills that paved the way for the dissolution of government in order to resolve the deadlock between the government and the opposition and the prime minister refusing to resign or to advise an election after failing to resolve that deadlock. If a Prime Minister cannot obtain supply, including money for carrying on the ordinary services of responsible government, he/she must either advise a general election or resign.

You said the Magna Carta had nothing to do with the 'rule of law'.

I said it was not the beginning of the rule of law, as you claimed it was.

I showed you where Blackstone, one of the most revered legal scholars, stated that rights can be traced back to the Great Charter (the Magna Carta)...you said he something something Blackstone bla-bla-bla.

The popular view of Magna Carta, which you espouse largely derives from the ways it was mythicised during the 17th-century conflict between parliament and the early Stuart monarchy. Edward Coke’s views influenced a number of prominent later lawyers, including Blackstone, in what is now called the 'Whig interpretation of history'. I've explained repeatedly what the Magna Carta was in 1215.

And seeing you brought up Blackstone, he also wrote that "very many of the articles, contained in the charter of King Henry the first, were in substance afterwards repeated in that of King John".

As an aside, how unimportant the Magna Carta was in 1215 can be demonstrated by Shakespeare when he wrote his play 'King John' sometime between 1587 and 1598. No mention of the Magna Carta was made at all.

As I've said, most historians these days see the Magna Carta as an essentially feudal document, but also argue that it was picked up by politicians and lawyers over 400 years later and paraded as a charter of rights and liberties of almost unlimited scope, when in fact it was nowhere near that.

You said the King has no power to do nuffin.

Walter Bagehot attributed three rights to the sovereign – "to be consulted, to encourage and to warn". This means that the monarch warns and encourages her ministers them to behave in a manner that is legal, constitutional, and in accord with proper procedure.

This means the monarch can exert influence before final decisions are made and according to Anne Twomey "averts any need to exercise her reserve powers...." Informal advice' is provided first to the monarch’s private secretary. It is only once approval is given to the informal advice that formal advice from one or more of the monarch's responsible ministers is given, which the monarch must accept. Why do you think it is done this way? Because the monarch must accept formal advice from her responsible ministers.

In the Constitution, command of the ADF is vested in the GG.

"as the King's representative." Section 68. Yeah? So?

It is written in bold font on all Australian naval vessels "HMAS". What does that stand for?

"His Majesty's Australian Ship." So what. The Monarch is the personification of the Crown. What's your point in mentioning this?

I don't need to find any constitutional expert to refute your nonsense.

Of course you don't. You don't have one.

It is just opinion. You can dress it up in any way that you choose. Putting the words 'scholarly' or 'expert" in front of opinion doesn't change the fact it is still opinion.

Opinions that have more weight than yours. And opinions you haven't been able to refute.

You have demonstrated many times how badly you suck at history.

You give a distorted view of history as I've shown over and over again. Some of your erroneous statements about King John, Magna Carta, Henry VIII and ancient Israel have proven to be completely made up or warped by you to suit your own agenda. Some of your ignorance has made me laugh though.

On top of demonstrating, again, how badly you suck at history, this time you have also demonstrated how badly you suck at constitutional law.

You're certainly no constitutional expert. You haven't addressed any of the comments of constitutional experts mentioned.

 

[Fire]

After the GG not only failed to stop Scott Morrison taking multiple ministries, but was actually a party to it, there are no longer any valid arguments to remain with the monarchy.

The only benefit it has is an oversight against authoritarianism. Which it has proven itself not to be.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

After the GG not only failed to stop Scott Morrison taking multiple ministries, but was actually a party to it, there are no longer any valid arguments to remain with the monarchy.

The only benefit it has is an oversight against authoritarianism. Which it has proven itself not to be.

The problem is Who has that oversight and how is invested in them. Surely DNA as a basis for choice is from Lala land?

 

[Roylion]

After the GG not only failed to stop Scott Morrison taking multiple ministries, but was actually a party to it, there are no longer any valid arguments to remain with the monarchy.

A minister can exercise the power of another minister. Section 19(4) of the Acts Interpretation Act says a reference to a minister in an Act can include a reference to another minister who is acting on behalf of the first minister.

However this is usually when the first Minister is unavailable. It certainly isn't appropriate for ministers to be secretly appointed to exercise statutory powers. Such actions are supposed to be notified to parliament and formally published so members of the public can know who is entitled to exercise those particular powers.

However it is not the role of Governor-General to publicise the appointment. That is up to the government.

Morrison was appointed to multiple ministries by an administrative instrument by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Professor George Williams, of the University of New South Wales has made the point that the Governor-General had "no choice but to act on the advice of the prime minister. It’s important to realise he had no discretion." However, the Governor-General does have the ability to ask for further information, or give advice to the government, but even then it’s up to the PM if that advice is acted upon. Constitutional expert Anne Twomey agrees when she wrote at the time "The governor general was never really in a position not to do it."

Twomey went on to say..."The question is whether he used his rights to warn or seek advice.It’s quite conceivable he really didn’t know [the appointments would be kept secret]. "I’m reluctant to express criticism of the governor general, especially not knowing what he was told."

 

[Fire]

A minister can exercise the power of another minister. Section 19(4) of the Acts Interpretation Act says a reference to a minister in an Act can include a reference to another minister who is acting on behalf of the first minister.

However this is usually when the first Minister is unavailable. It certainly isn't appropriate for ministers to be secretly appointed to exercise statutory powers. Such actions are supposed to be notified to parliament and formally published so members of the public can know who is entitled to exercise those particular powers.

However it is not the role of Governor-General to publicise the appointment. That is up to the government.

Morrison was appointed to multiple ministries by an administrative instrument by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Professor George Williams, of the University of New South Wales has made the point that the Governor-General had "no choice but to act on the advice of the prime minister. It’s important to realise he had no discretion." However, the Governor-General does have the ability to ask for further information, or give advice to the government, but even then it’s up to the PM if that advice is acted upon. Constitutional expert Anne Twomey agrees when she wrote at the time "The governor general was never really in a position not to do it."

Twomey went on to say..."The question is whether he used his rights to warn or seek advice.It’s quite conceivable he really didn’t know [the appointments would be kept secret]. "I’m reluctant to express criticism of the governor general, especially not knowing what he was told."

I never said what he did was illegal. I said he was useless. The role provides no oversight or checks and balances, and can easily become party to eroding democratic norms and systems. So why have it?

 

[Roylion]

I never said what he did was illegal. I said he was useless.

As I've been saying the monarch and his/her vice-regal representatives are bound to follow the formal advice of their responsible ministers, (those have the confidence of the lower house).

The role provides no oversight or checks and balances, and can easily become party to eroding democratic norms and systems. So why have it?

The checks and balances on both the Sovereign and the office of the Governor-General works very well.

The very rarely exercised reserve powers are vested in the monarch and exercised in Australia by the governor-general, who can reserve a decision of royal assent to the monarch.

Those reserve powers are not vested in the office of the governor-general. The King cannot over rule the assent of the Governor-General to a law without the advice of his responsible Australian ministers, but has the option do so (Section 59), if advised to do so by those same Australian ministers, within a year of the governor-general's royal assent being granted.

The whole point of reserve powers vested in the monarch and his/her representatives is that those reserve powers mostly operate in the background and operate as an incentive to appropriate behaviour by politicians (who as Ministers are 'responsible advisers') in delivering a responsible government. They're not a royal or vice-regal veto that can be exercised at will, as some have implied. Responsible advisers are those ministers who hold the confidence of the lower House of the Parliament and who are responsible to the people through the Parliament for the advice that they give to the monarch.

If a Minister (including the Prime Minister) loses the confidence of the lower House of Parliament, then the monarch / governor-general does not have to follow their formal advice in exercising their powers.

 

[Fire]

As I've been saying the monarch and his/her vice-regal representatives are bound to follow the formal advice of their responsible ministers, (those have the confidence of the lower house).



The checks and balances on both the Sovereign and the office of the Governor-General works very well.

The very rarely exercised reserve powers are vested in the monarch and exercised in Australia by the governor-general, who can reserve a decision of royal assent to the monarch.

Those reserve powers are not vested in the office of the governor-general. The King cannot over rule the assent of the Governor-General to a law without the advice of his responsible Australian ministers, but has the option do so (Section 59), if advised to do so by those same Australian ministers, within a year of the governor-general's royal assent being granted.

The whole point of reserve powers vested in the monarch and his/her representatives is that those reserve powers mostly operate in the background and operate as an incentive to appropriate behaviour by politicians (who as Ministers are 'responsible advisers') in delivering a responsible government. They're not a royal or vice-regal veto that can be exercised at will, as some have implied. Responsible advisers are those ministers who hold the confidence of the lower House of the Parliament and who are responsible to the people through the Parliament for the advice that they give to the monarch.

If a Minister (including the Prime Minister) loses the confidence of the lower House of Parliament, then the monarch / governor-general does not have to follow their formal advice in exercising their powers.

You are putting in a lot of thought and effort into your responses, but you really aren't engaging with what I have been saying.

You claim that the checks and balances work well, but then go on to describe a rubber stamp. I am not sure how you arrived to that judgement, but its clear that you are talking past me. I am not going to be able to change your mind, and you haven't put in any effort to change mine.

 

[Number37]

You're certainly no constitutional expert. You haven't addressed any of the comments of constitutional experts mentioned.

They've provided their opinion on what they think might happen.
Opinion.
You seem to be confused about what the word opinion means.

 

[Roylion]

They've provided their opinion on what they think might happen.

Expert opinion. Where's your expert opinion that supports your claims?

Opinion.
You seem to be confused about what the word opinion means.

I'm well aware of what 'opinion' is. Address what those who are expert in their field have said.

 

[Number37]

I'm well aware of what 'opinion' is.

Nek minnit

Expert opinion.

 

[Roylion]

Nek minnit

So you can't. I've known that from the start.

 

[Number37]

So you can't. I've known that from the start.

When you understand what the word opinion means, then let's resume this chat.

 

[Roylion]

When you understand what the word opinion means, then let's resume this chat.

I've told you already I know what 'opinion' means. I provided expert opinion. You provided nothing in support of your claims.

 

[Number37]

I've told you already I know what 'opinion' means.

Nek minnit

I provided expert opinion.

You know that expert opinion is still only opinion, right?

Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation.
Pape is a law lecturer and barrister.
4:3 judgment.
In case you don't know what that means:
4 judges disagreed with Mr Pape.
3 judges agreed with Mr Pape.

That's 8 experts.
Half gave one expert opinion.
The other half gave the opposite expert opinion.


I even bolded and underlined 'expert'.