🚀 go-pugleaf

David you are so full of shit.

David Moss wrote:

> Sorry Jim, courts cannot change an Act of Parliament. Only an amendment
> by the enacting parliament, or override by a superior parliament can
> change an Act.

Courts cannot change an act of parliament but they are their to
interpret the act of parliament. That is the basis of what I'm getting
at. There is no act of parliament that has been written so perfect that
there will never be a day for the courts to interpret the meaning of the
section. Once the section has been interpreted in one way, other courts
will follow under the doctrine of precedence. The courts can in fact
make laws in relation to an act when they are asked to interpret a
section of the act that is unclear.
Therefore, courts can change the interpretation of a certain act of
parliament.

A superiot parliament, like the federal parliament, can only change acts
of a lower parliament if they have the power to do so. An area such as
euthanasia is under the health area. This area is the sole
responsibility of the states. The federal parliament has no say in the
matter.
 
> Perhaps you should have helped oppose the RTI Act, now that you are
> aware of how dangerous it really was.

Get Stuffed. What a load of shit.

I do admit, if what you say is right in terms of the wording of the act,
that their is area for abuse. However, the first sign of abuse and then
I am sure the DPP will lay charges against such person. This matter
would then have probably reached the Supreme Court for interpretation of
the Act of Parliament.
Courts have been directed to interpret an act on the basis on what the
act is trying to do. They are not necessarily required to follow an act
word for word (and must not if the result would be ludicrous)and can
make a finding based on what the purpose of the act was, using a number
of tools of interpretation such as parliamentary debates. These would
have shown that the purpose of the act was to assist terminally ill
patients who wanted to die.

Stop looking at the act word for word as the act would never have been
upheld in a court of law on a word for word basis (as they are required
to interpret on the purpose of the act)


Jim
-- 
Jim Adamopoulos			Contact: 0419 431 877
Student:   Bachelor of Commerce
Deakin University Australia
e-mail:  jadamo@deakin.edu.au           
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/4861