Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896935052

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-238139

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 2

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XI Seiten, Seiten 570-1100

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part IV. The federations and the union // Chapter II. The commonwealth of Australia

Collection:: Economics Books

$34 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART IV render the analogy of the United States Constitution a very slender one.! Moreover, the natural interpretation of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act is the one placed upon it by the Privy Council, and the interpretation of the United States Constitution is admittedly not a natural one, but one which has been rendered necessary in order to preserve the federa- tion at all in view of the rigidity of the Constitution. The doctrine of necessary implication must therefore be regarded as still open to grave doubt as a permanent rendering of the Constitution of the Commonwealth, for it has been held by Isaacs J.2 that the view laid down by the Privy Council, that the doctrine is not a part of the Commonwealth Constitution, is not merely sound in law, but is binding as a pronouncement on principle of a superior Court on the High Court of the Commonwealth, and Higgins J. holds the same view but in a stronger form, for he thinks that in all cases the High Court should follow the judgements of the Privy Council, whereas Isaacs J. holds that in cases coming within s. 74 of the Constitution the High Court is entitled to come to what decision it thinks fit without regard to a decision on the same matter of the Privy Council. Isaacs d. maintains, therefore, the doctrine that the states cannot interfere with a Common- wealth instrumentality, but in the form in which he upholds this view little exception need be taken to it, for he has declined to see in any ordinary legislation an interference with a Commonwealth instrumentality, and it may well be that even the Privy Council would decline to uphold the authority of legislation which aimed directly at interference with the Commonwealth. That is a very different principle trom adopting an interpretation of the Constitution such as ! The constant doctrine of the sovereignty of the states is really an echo of the Amorican doctrine; but there is the serious difference that the Colonies were never sovereign at all in any strict sense, while the states of the Union were once sovereign and the powers retained are remnants of that sovereignty. To use sovereignty to cover internal autonomy is hardly a convenient use of the phrase. s fluddart Parker & Co. Provrietary Ltd. v. Moorehead, 8 Cc. LR 330, at pp. 387. 390.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation