Arron wrote in another thread
" Section 44 has been acknowledged by the High Court as being written too broadly, Nash, Joyce and Xenophon will be found to be lawfully elected, because the High Court has stated in the past that merely having a foreign country bestow citizenship on an Australian is not sufficient to have them be ineligible for Parliament"
2 out of three aint bad
The High Court has acknowledged that Section 44 was too broadly written:
Justice Brennan said specifically of Section 44(i) "To take an extreme example, if a foreign power were mischievously to confer its nationality on members of the Parliament so as to disqualify them all, it would be absurd to recognize the foreign law conferring foreign nationality."
That's pretty much what I wrote in regards to those members, they were not foreign born, have never been recipients of foreign favours, and have merely had foreign citizenship bestowed on them by foreign powers, without action or request of the members in question.
If my thinking matches that of a former High Court judge then I am quite happy in my thinking.
The Budding Lawyer wrote
"The High Court needs no desire for adventurism to rule Joyce, Canavan, Nash and Xenophon valid. The very first paragraph in my post quoted by you states that the High Court has previously noted Section 44 as being too broadly written for a 'black and white' reading. It has previously stated that the position of these four are in is unlikely to be determined invalid."
2 out of 4 your improving
The High Court doesn't need to have desire for adventurism, indeed the High Court is not bound by its previous decisions. The panel can rule as they so wish on the day with no recourse in appeal or need for consistency with prior judgements. You being widely read would already know this?
Again, I would suggest you read comments from Justices William Deane and Mary Gaudron, both of whom have expressed views in line with my own.
They suggested that those who had taken out Australian Citizenship decades prior to entering Parliament, did not avail themselves of foreign social security, passports, etc should not be found foul of Section 44(i), even if they had not actually undertaken to lose their foreign citizenship.
Of note here is that we are talking almost exclusively of those born in Australia
and therefore being potentially entirely unaware of their foreign citizenship status.
Of those born overseas, it should also be noted that it used
to be common practice for the Australian Citizenship Oath to include the line 'renouncing all other allegiances.'
The Legal "expert" wrote
"How does one renounce what they do not know they have?"
Since when was ignorance of the law an excuse?
Since at least Walden v Hensler 1987 HCA 54; 163 CLR
And for a long time pre that too! - Walden v Hensler is just a nice easy precedent that been cited in about 140 cases around Australia, and more than a few times in Canada too, likely other countries, but I got bored searching after that.
That is of course a High Court finding, so you need to know as discussed above, the High Court is not bound by that finding, and may well find that they need to find something else next time a similar case comes up...
Ignorance is not generally an excuse, but courts have long held that reasonable people can from time to time find themselves outside of the law, without necessarily having actually committed anything dishonest.
FYI, the quote these days is closer to 'ignorance of law which everyone is supposed to know about does not afford excuse'.
Credibility does not seem to be your strong point
Credibility is what you make it, sometimes you use valid reasoning and make mistakes, predicting the outcome of High Court actions is always fraught with danger, I have outlined my reasonings, the High Court reasoned otherwise.
When it comes to the actual topic of this thread though, you're still trying to make -300MW +100MW look like a positive outcome. Good luck with that, post us your credible answer to how that works...