Senate passes Carbon Tax

So you cannot tell us what provisions of the constitution GG's discretion would be dependent on. When you said, "but this discretion is dependent upon the provisions of the Constitution" you actually didn't know what you were talking about, you can't answer the question.
So you cannot tell us what provision/s in the constitution require the GG to give assent to a particular law. That must mean such provisions don't exist. And they don't, do they?
Why can't you strike down my reasoning why s.58 allows the GG to withold assent to 'legal' laws with contrary reasoning of your own?
You have already shown us Twomey's opinion but none of her paper addressess the fundamental wording of s.58 which you are relying on in this debate. Why can't you give us the reasons why you think the words 'but according to this constitution' mean the GG must give royal assent?
My reasoning with respect to s.58 stands until you can provide more persuasive contrary reasoning.

 

The Australia Constitution.
Section 1:
The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament

NOT the whim of a Governor General - a Federal Parliament

Do you understand?

I though you may have understood the point of having a Constitution. My apologies for underestimating your ignorance.

Because it is not reasoning. It is ignorant nonsense.

Read the paper you quoted by Downing. Where does it describe the powers prescribed by s58?

S58 DOES NOT give the GG the power of veto.

You are wrong. Grow up and admit it.

The words are "subject to the Constitution".
As the Twomey paper said - the powers of s58 could only be applied where:
It could only be legitimately exercised to uphold fundamental constitutional principles such as representative and responsible government, and then, only in circumstances where the matter could not be dealt with by the courts.

We are still waiting for you to tell us which fundamental constitutional principle would be upheld by the GG withholding assent to the Clean Energy Bill

 

Fail.
Yes the GG can not create legislation, But the question was, "what provisions of the constitution the GG's discretion would be dependent on".
Why can't you answer the question?

Fail.
The question was, "Why can't you strike down my reasoning why s.58 allows the GG to withold assent to 'legal' laws with contrary reasoning of your own?"
Why can't you answer the question? Why can't you provide 'contrary reasoning of your own'?

Fail.
The statement was, "You have already shown us Twomey's opinion but none of her paper addressess the fundamental wording of s.58 which you are relying on in this debate".
You failed to address it and started talking about something completely different.

Fail.
Getting childishly picky now are we? The question was, "Why can't you give us the REASONS why YOU think the words 'but subject to this constitution' mean the GG must give royal assent?
Why can't you answer the question? Why do you only ever give us someone else's opinion? Can't you think for yourself?

 

LOL I just love it when I am right.......

 

hahahhhahahh