Politicians Rule Australia, not Courts

Public health and conflict of rights in Australia are considered ‘political questions’, not ‘legal questions’ for courts to decide.

This segment is from a full interview with Constitutional Law expert Dr Ben Saunders from Deakin University:


Our Private Community:
The Crew Mailing List:
The Podcast:
The Video Archive: &

Our Town Hall on Ethics with Acting Senior Sergeant Krystal Mitchell:

ABC article by Dr Ben Saunders:

Written by Discernable


Leave a Reply
  1. Thanks Matt, I'm totally open to learning and discovering more that I didn't know every day. Even shocking news is valuable for growth. It's necessary. It's definitely a shift in the consciousness of people that's liberating.

  2. Politicians don't run anything – they're puppets for the deep st@te – they run everything! It's too simplistic to discuss politics. This event has been in planning for a long time. Yes, people are fighting back with protests but the majority of people still haven't woken up to the big picture.

  3. When the court is there to Essentually play govt enforcer. There is NO justice to be found in that system. Its essentially China but with a slightly higher case win rate. Probably only when it's not against the govt of course.

  4. This is garbage.. court is the only place you will find remedy' but this man is right in the fact that everyone assumes this.. even the judge's themselves.. we have a Covenant with our original constitution not the green garbage one.. common law trump's statute law everyday in the world of Reality

  5. Isn't it a question on whether legislature can change constitution? We have a constitution that they pretend they could change by legislation, but is not a fact that referendums are the only things that can change constitution?

  6. The government's lawyers think they are above our jurial system- this must change.

    It is abuse of executive power

    The Australian government are in breach of human rights – look at immigration detention centers.

    They are nasty cruel an unjust with there two tier law system.

    Blind justice will sort them out soon – the pain they inflict on others will soon come to light

  7. Australians have been subjected to British colonial law. Australians and citizens from other nations are encouraged to read an important document titled; "Australia the Concealed Colony", written by F.J. Coningham Ph.D. from the Institution for Constitutional Education and Research" on behalf of all Australians.

    The document was presented to the sovereign peoples of every Member State of the United Nations and forwarded to the administrative departments within the United Nations.

    Activist Ian Henkey published a book based on the document, but it was banned. The AFP removed it from shelves.

  8. This guy is SO FULL OF SH !T. Please genius explain Breen v Williams ,Rogers V Whitaker High Court also Wong v Commonwealth . Please genius explain the prerogative exercised by the courts to oversee faulty legislation. The opinion expressed in this video contradicts completely the boundaries set by Federation establishing the Commonwealth Constitution. No wonder we have people doing as the CHO mandates because morons like the guy interviewed here do not read the legislation and advise people that there is no choice but to follow the mandate.

  9. An 🐘 in the room: someone or a group of people wrote or amended the current laws/legislation and no one or no group of people have got voted into office and amended or unamended any laws/legislation to honour the original or legally amended constitution.

    Was every amendment through out history legal then, or now? I’m not sure.

    Thanks for great content, I enjoy watching your channel and listening to the guests you have on.

  10. But doesn't federal legislation Trump state legislation if there is a conflict?
    I have been told by two different lawyers that, no, that is only if it's a federal offence, then by another, yes that's right, and it is for any thing you are bringing to the courts.
    So which one is right?
    Thank you.

  11. Why would Australians create a human rights framework that holds them accountable?

    Moreso, why would any nation?

    It's a magic trick, that's waved in front of people with one hand. While the hand behind their back runs over babies with a lawn mower.

    It is what it is

  12. Dictator Dan Andrews — trying to pass his

    The last sitting days of Victorian Parliament –
    legislation council. .


  13. The government will move to prevent people going on the street. A new SCARE is manufactured – a new variant will do the job.

    FEAR is a powerful tool. ignorance (lack of knowledge) is the real killer.

    Most people don't KNOW things.
    History, medicine, healing by food, law, how to be completely self-sufficient or whatever.
    The time of reckoning is almost upon us. Do we deserve to live in this world? Or can we be conned into genocide via democide.

  14. The time of reckoning is almost upon us. Do we deserve to live in this world? Or can we be conned into genocide via democide.
    FEAR (of the unknown )is a powerful tool.
    Ignorance (lack of knowledge) is the real killer.

  15. The courts deferring to politicians is a positive decision of the judges to do so, not a necessary outcome of their remit. It is a deriliction of duty. Australian Consumer law in the 1970's and 80's established via case law the principle of "unconscionable conduct". This was an example of the courts exercising their full discretionary powers under the Crown, that was later codified. The ACCC website says that "Unconscionable conduct is generally understood to mean conduct which is so harsh that it goes against good conscience". Why should consumer law be the only area of society where there is an exercise of conscience? Or has deciding the weightier matters of the law, been reduced to a mechanistic heuristic process one could program into a computer, the result of which is heartless?

    The ACCC website goes on to state that this conduct that "must be more than simply unfair—it must be against conscience as judged against the norms of society". Ahhh! there's the rub! The relative morality of modern secular humanism. We have drifted away from our Christian moorings and we are now in deep and treacherous waters.

    There is One who would rescue us, and He has spoken previously to the judges and leaders of the people on this matter:

    "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity. You blind Pharisee! first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean.
    (Matthew 23:23-26 RSV)

  16. The premise of this discussion is all wrong. There is no difference between the role of the judiciary and the legislature between Australia and the US as the guest implies. The guest actually mentions why we get different outcomes but doesn't seem to understand it. The difference is in the two national constitutions. The courts role in either jurisdiction is no different. The difference is the US Constitution enshrines various rights which the Australian Constitution does not. The Constitution is the law on which all other laws are made. So any law in conflict with the constitution of a country is invalid. That doesn't change no matter where you are. What does change is what is in each constitution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.