More than 70 university law professors say Voice 'not constitutionally risky' in letter to Australian public abc.net.au/news/2023-10-0… via @ABCaustraliap This is a most welcome intervention. Those peddling this sort of nonsense need to be called out quickly
@alasnich Also the quality of "the letter" was utterly appalling--inferences without shreds of evidence. at least include some texts from the Constitution plz. Any decent postgrad would've done better.
@alasnich And just as many will say it is …
@alasnich No Constitutional Convention, but it is not risky? Right! I am happy with those who are more critical. Here is an example. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Is it risky? This is what the professors say in their open letter on the subject: "Certainly, it is impossible to predict exactly what the High Court might say in the future; this is the case for all constitutional and legal provisions." That is the only CERTAIN thing they found "impossible to predict". Is that a declaration of a risk-free amendment?
@alasnich The ABC - what do you expect youtu.be/oe2Z4v782QQ?si…
@alasnich Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. If people haven’t learned by now that “experts”, especially in academia, are not to be trusted blindly, that’s on them. These people are big only lawyers but also academics. Sure, not biased at all. 🤣🤣
They also say “Certainly, it is impossible to predict exactly what the High Court might say in the future — this is the case for all constitutional and legal provisions”. So, there are risks but may not be overly risky but subject to the type of people we are likely to have on the Voice!