[blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <richard.hills at immi.gov.au>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> Herman De Wael:
>
> [snip]
>
>>When at last you will realize that there is a huge dilemma
>>here, maybe we can go on to trying to figure out which of
>>the two laws has precedence?
>
> Law 75C:
>
> ".....a player shall disclose all special information
> conveyed to him through partnership agreement....."
>
> Law 75D2:
>
> ".....nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has
> been made....."
>
> Australian Constitution, section 92:
>
> "On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade,
> commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by
> means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be
> absolutely free....."
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> Section 92 of the Aussie Constitution was inserted to get
> rid of the internal tariffs which the six Aussie colonies
> had imposed on each other before Federation in 1901.
>
> But for its first eight decades of existence, the
> Commonwealth of Australia could not fully exercise the
> powers specifically granted to it elsewhere in the
> Constitution (section 51).

> This was because the De Wael
> School justices of the Aussie High Court interpreted the
> section 92 phrase "absolutely free" out of context to
> rule that absolutely anything the Federal Government did
> which might impinge on interstate trade was unconstitutional.

I should think that a readily apparent 'solution' would have been to amend 
[replace the passage] the Constitution to reflect what had been intended 
when the original had been agreed,  But, as I suspect, the 'agreement' to 
the original was probably predicated on the belief of one side that the 
court would uphold the interpretation of duties permitted, kept quiet their 
plan, and got it into the Constitution by so bamboozling the other side.  If 
indeed it ws intended 'no duties between states'  then the voters ought to 
readily approve such an amendment.

> Nowadays the High Court sensibly limits its interpretation of
> "absolutely free" to the originally intended meaning of
> "absolutely no customs duties".
>
> Likewise, Herman's hangup with "indicate in any manner" can
> be resolved if Law 75C and Law 75D2 are placed in the context
> of Law 20F1:
>
> ".....replies should normally be given by the partner of a
> player who made a call in question (see Law 75C)."
>
> Since "normally" you are prohibited from explaining your own
> calls, Law 75D2 is a supplementary Law to Law 20F1, defining
> a circumstance when "normally" does not apply.
>
> So, in my opinion, the Law 75C / 75D2 paradox is resolved by
> using the Law 20F1 context.

Not withstanding  the meaning of the passages of law. it was my 
understanding that the words of each passage stand independent of the rest, 
and are applied so without regard to context [as has been demonstrated by 
the rebuttal of my assertions that context is relevent].

regards
roger pewick

>Pard does their own thing
> explaining and alerting your calls, and you do your own thing
> explaining and alerting pard's calls.  If your explanation
> and alert of pard's calls is inconsistent with a previous
> alert or explanation by pard, tant pis.  Since, according to
> the De Hills School, Law 75D2 is merely supplementary to Law
> 20F1, Richard Hills chooses to always obey Law 75C when asked
> a direct question and/or obey the Aussie alert regulation
> when under a direct obligation to alert.

> There is a second, more powerful, argument in favour of the
> De Hills School over the De Wael School.  When answering a
> direct question from an opponent, Richard Hills always tells
> the truth as he sees it.  When answering a direct question
> from an opponent, Herman De Wael sometimes lies in order to
> avoid giving UI to his partner.  When choosing how to
> interpret the Lawbook when two Laws paradoxically conflict,
> I prefer choosing Truth, Justice and the Law 75C Way.
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
> National Training Branch, DIAC
> 02 6225 6285