«It is also critical that
constitutional recognition does not prevent or make void any efforts by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to assert their rights as sovereign peoples or to pursue a treaty.
There could also be a negative impact if
constitutional recognition did notoccur.
Not exact matches
Notably, although Dignitatis Humanae
does recommend religious freedom even in instances when «special civil
recognition is given to one religious community in the
constitutional order of society,» it
does not suggest that the two are incompatible (s. 6).
There is nowhere in the constitution that any ministerial portfolio has been created... So far as they have ministerial roles and functions, the only Minister who has been given
constitutional recognition is the office of the Attorney General so with due respect to him, I
do not see how he will have any serious argument to press home either in the court or within Parliament because it is pathetic... I am afraid his argument is jejune.
While the dispossession and domination of indigenous peoples in the other English - settler countries (Canada, New Zealand and the United States)- especially through the nineteenth century - was not significantly less oppressive than in Australia, those countries
did not so systematically, in such bald legal and
constitutional terms, deny the indigenous peoples any
recognition or rights.
This
does not obviate the possibility of acknowledging formal knowledge of the existence of Indigenous legal and political systems at a
constitutional level or at the common law, as in the case of Mabo The functional approach advocated by the ALRC enables both the
recognition of the continuing existence of Aboriginal law and custom and sufficient flexibility for Aboriginal people to be self - determining in the definition of customary law.