Moving premises in Adelaide is a task that many people find really engaging. It's a quite a big hassle moving every item in the house or office. Managing the whole process of moving while ensuring your delicate items like furniture do not get damaged or other valuables do not get lost in the process of moving is quite tricky. Furniture apparently makes up the largest bulk of items to be relocated. Whether it is moving your office, house or an institution, furniture will always require specialised care in handling. It therefore calls for good prior arrangements to be done to ensure this vital action of moving furniture ends up successfully.
Individuals have taken up several ideas about effective moving of their furniture. From getting help from family and friends to hiring private vehicles, most furniture owners pick up any idea that comes in mind hoping that they will succeed in the moving process. However, speculation is always not the best thing especially when it comes to safety. It always pays well to be in control; to be sure about the efficiency and safety of furniture in transit. Luckily in Adelaide, there are professional commercial movers who take care of all your worries about your furniture moving. Your task is only to find the very best movers who will give you the best service.
While looking to move premises in Adelaide, a moving company is ideal. Look for movers who promise specialised care in handling your furniture. It means they already recognised the need to have your furniture given ample care. Such a company is run by experienced professionals who understand every aspect of moving process; from storage space to security details to using very efficient and well serviced vehicles. Affective Removals – Affective Removals is that moving company in Adelaide that has won the hearts of many movers in this area. Every credit goes to this moving company because apparently they understand and demonstrates that furniture removals Adelaide need to be handled with special care.
Apparently their word is backed by real actions. Affective Removals Company carries out its furniture moving process sequentially. Loading and packing on special trucks is done carefully. The trucks have been designed and modified to ensure safety of the furniture. This together with careful driving ensures that furniture get to destination in as good condition as before. From the moment they take over the task of moving your property to the end, the experienced staff at Affective Removals act with utmost professionalism leaving their customers stunned at their friendliness and concern on safety. They will pick up your furniture one by one loading them up on their trucks while in the process engaging you in friendly chat especially educating you about furniture handling.
Now as you get mesmerised at the quality service at Affective Removals Adelaide, you might be wondering about their charges. It is no doubt that moving have proved to be quite costly especially because it's never in the budget of many dwellers in Adelaide. Affective Removals realises how you wish your moving does not leave you broke. They therefore offer the best rates in Adelaide and with no hidden charges at any point in the moving process. Discover them today and discover peace of mind with furniture removals Adelaide.


La Haute Cour joue plusieurs rôles fondamentaux au sein du système fédéral australien. En plus de constituer la juridiction d'entrée dans une série de matières – dont celles relatives à l'interprétation et l'application de la constitution, elle est la juridiction d'appel pour toutes les cours suprêmes des états fédérés et les tribunaux fédéraux inférieurs. Ceci signifie que la Cour est l'arbitre final s'agissant des différends portant sur la constitutionnalité des lois issues tant de la fédération que de ses états. La Haute Cour est constituée de sept juges nommés par le gouvernement fédéral qui exercent leur mandat jusqu'à l'âge de 70 ans. Ce faisant, les juges exercent un pouvoir important et institutionnellement indépendant des composantes politiques du système. Dans ce contexte, la plupart des modifications constitutionnelles en Australie ont été adoptées en réaction à la tendance qu'ont eu les gouvernements fédérés à outrepasser leurs pouvoirs constitutionnellement établis. Toutefois, bien que la Haute Court a fait beaucoup pour renforcer la fédération, les états fédérés sont toujours fondamentaux au bon fonctionnement du système gouvernemental. Les états continuent à jouer un rôle important dans la politique fédéral et demeurent des centres d'investissements politiques locaux et régionaux. Dans cette lignée, des développements récents suggèrent qu'il est possible que la Haute Court s'intéresse désormais davantage à la préservation du rôle des états fédérés dans le système constitutionnel australien.
The High Court of Australia performs several judicial functions that are fundamental to the federal system1. It determines appeals from all state supreme courts and inferior federal courts and it has original jurisdiction in several kinds of matters, including those involving the interpretation and application of the constitution. This means that the Court is the final arbiter of disputes concerning constitutionality of laws enacted by the federation, as well as those of the states. The High Court consists of seven judges, appointed by the federal government, who hold tenured office until the age of 70. As such, the judges exercise very substantial powers in a manner that is institutionally independent of the political branches of government. In this context, the most significant causes of constitutional change in Australia have been the tendency of federated governments to press the scope of their powers up to and arguably beyond their constitutional limits and High Court decisions which have mostly affirmed those exercises of power. However, while the Court has done much to strengthen the federation, the states are still fundamental to the system of government. The states continue to play an important role in federal politics and remain vigorous centres of regional and local political engagement. Moreover, recent developments suggest that the High Court may be taking a renewed interest in preserving the role of the states within the Australian constitutional system.
5. CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT AND THE COURTS OF FEDERATED ENTITIES.
1The Commonwealth of Australia is a federation of six states, formed by mutual agreement among six independent, self-governing British colonies in 19012. Federation occurred through the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (U.K.), an imperial statute, which contained the Commonwealth Constitution.
2The Constitution combines the principles of parliamentary responsible government with federalism3. Thus, in accordance with the conventions of responsible government, Commonwealth executive power, which is formally vested in the Queen and exercised by the governor-general as her appointed representative, is in the ordinary course of events exercised strictly on the advice of a prime minister and other ministers of state who have the confidence and support of the Parliament. Secondly, in accordance with the federal principles of self rule and shared rule, the Commonwealth and each of the States are constitutionally preserved as self-governing political communities (ss. 106 and 107) and the people of each State are equally represented in one of the houses of the Commonwealth Parliament (the Senate), while the people of the Commonwealth as a whole are represented in the lower house (the House of Representatives) (ss. 7 and 24).
3No new states have been added to the original six, each of which continues to have the same constitutionally guaranteed status as a self-governing political community. There are also two self-governing Territories and several smaller Territories, all of which are in principle subject to the authority of the Commonwealth Parliament (s. 122). Although the existence of local government is acknowledged in all of the State constitutions4, the State parliaments have the power to subject local government to supervision, control and fundamental reorganisation5.
4The Constitution distributes legislative, executive and judicial power between the Commonwealth and the States. The legislative powers of the States are general or plenary (ss. 106 and 107)6, subject only to the exclusive legislative powers conferred upon the Commonwealth (s. 52) and various general constitutional prohibitions (e.g., ss. 90, 92). By contrast, the legislative powers of the Commonwealth are limited to specific topics (ss. 51, 52)7. The exclusive Commonwealth legislative powers relate to the Australian Capital Territory, places acquired by the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth public service (s. 52). The Commonwealth has broad legislative power with respect to its Territories generally (s. 122). Concurrent federal legislative powers (s. 51) include defence, external affairs, immigration, interstate trade and commerce, trading and financial corporations, banking, industrial arbitration, postal services and telecommunications, currency, marriage, and divorce.
5If validly enacted Commonwealth and State laws are inconsistent, the federal law will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency (s. 109). The States continue to legislate, regulate, and provide services in important areas such as education, hospitals, policing, and civic infrastructure, but the Commonwealth now exercises substantial regulative control in several of these fields by placing conditions on financial grants to the States (s. 96) and by enacting overriding legislation within its concurrent areas of legislative competence.
6As with legislative power, State executive power is not limited to particular topics8, whereas the Commonwealth's executive power is constitutionally defined as extending to the "execution and maintenance of [the] Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth" (s. 61).
7Adjustments to the federal distribution of power can be achieved in various ways, including formal amendment to the Constitution (s. 128)9 and State referral of legislative powers to the Commonwealth (s. 51(xxxvii)). Harmonisation of law also occurs through the enactment of uniform legislation on the basis of "host" laws enacted in one State and adopted by others, through promulgation of "model" legislative schemes that States and Territories "mirror" in their own legislation, and through Commonwealth "framework" laws that only operate in the absence of adequate State or Territory laws10. Despite these arrangements, Australia's Constitution does not formally envisage a role for federal framework legislation. Australia's federal system is quite different from many of its European counterparts, where the integration of the constituent polities (e.g., Länder and cantons) within the governing institutions of the federation is more far-reaching than in common-law federations such as Australia, Canada, and the United States11.
8Each State has its own constitution which is an ordinary statute of the State parliament, enacted under authority ultimately traceable to Orders in Council or British statutes, the effect of which is continued under the federal Constitution (s. 106). The general principle is that the State constitutions can be altered by an ordinary statute of the State parliament, either explicitly or by implication12. The first qualification to this is that the State constitutions are "subject to" the federal Constitution (s. 106) and cannot, therefore, contain anything contrary to its relevant requirements, such as the maintenance of State courts meeting the description of "Supreme Courts" (as referred to in ss. 73)13. A second, now far-reaching qualification to this principle is that the legislative powers of each State parliament are subject to any procedural "manner and form" requirements imposed by a predecessor parliament14. A law made by a State parliament is of "no force or effect" if it is inconsistent with a binding manner and form requirement15. State parliaments have sought to entrench a range of constitutional provisions in this way, including provisions relating to the governor16, the composition, procedures and electoral basis of the parliament17, and the Supreme Court18. Manner and form requirements were originally binding on the Australian colonial Parliaments due to the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (U.K), a British statute that operated within Australian with paramount force. They are now binding on the Australian state Parliaments due to the Australia Acts 1986, enacted simultaneously by the British Parliament and the Commonwealth Parliament with the consent and request of the State Parliaments. However, according to these statutes, manner and form provisions are only binding when the subject matter of the amending law concerns the "constitution, powers or procedure of the Parliament," and so the effectiveness of some manner and form requirements is questionable19. There has been some discussion of alternative grounds upon which State constitutional provisions might be entrenched, but the effectiveness of these grounds is subject to serious doubt20.
9The ultimate relationship between the Commonwealth and State constitutions has not been entirely resolved. While provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution limit State powers (e.g., ss. 90 and 92) and allow appeals to the High Court from State Supreme Courts (s. 73), there is isolated judicial dicta that there are limits on the extent to which Commonwealth legislation, although otherwise validly enacted pursuant to the Commonwealth Constitution, can alter certain fundamentals of the State constitutions, such as the existence and functioning of State courts21.
10At federation, provision was made in the Commonwealth Constitution for the establishment of the High Court of Australia (s. 71), which was given general appellate jurisdiction (s. 73) and original jurisdiction in several kinds of matters (ss. 75-76) including the resolution of constitutional disputes. Although the High Court's jurisdiction clearly extends to constitutional matters, this was not entrenched by the Constitution; it had to be affirmed by legislation at the establishment of the Court in 190322.The jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was preserved in the Constitution (s. 74), but the High Court soon asserted that it was the final interpreter of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and the States (so-called "inter se" matters)23, and between 1968 and 1986 the Privy Council's jurisdiction to hear appeals from Australian courts was abolished24.
11Constitutional jurisdiction is not exclusive to the High Court; any Australian federal or State court may consider such questions, on the basis that all courts are responsible to determine what the law is, and such a determination may on occasion involve application of the Constitution25. The constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is enlivened either when its original jurisdiction is directly engaged or when in the course of ordinary litigation, a party raises a constitutional issue and the matter is removed into the Court or comes before it upon appeal26. The High Court controls its workload by insisting that appeals from state supreme courts and the Federal Court be heard only by special leave27, and by remitting matters commenced in its original jurisdiction to federal or state courts28.
12A strict doctrine of precedent applies in Australia; the determinations of all superior courts bind courts lower in the judicial hierarchy29. The High Court does not regard itself as being bound by its previous decisions30, but only rarely overturns well-established cases, except that it is somewhat more willing to overrule previous decisions in constitutional matters due to the entrenched nature of the Constitution, the Court's role as its final interpreter, and the importance of the issues raised in such cases31.
13The Constitution empowers the Commonwealth to establish other federal courts (ss. 71, 77(i)). The Commonwealth has established the Federal Court of Australia, Family Court of Australia, and Federal Magistrates Court. The independence of the High Court and other federal courts from interference by legislative and executive branches of government is safeguarded by the requirement in the Constitution that judges appointed to these courts enjoy tenure to age 7032. The High Court has vigilantly protected its independence, drawing on the separation of powers implied by the distinct investment of legislative, executive, and judicial power in the legislature, executive, and judiciary (ss. 1, 61 and 71), following the U.S. Constitution in this respect33.
14The most significant causes of constitutional change in Australia have been the tendency of federal governments to press the scope of their powers up to (and arguably beyond) their constitutional limits and High Court decisions which have mostly affirmed those exercises of power34.
15Since its landmark decision in the Engineers Case35 in 1920 the High Court has adopted an approach to constitutional interpretation that is essentially unitarist36. It interprets the legislative powers of the federal Parliament in a manner that excludes from consideration a need to reserve any particular powers to the States. The basis for this approach is the view that the Constitution originally derived its legal force from its enactment by the British Parliament and that it obtains its continuing legitimacy from the support of the Australian people considered as an undifferentiated whole37. On this view, the Court has held that federal powers are to be interpreted as broadly as the constitutional language can reasonably sustain, without imposing any limit on their scope by reference to the merely "residual" capacities of the States, leaving them in an 'inherently vulnerable' position38.
16The High Court has also held that, because the Commonwealth has power to make grants to the States 'on the terms and conditions that it thinks fit' (s. 96), it is able to impose all sorts of conditions on the States, even in areas of recognized State jurisdiction, such as roads, education, and health39. Moreover, although the Commonwealth's power to legislate on taxation is concurrent with the continuing power of the states to levy taxes, the High Court upheld a scheme introduced by the Commonwealth during the Second World War whereby it effectively monopolized the imposition of income taxes40. As a consequence, Australia's fiscal system involves a severe vertical fiscal imbalance between the Commonwealth and the States, which undermines the political accountability of all orders of government and reduces incentives for competitive innovation41.
17However, while the High Court has done much to strengthen the Commonwealth, the States are still fundamental to the Constitution. The States continue to play an important role in federal politics and remain vigorous centres of regional and local political engagement. Why is this so? One reason is the sheer size of the country. Another is the continuing popular attachment to the States as locations of political participation and activity. Moreover, although the High Court has denied that the Constitution guarantees to the States any of the particular powers they have exercised historically, it has insisted that they must continue to exist 'as separate governments … exercising independent functions42, and has occasionally struck down Commonwealth laws that unduly interfere with the States43. The status and position of the states within the federation is thus constitutionally entrenched and remains fundamental to Australia's political system, even though their particular functions and roles have been increasingly overridden by the federal government.
18Moreover, some recent developments suggest the possibility of a renewed interest in preservation of the federal characteristics of the Australian constitutional order by the High Court. For example, in a recent case, the then Chief Justice of the High Court began his judgment by quoting from an observation of one of the framers of the Australian Constitution, Andrew Inglis Clark, which articulated a robust view of the existence and powers of the states. In that observation Clark stated that the Constitution gives effect to 'a truly federal government' in which the 'preservation of the separate existence and corporate life of each of the component states' is as much an 'essential' feature of the Constitution as the establishment of the Commonwealth as an effective government44. In that case the High Court held that the executive power of the Commonwealth did not extend to the entry into contracts and the expenditure of money on projects that are not authorised by either the Constitution itself or by legislation ordinarily enacted by both houses of the Parliament. And in a companion case the Court held that the Parliament did not have the legislative power to authorise the particular payments that had been the subject of those contracts45. This insistence by the Court that the Commonwealth must remain within the limits imposed by the Constitution is perhaps a promising sign for the integrity of the federation, but given the twists and turns that have occurred in the history of Australian federalism, it is difficult to predict where current trends are likely to lead46.
19Members of the High Court and Federal Court are appointed by the Governor-General in Council (s. 72(i)) based on a decision made within the Commonwealth Cabinet on a recommendation by the Commonwealth Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is required to consult with the State attorneys-general47, but the nature and extent of this consultation is not transparent, and there have been calls for reform.
20The High Court presently consists of seven judges48. Despite Australia's federal structure and extensive territory, there is no convention that judicial appointments must reflect geographic diversity; indeed, notwithstanding the requirement for consultation with the State attorneys-general49, the Commonwealth has appointed more than three-quarters of High Court judges from the two largest States, New South Wales and Victoria, and has not yet appointed any High Court judge from the two smallest, South Australia and Tasmania. Some of those concerned by the strongly centralist leanings of the High Court have suggested that in order to redress the balance, appointments to the High Court should better reflect the federal diversity of the country; but there has been no simple correspondence between a judge's State of origin and his or her federal predilections50.
21Most individuals appointed to the High Court have held prior judicial office in either the Federal Court or a State supreme court; occasionally individuals are appointed from the practising bar in one of the States, but this has become increasingly rare51. Relatively few appointees have had political careers52.
22Funding for the federal courts comes exclusively from the Commonwealth. Typically, court budget proposals are prepared annually by the Commonwealth Attorney-General53, with some input from members of the judiciary, and then put before Cabinet for review54. Ultimately, Parliamentary approval must be given to all appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund55. A similar process occurs in each of the States: court budget proposals are formulated by the executive branch56, funds are appropriated from State revenue funds and must be approved by the legislature57.
23Federal courts have a large degree of control over funds allocated to them58 while State courts are subject to much greater administrative control by the executive59.
26The jurisdiction of the High Court includes judicial review of all statutes passed by the Commonwealth, State and Territory legislatures, and all regulations and executive actions by the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments, and their respective departments and agencies. It also extends to the review of all decisions of Federal, State and Territory courts and tribunals and all measures of local governments. Commonwealth and State statutes must comply with the Commonwealth Constitution because the legislative powers of their respective Parliaments are conferred or continued 'subject to' the Constitution (ss. 51, 106, 107). Territory laws must also comply with applicable provisions Constitution, but there is some doubt about the particular provisions of the Constitution that apply within the Territories. Regulations and executive actions undertaken by Commonwealth, State and Territory governments must comply with the Constitution and all applicable statutes62. If a Commonwealth, State or Territory statute is found to be constitutionally invalid the courts may declare it to be void and will refuse to enforce it.
27Challenges to such laws, executive actions and judicial decisions are usually heard at first instance by lower courts in the Federal, State and Territory judicial hierarchies, but ultimately all of these kinds of legal questions can come before the High Court in its appellate or original jurisdiction. Accordingly, the High Court can be asked to determine cases involving the interpretation of the State constitutions and the constitutional effectiveness of their manner and form provisions.
28The High Court's jurisdiction is limited to "matters" (ss. 75-77). This means that it has no general advisory jurisdiction. As in the United States, and unlike Canada, the High Court's jurisdiction is only enlivened when litigants bring a case involving the determination of the particular rights, duties or liabilities of a person63.
29While it is clear that an individual will have standing to challenge a law that regulates conduct in which that person has allegedly engaged, the extent to which a person will have standing beyond that is unclear. It is necessary for a plaintiff to show a sufficient "material" or "special" interest in the matter, and thus an interest greater than that of an ordinary member of the public64, but what exactly this amounts to has been confused, rather than clarified, by recent High Court cases, partly because the parties have often conceded the issue of standing65. However, the Commonwealth and State attorneys-general have standing to challenge the constitutional validity of legislation or executive action of each other66, and individuals who lack standing are able to seek the fiat of an attorney-general to bring the action in the attorney-general's name67.
30The High Court controls its workload by insisting that appeals from State supreme courts and the Federal Court be heard only by special leave68, and by remitting matters commenced in its original jurisdiction to Federal or State courts when appropriate69. When a case involving constitutional issues comes before a court, the court must satisfy itself that notice of the case has been given to the Commonwealth, State, and Territory attorneys-general to enable them to consider intervention in the proceedings or seek removal of the cause into the High Court70. It is common for attorneys-general to intervene in constitutional cases, especially those involving questions about the distribution of power between the Commonwealth and the States. The Court has only infrequently granted leave to persons and representative groups to appear as amici curiae. At the least, they must demonstrate that their legal interests are liable to be substantially affected by a decision in a case and that the Court would not receive submissions relevant to the matters in issue without their intervention71.
31The legislative and executive powers of the Commonwealth and the States are subject to the Constitution. Laws and executive actions that contravene the Constitution are liable to be held unlawful by the courts72. States become aware of court decisions that affect them through the requirement that State attorneys-general be notified by courts when a constitutional issue comes before them73. Published court decisions are made publically accessible74.
32Parties alleging a breach of the Constitution may seek several remedies. Three such remedies explicitly recognised by the Constitution are the common law writs of mandamus, prohibition, and injunction (s. 75(v)). These "constitutional writs" extend to compelling public officials to perform public duties (mandamus) and restraining public officials, especially lower courts or tribunals, from usurping or exceeding jurisdiction (prohibition). The courts can also issue orders quashing decisions of lower courts or tribunals (certiorari), preventing the usurpation of an office (quo warranto), and requiring the liberation of an unlawfully imprisoned person (habeas corpus)75. In addition, where the aforementioned remedies are not available or inadequate, the courts can issue authoritative declarations as to the legal rights of parties and the true State of the law, including the invalidity of legislation, ie, that the law is ultra vires the Constitution76. Although a wide range of remedies is thus available, the High Court has discretion whether to grant a remedy in any particular case. Nonetheless, in most constitutional cases, declaratory or other orders are readily issued once a finding of invalidity has been made, and it is rare for deserving cases to be without a remedy77.
33It is generally accepted that the courts and, in particular, the High Court of Australia, have ultimate competence to determine the scope of power possessed by the various institutions of government in the federation78. When the High Court decides such matters, although there may be criticism and disagreement, the specific finding and its legal implications are widely adhered to by the other institutions and orders of government. Political leaders in the States have, however, not infrequently expressed grave concern about the centralisation of power resulting from High Court decisions. This has, at times, generated heated disagreement between the two orders of government79. Such disagreements often affect the tone and conduct of intergovernmental negotiations concerning the regulation of matters ordinarily within State power. They also create incentives for State governments to pool their political resources against the Commonwealth, such as through the Council for the Australian Federation, a body formed to defend the States in the federal system80.
34As noted earlier, the States have their own hierarchies of courts usually consisting of magistrates courts, district courts, and a supreme court (in some instances including a permanent court of appeal). Members of the State courts are appointed by the State governors on the advice of the State governments. The State supreme courts operate as courts of general jurisdiction in all matters that arise under common law, equity, or statute within the State, which can thus also include constitutional causes. They function as intermediate courts of appeal in State and Federal matters and also have general supervisory responsibility for State law, State institutions, and the State's legal profession81. The two self-governing mainland Territories, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, also have their own supreme courts and systems of magistrates courts.
35While the Constitution empowers the Commonwealth Parliament to confer federal jurisdiction upon State courts (ss. 71, 77(iii)) the High Court has held that State jurisdiction cannot be vested in federal courts82. When conferring federal jurisdiction on State courts, the Commonwealth may regulate the jurisdiction and procedure of such courts, but cannot interfere with their composition and structure, which are matters for each State to determine within the limits prescribed by the federal and State constitutions83. It has also been held by the High Court that the general principle of judicial independence required by the Commonwealth Constitution also protects State courts and applies to State judges because they exercise federal jurisdiction84.
36Because the High Court is the general court of appeal from the supreme courts and those courts are invested with federal jurisdiction, the legal system as a whole has been described as an "integrated system of State and federal courts and organs for the exercise of federal judicial power as well as State judicial power."85.
37The Australian judicial system is profoundly shaped by federalism. The High Court of Australia sits at the top of an integrated court system consisting of federal and State court hierarchies. But despite the thoroughly federal character of the Commonwealth Constitution, there is no requirement that the composition of the High Court must be representative of the States.
38The High Court has both a general appellate jurisdiction and an original jurisdiction to hear, among other matters, constitutional disputes. All State and federal legislation and executive power are subject to the Constitution and Commonwealth and State attorneys-generals have standing to challenge executive and legislative action on constitutional grounds. The High Court's interpretation of the Constitution has tended to be strongly unitarist which has been a significant factor in increasing the legislative and financial powers of the Commonwealth.
39While a broad interpretation of the Commonwealth's legislative and financial powers seems firmly entrenched, the States are still fundamental to the Constitution and there are some signs of a renewed interest within the High Court in preserving the federal characteristics of Australia's constitutional order.
1 This chapter draws on Aroney (N.), "The High Court of Australia: Textual Unitarism vs Structural Federalism", in Aroney (N.) and Kincaid (J.), Courts in Federal Countries: Federalists or Unitarists? Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2017 and Aroney (N.), Gerangelos (P.), Stellios (J.) and Murray (S.), The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia: History, Principle and Interpretation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 2015. The support of Australian Research Council grant FT100100469 is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are also due to Terry East and Terence Le for their very capable research assistance.
2 Lumb (R.), The Constitutions of the Australian States, Brisbane, University of Queensland Press. 1991, 5th edition. The six colonies were separately established between 1788 and 1859.
3 For a fuller account of the federal design of the Australian Constitution, see Aroney (N.). The Constitution of the Federal Commonwealth: The Making and Meaning of the Australian Constitution, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 2009. For a broader contextual account of the operation of the Constitution, see Saunders (C.), The Constitution of Australia: A Contextual Analysis, Oxford, Hart Publishing. 2011.
4 Saunders (C.), "Constitutional Recognition of Local Government in Australia", in Steytler (N.), The Place and Role of Local Government in Federal Systems, Johannesburg, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, 2005, p. 47, 53-56.
5 Aulich (C.) and PIETSCH (R.), "Left on the Shelf: Local Government and the Australian Constitution", Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol 61 n° 4, 2002, p. 14.
6 Carney (G.), The Constitutional Systems of the Australian States and Territories, Melbourne, Cambridge University Press. 2006, p. 106-107.
7 Attorney-General (Cth) v. Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited (1913) 17 C.L.R. 644, 651-4.
8 Carney, Constitutional Systems, chap. 8.
9 A proposed amendment of the Constitution must be (1) passed by an absolute majority of both houses of the Commonwealth Parliament (or by only one house of the Parliament, if after a period of delay the other house fails or refuses to pass the proposed law or passes it with amendments with which the first-mentioned house does not agree) and (2) simultaneously approved by a majority of voters in the nation as a whole and by a majority of voters in a majority of states (s. 128). This procedure is competent to amend the Constitution in any respect, except that changes to the territorial limits of a state or its representation in the federal Parliament can only be made with the approval of a majority of voters in the state concerned (s. 128, para. 5).
10 Wanna (J.) et al, Common Cause: Strengthening Australia's Cooperative Federalism, Council for the Australian Federation, 2009, 20.
11 Hueglin (T.) and Fenna (A.), Comparative Federalism: A Systematic Inquiry, Peterborough, Broadview Press, 2006, p. 145-178, 235-243; Poirier (J.) and Saunders (C.), "Conclusion: Comparative Experiences of Intergovernmental Relations in Federal Systems", in Poirier (J.), Saunders (C.), & Kincaid (J.), Intergovernmental Relations in Federal Systems: Comparative Structures and Dynamics, Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 440–498.
12 McCawley v. The King (1920) 28 C.L.R. 106 (Privy Council), discussed in Aroney (N.), "Politics, Law and the Constitution in McCawley's Case", Melbourne University Law Review, vol. 30, n° 3, 2006, p. 605.
13 Kirk v. Industrial Court of New South Wales (2010) 239 C.L.R. 531, 566, 580-581; Forge v. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2006) 228 C.L.R. 45, 76.
14 Australia Acts, 1986 (Cth) and (UK), sec. 6. Manner and form requirements include approval by an absolute majority of both houses of parliament or approval by voters in a referendum. E.g. Constitution Act 1889 (WA) sec. 73; Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) sec. 53.
15 Australia Acts, 1986 (Cth) (UK) sec. 6; Attorney-General (WA) v Marquet 217 C.L.R. 545 -, -.
16 E.g. Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) sec. 53 purports to entrench ss 11A and 11B (concerning the Governor) by requiring any bill affecting those provisions be approved by a majority of electors qualified to vote in state elections.
17 E.g. Constitution Act 1889 (WA) sec. 73 requires that any Bill that "provides for the abolition of the Legislative Council or of the Legislative Assembly; or…provides that the Legislative Council or the Legislative Assembly shall be composed of members other than members chosen directly by the people; or… provides for a reduction in the numbers of the members of the Legislative Council or of the Legislative Assembly" be passed by an absolute majority of each House of Parliament.
18 E.g. Constitution Act 1975 (Vic) sec. 18 purports to entrench pt. III of the Act, which contains provisions relating to the Supreme Court of Victoria, by requiring any bill affecting these sections be passed by an absolute majority of both Houses of parliament.
19 The meaning of "constitution, powers of procedure of Parliament" is discussed in Attorney-General (WA) v Marquet (2003) 217 C.L.R. 545 -.
20 McGinty v. Western Australia (1996) 186 C.L.R. 140, 296-7; Attorney-General (W.A.) v. Marquet (2003) 217 C.L.R. 545.
21 Re Tracey; Ex parte Ryan (1989) 166 C.L.R. 518, 547, 574-575; Western Australia v. Wilsmore  W.A.R. 179, 181-183.
22 Judiciary Act, 1903 (Cth), sec. 30.
23 Baxter v. Commissioners of Taxation (N.S.W.) (1907) 4 C.L.R. 1087.
24 Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act, 1968 (Cth); Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act, 1975 (Cth); Australia Act, 1986 (U.K.) and (Cth), sec. 11.
25 Cf. Judiciary Act,1903 (Cth), sec. 39 (re jurisdiction of State courts).
26 Matters arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation may be removed into the High Court under an order of the High Court on the motion of a party for sufficient cause or as a matter of course upon application of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, the Attorney-General of a state or the Attorney-General of one of the self-governing mainland territories: Judiciary Act, 1903 (Cth), sec. 40(1).
27 Judiciary Act, 1903 (Cth), sec. 35(2); Federal Court of Australia Act, 1976 (Cth), sec. 33. Such leave is only granted where it is in the interests of the administration of justice and either raises matters of "public importance" or there is a difference of opinion between different courts: Judiciary Act, 1903 (Cth), sec. 35A.
28 Judiciary Act, 1903 (Cth), sec. 44(1).
29 Garcia v. National Australia Bank Ltd (1998) 194 C.L.R. 395, 403, 418.
30 Attorney-General for New South Wales v. Perpetual Trustees Company Ltd. (1952) 85 C.L.R. 237, 244.
31 Zines (L.), The High Court and the Constitution, Sydney, Butterworths. 1997, 4th edition, p. 433-444.;Kirby (M.), "Precedent Law, Practice and Trends in Australia", Australian Bar Review, vol. 28, 2007, p. 243.
32 Australian Constitution, sec. 72. Such judges can only be removed from office on an address from both houses of Parliament on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
33 R. v. Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia (1956) 94 C.L.R. 254.
34 Only eight of 44 constitutional amendment proposals have secured the necessary support of a majority of voters in the nation as a whole and a majority in a majority of states (s. 128).
35 Amalgamated Society of Engineers v. Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 C.L.R. 129, 153.
36 Winterton (G.), "The High Court and Federalism: A Centenary Evaluation", in Cain (P.) and Winterton (G.), Centenary Essays for the High Court of Australia, Sydney, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2004, p. 197; Craven (G.), "The Crisis of Constitutional Literalism in Australia", in Craven (G.), Lee (H.) and Winterton (G.), Australian Constitutional Perspectives, Sydney, Lawbook Co., 1992, p. 1. Although the general tendency of the High Court's federalism jurisprudence has been centralising, several important qualifications should be noted. See, further, Aroney (N.), "The High Court of Australia: Textual Unitarism vs Structural Federalism", in Aroney (N.) and Kincaid (J.), Courts in Federal Countries: Federalists or Unitarists? Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2017.
37 Amalgamated Society of Engineers v. Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 C.L.R. 129, 153.
38 Crommelin (M.), "'Federalism'", in Finn (M.), Essays on Law and Government, Vol I: Principles and Values, Sydney, Lawbook Co, 1995, p. 168, 172.
39 Victoria v. Commonwealth (1926) 38 C.L.R. 399.
40 South Australia v. Commonwealth (1942) 65 C.L.R. 373; affirmed in Victoria v. Commonwealth (1957) 99 C.L.R. 575.
41 Warren (N.), "Designing Intergovernmental Grants to Facilitate Policy Reform", in Kildea (P.), Williams (G.) and Lynch (A.), Tomorrow's Federation, Sydney, Federation Press, 2012, p. 131.
42 Melbourne Corporation v. Commonwealth (1947) 74 C.L.R. 31, 83.
43 Eg, Queensland Electricity Commission v. Co.mmonwealth (1985) 159 C.L.R. 192; Austin v. Commonwealth (2003) 215 C.L.R. 185; Clarke v. Commissioner of Taxation (2009) 240 C.L.R. 272.
44 Williams v. Commonwealth (2012) 248 C.L.R. 156, , , , citing Clark (A.), Studies in Australian Constitutional Law, Melbourne, Charles F. Maxwell (G. Partridge & Co.), 1901, p. 12-13.
45 Williams v. Commonwealth (No. 2) (2014) 252 C.L.R. 416.
46 See Saunders (C.), "Can Federalism Have Jurisprudential Weight?", in Courchene (J.), Allan (J.), Leuprecht (C.) and Verrelli (N.), The Federal Idea: Essays in Honour of Ronald L. Watts, Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2011, p. 111, 127.
47 High Court of Australia Act, 1979 (Cth), sec. 6.
48 High Court of Australia Act, 1979 (Cth), sec. 5.
49 High Court of Australia Act 1979 (Cth), sec. 6.
50 Allan (J.) and Aroney (N.), "An Uncommon Court: How the High Court of Australia Has Undermined Australian Federalism", Sydney Law Review, vol. 30 n° 2, 2008, p. 290.
51 On calls for reform of the appointment process generally, see Williams (G.), "High Court Appointments: The Need for Reform", Sydney Law Review, vol. 30 n° 1, 2008, p. 161.
52 Crawford (J.) and Openski (B.), Australian Courts of Law, Melbourne, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 191.
53 In Australia, attorneys-general are generally members of cabinet.
54 French (R.), "Boundary conditions: The funding of courts within a constitutional framework", Journal of Judicial Administration, vol. 19, 2009, p. 75, 84.
55 See, e.g., Commonwealth Constitution, sec. 83. An Appropriation Act controls budgetary expenditures by appropriating amounts of money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for expenditure by government departments for particular purposes.
56 French (R.), op.cit., "Boundary conditions", p. 84.
57 See, e.g., Constitution of Queensland 2001, Chapter 5; Constitution Act 1889 (WA) Pt VI.
58 On the control of the High Court over allocated funds see High Court of Australia Act 1979 (Cth) Pts. III-V.
59 See French (R.), op.cit., "Boundary conditions", p.86.
60 As noted earlier, Parliament conferred this jurisdiction on the High Court through the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), sec. 30.
61 See, e.g., Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth), sec. 354.
62 However, a Commonwealth statute cannot constitutionally bind a State government or State government agency in a manner contrary to the principle in Melbourne Corporation v. Commonwealth (1947) 74 C.L.R. 31.
63 Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts (1921) 29 C.L.R. 257.
64 Australian Conservation Foundation Inc. v. Commonwealth (1980) 146 C.L.R. 493, 527.
65 Cf. Croome v. Tasmania (1997) 191 C.L.R. 119; Pape v. Commissioner of Taxation (2009) 238 C.L.R. 1; Williams v. Commonwealth (2012) 248 C.L.R. 156.
66 Attorney-General (Vic); Ex rel. Dale v. Commonwealth (1945) 71 C.L.R. 237; Attorney-General (Victoria); Ex rel. Black v. Commonwealth (1981) 146 C.L.R. 559.
67 Occasional examples include: Attorney-General (Vic); Ex rel. Dale v. Commonwealth (1945) 71 C.L.R. 237; Attorney-General (Cth); Ex rel. McKinlay v. Commonwealth (1975) 135 C.L.R. 1; Attorney-General (Victoria); Ex rel. Black v. Commonwealth (1981) 146 C.L.R. 559.
68 Judiciary Act, 1903 (Cth), sec. 35(2); Federal Court of Australia Act, 1976 (Cth), sec. 33. Such leave is only granted where it is in the interests of the administration of justice and either raises matters of "public importance" or there is a difference of opinion between different courts: Judiciary Act, 1903 (Cth), sec. 35A.
69 Judiciary Act, 1903 (Cth), sec. 44(1).
70 Judiciary Act, 1903 (Cth), sec. 78B.
71 Levy v. Victoria (1997) 189 C.L.R. 579.
72 Some scholars have, however, pointed out the difficulties of identifying a textual basis for judicial review in the Constitution and have questioned whether judicial review on federalism grounds can be justified.
73 Judiciary Act, 1903 (Cth), sec. 78B.
74 Lower court decisions not considered of broad significance may be left unpublished.
75 High Court Rules, 2004, Pt. 25. See, generally, Zines (L.), Cowen and Zines's Federal Jurisdiction in Australia, Sydney, Federation Press, 2002, p. 15-16, 46-65.
76 Robert French, "Declarations – Homer Simpson's Remedy – Is There Anything They Cannot Do?" (Paper presented at Faculty of Law, University of Western Australia, 30 November 2007).
77 Garry Downes, "Judicial Review" (Paper presented at the Seminar for the College of Law, Government & Administrative Law, Sydney, 24 March 2011), 4.
78 See Australian Communist Party v. Commonwealth (1951) 83 C.L.R. 1, 262-63, citing Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 U.S. 137; The Queen v. Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia (1956) 94 C.L.R. 254, 267-68; Plaintiff S157/2002 v. Commonwealth (2003) 211 C.L.R. 476, 513-514.
79 E.g., Ted Baillieu, "Speech to the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce," 7 August 2012.
80 Menzies (J.), "The Council for the Australian Federation and the Ties That Bind", in Kildea (P.), Williams (G.) and Lynch (A.), Tomorrow's Federation, Sydney, Federation Press, 2012, p. 53.. On the general ineffectiveness of the Council, see Chordia (S.) and Lynch (A.), "Constitutional Incongruence: Explaining the Failure of the Council of the Australian Federation", Federal Law Review, vol. 43, 2015, p. 339..
81 Crawford (J.) and Opeskin (B.), Australian Courts of Law, Oxford, University of Oxford Press, 2004, 4th edition, p. 27.
82 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 C.L.R. 511, -.
83 Crawford (J.) and Opeskin (B.), Australian Courts of Law, Oxford, University of Oxford Press, 2004, 4th edition, p. 45-46. See Kirk v. Industrial Court of New South Wales (2010) 239 C.L.R. 531, 566.
84 Kable v. Director of Public Prosecutions for N.S.W. (1996) 189 C.L.R. 51; South Australia v. Totani (2010) 242 C.L.R. 1; Wainohu v. New South Wales (2011) 243 C.L.R. 181.
85 Kable v. Director of Public Prosecutions for N.S.W. (1996) 189 C.L.R. 51, 114-5.
Nicholas Aroney, «The High Court of Australie : A Federal Supreme Court in a Common Law Federation», Fédéralisme Régionalisme [En ligne], Volume 17 : 2017, Les juridictions constitutionnelles suprêmes dans les États fédéraux : créatures et créateurs de fédéralisme, URL : https://popups.uliege.be:443/1374-3864/index.php?id=1723.
Professor of Constitutional Law, The University of Queensland.


Tuesday, 3 June 2008, came and went with hardly any fanfare. Hilary Clinton announced that she was "open to being Barack Obama's Vice-Presidential candidate" before suspending her campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination two days later and people around the world reflected on the Chinese government's decision on that day 19 years earlier to roll tanks over student protestors in Tiananmen Square.
In Queensland though, an event of considerable significance to the legal profession as well as the wider community occurred – the handing down of the State budget and, with it, the approval of funding for the construction of the new Supreme and District Courts Complex to replace the aging court complex at the corner of George and Ann streets.
The $600 million Complex, designed by Architectus Brisbane in consultation with Guymer Bailey Architects, will be situated to the west of the Brisbane Magistrates Court, between George and Roma Streets, with the two buildings to be separated by a major public space. The building will provide over 60,000 square metres of floor space and when built will be one of the largest court buildings in Australia.
The new Complex will be a landmark building of considerable civic importance and impact, and its appearance will be consistent with the status and respect accorded to the judicial system and the Queensland context. It will be, after all, one of the three key buildings in the State, alongside Parliament House and the Executive Building, housing the three institutions of government - the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary.
The Complex will be built by Bovis Lend Lease, with site works due to commence this month and construction scheduled to start in March 2009. Completion is expected in 2011 and, if that occurs, its opening will coincide with the 150th Anniversary of the Supreme Court.
The new Complex is the product of a design competition announced in August 2006 by then Premier Peter Beattie that drew submissions from Australia's leading architectural firms. The vision of the Chief Justice, the Honourable Paul de Jersey AC, for the project was for a design that does not present as a "fortress, the very antitheses of 21st century accessible Justice".
On 1 June 2007, Mr Beattie announced that Architectus and Guymer Bailey Architects had produced the winning design and, since then, a considerable amount of work has been undertaken in the development of the schematics and associated design materials.
The Complex will be a 19-storey building of stunning appearance and unsurpassed functionality. It will double the floor space of the existing building, with dedicated wings for civil and criminal trials, supported by separate lifts and pathways for the security of judges, jurors, prisoners, witnesses and members of the public. The additional courtrooms will significantly increase the number of trials that can be run each year, supported by much improved jury facilities, carers lounges, a modern registry, Judges' chambers and secure, monitored custodial cells.
The new building will incorporate environmentally efficient features, with a strong focus on natural light, climate control, water harvesting and recycling, as well as smart energy use and supply arrangements, and is aiming to deliver the equivalent of a five-star greenhouse rating.
The Complex will cater to the special needs of children, vulnerable witnesses and victims of crime by the incorporation of a state-of-the-art recording suite for special witnesses to present their evidence by closed-circuit television. As well, digital audio for transcription services and free wireless broadband access to the Internet for lawyers and other court users will be available throughout the building.
Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Kerry Shine, has said the new building would "transform the capacity of the courts to meet the special needs of children, vulnerable witnesses and victims of crime in a way that just isn't possible with the current facilities".
As Professor Hockings puts it, "Daylight is a subtle, but necessary ingredient of great buildings and a vital informer for clarity, dignity and generously scaled spaces", and that must be especially so in the case of courthouses. However, it is an ingredient that is almost universally lacking in such buildings. Indeed, transparency and openness in such institutions is a radical departure from the traditionally ponderous, poorly lit courthouses designed in response to security and privacy issues. In contrast, the new Complex represents a streamlined modernity and implicit optimism due to its innovative use of daylight.
Indeed, the use of natural light is a major feature of the building. All courtrooms and jury rooms have one external glass wall, along with internal walls with high-level glass allowing the passage of light from public areas. All public areas have extensive views over adjacent streets, the square or parkland. The building's interiors are sheathed in layers of glass to filter external conditions. The resulting lofty, luminous spaces are neither intimidating nor sombre.
The building has a double skin glass façade with integrated screening and glass fritting to achieve shading and light control. This façade will provide both outlook and privacy for those inside the building and an external appearance of lightness and transparency.
This multiple glazed walling system provides the ultimate in adaptability and flexibility. For instance, the external layer comprises a full wall of glass that is variously fritted or translucent where required for privacy and security. It also protects against heat and glare. In the cavity between the inner and outer layer of glazing, fully adjustable blinds and screens provide additional sun protection, privacy and security while allowing high levels of daylight transmission and outlook. The double glass façade is also used as a duct to supply cool air to the building on the southern façade and to exhaust air from the northern façade.
The inner layer is again a wall of glass in a double-glazed section which is clear for maximum light and view, insulates noise, dust and heat gain, or loss, across the seasons.
Featuring a simple 'L' plan, with two wings of courtrooms at right angles to each other, each floor holds six courts – four criminal courts in one wing and two civil courts in the other, thereby clearly separating civil from criminal matters. A central hall or core on each level provides public waiting spaces along the northern edges of the 'L' and overlooks the Roma Street Parklands. This layout places the criminal courts in the George Street wing and the civil courts overlooking the new public square. The public and circulation spaces join the two wings and look out to the Roma Street frontage.
The main public entrance will be off the new square and a secure public garden on the Roma Street frontage will be accessible only from inside the building.
All courtrooms and jury rooms have one external glass wall, along with internal walls with high-level glass allowing the passage of light from public areas. All public areas have extensive views over adjacent streets, the square or parkland.
The building will be physically integrated with the adjacent Brisbane Magistrates Courts, using existing vehicle entrances and sharing some building systems. It will also have sufficient capacity to accommodate further technical innovations during the life of the building over the next half-century.
Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Kerry Shine, said the building included capacity to "accomodate further technical innovations during the life of the building over the next half-century".
The floor area of the Complex including its common areas will be approximately 60,000 m2. Provision will be made for ancillary plant, equipment and support services (including emergency power generators), required to allow the building to operate efficiently.
A large public square between the building and the adjoining Magistrates Courts will be a major feature of the shared court precinct and the principal access to the various court facilities on the site. The square will also link the new Tank Street pedestrian and bicycle bridge that is currently under construction with the Roma Street Parklands. The development has been oriented to give maximum sunlight to the square and is designed to improve the amenity of the area for workers and visitors, as well as to increase accessibility and connectivity to this growing part of the CBD.
The Roma Street boulevard frontage will be provided with a large landscaped garden with extensive clumped planting in accordance with Brisbane City Council streetscape design code requirements. Improving existing pedestrian and cycling circulation around and through the site (including pedestrian access to public transport services in George Street and Roma Street Transit Centre) are important objectives.
Other initiatives will include ensuring a safe pedestrian environment within the public square particularly in the vicinity of main entranceways to buildings, and convenient and legible access to the future ramp across Roma Street for pedestrians, people with a disability and cyclists. Vehicular access to basement parking on the site will be a shared arrangement with the existing Magistrates Court from Roma Street.
The new building will add a highly contemporary element to historic George Street that contains the principal civic buildings including Parliament House, the Executive Building, State Government offices, the old Lands Administration and Treasury buildings as well as the new Magistrates Courts. As such, Professor Hockings comment on the placement of the site on this axis as being "charged with meaning and symbolism" is particularly apt. The design also pays homage to the wider city plan. All of the principal buildings in George Street provide a civic space rather than simply lining the pavement in the manner of commercial high-rise developments. The larger site made available for the project meant that this convention could be continued, but the result will be a major new addition to Brisbane's public squares. It will without doubt become a significant "people place" in the heart of the City.
Note: The perspectives featured above are indicative only, and are subject to change.


text:
Golden Landis Von Jones (born November 13, 2000), known professionally as 24kGoldn, is an American rapper and singer. In 2019, he rose to fame with his single, "Valentino", peaking at number 92 on the US Billboard Hot 100. It was certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in April 2020. In July 2020, 24kGoldn's single "Mood" (featuring  Iann Dior), topped the Billboard Hot  100, becoming the highest-charting song of his career. His debut studio album, El Dorado, was released in March 2021.

Early life
Golden Landis Von Jones was born in San Francisco, California, to an Ashkenazi Jewish mother Kimberly Landis and to an African-American Catholic father Torino Von Jones. He has a younger sister named Sage Landis Von Jones. Both of his parents worked as fashion models before he was born. He was raised celebrating both Christmas and Hanukkah, and attended Hebrew school. As a child, 24kGoldn acted in commercials. He sang in the choir in middle school and high school, and, with that, the importance of music in his life grew with his "own growth". Before he realized he could do music professionally, he planned on becoming a hedge fund manager. 24kGoldn attended Lowell High School, a selective public high school, where he graduated in 2018.

24kGoldn attended the University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business, joking that they accepted him because of a double entendre in "Valentino",  where he joined the Beta-Sigma Chapter of Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity, as a Spring 2019 initiate. He initially took a leave of absence from school to pursue his rap career. 24kGoldn stated that he was not anticipating "that things were going to happen so fast when I came to USC", and did not think he would finish University, but he wanted to round off the school year to further develop the relationships he made, stating his love for being on campus, and that being a student kept him "grounded".

Career
In 2017, 24kGoldn released his first music video for his first song, titled "Trappers Anthem". In January 2019, he released the single, titled "Valentino", which received over 350 million plays on Spotify. He received his first record deal through producer D.A. Doman. 24kGoldn got his big break through his "high-energy" single "Valentino". However, in 2020, the artist said that "those ['Valentino'] were recorded over a year ago and don't exactly reflect the person I have become since then". In November 2019, 24kGoldn released his debut extended play (EP), titled Dropped Outta College, and he signed a record deal with Records, LLC and Columbia Records. In 2020, 24kGoldn gained further attention with single, titled "City of Angels", which was officially released to US alternative radio on March 31; as well as he follow with an official remix of the song by English singer-songwriter Yungblud, released in May 2020. On May 20, 24kGoldn was featured on the remix of Olivia O'Brien's single "Josslyn".

On August 11, 2020, he was included on XXLs 2020 Freshman Class, placing in the tenth position after receiving the most fan votes. Later that same month, 24kGoldn's July 2020 single, titled "Mood" (featuring Iann Dior), hit the charts. It went on to peak at number one on the US Billboard Hot 100. In October 2020, these four episodes of Halloween in Hell, a fictionalised musical horror podcast that Jones starred in, were released. The series also starred Iann Dior, Machine Gun Kelly, Dana Dentata, Phem and Tommy Lee.

On March 26, 2021, he released his first studio album, titled El Dorado. The album features thirteen songs, which features guest appearances from Future, Iann Dior, Swae Lee and DaBaby.

Artistry
24kGoldn's music spans a variety of genres, motivated by his want "never ... to be constricted by one genre". Regarding his style, he stated: "depending on what song you listen to, my music can be described different ways". He attributes his "maturity and development" to rapper Paypa Boy & 24Kay, who initially got him into recording music.

Discography

Studio albums

Extended plays

Singles

As lead artist

As featured artist

Promotional singles

Guest appearances

Collaborative

Filmography

Tours

Headlining
 The El Dorado Tour (2021)
 Better Late Than Never (2022)

Supporting
 Wiz Khalifa & Logic – Vinyl Verse Summer Tour (2022)

Notes

References

2000 births
21st-century American rappers
Living people
21st-century African-American male singers
Jewish American musicians
African-American Jews
Jewish singers
Columbia Records artists
Hip hop musicians from San Francisco
West Coast hip hop musicians
Singers from San Francisco
Jewish rappers
21st-century American Jews
Singer-songwriters from California
Pop rappers
Emo rap musicians
African-American male singer-songwriters

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Abstract : In this work we extend our study on a link between automaticity and certain algebraic power series over finite fields. Our starting point is a family of sequences in a finite field of characteristic $2$, recently introduced by the first author in connection with algebraic continued fractions. By including it in a large family of recurrent sequences in an arbitrary finite field, we prove its automaticity. Then we give a criterion on automatic sequences, generalizing a previous result and this allows us to present new families of automatic sequences in an arbitrary finite field.


This post has been sponsored by Clos du Bois and SeaPak. All thoughts and opinions are my own. The following content is intended for readers who are 21 or older.
Lately, I have been focusing on eating healthier and getting my house cleaned up. You might say that I am giving up clutter for Lent. While it feels great to start Spring cleaning early, it is also extremely time-consuming. My meal prep has been suffering.
To keep organizing and get dinner on the table, I have been focusing on easy meals with shortcuts and a pre-dinner glass of wine to help me relax. I picked up a few prepackaged items to make this Thai shrimp recipe like SeaPak (R) Butterfly Shrimp, zucchini noodles, and bell pepper sliced into strips.
You can quickly make your own zucchini noodles, slice your own peppers, devein your own shrimp, but I am looking for time savers to get a yummy healthy dinner on the table as quickly as possible.
As I get dinner ready, I like to break open a bottle of Clos du Bois Chardonnay. The Clos du Bois Chardonnay has bright, fresh flavors of apple, pear, and citrus mingled with hints of butter and toasty oak, creating the perfect wine for when you want to unwind. Speaking of unwinding, check out the SipBackRelax.com promotional offer for Clos du Bois and SeaPak products.
The Clos du Bois Chardonnay is tasty on its own and also pairs well with this Thai Shrimp Recipe. It also pairs well with chicken, cream sauce, and more.
Another favorite of mine that is a perfect wine pairing with shrimp is the Clos du Bois Sauvignon Blanc. This wine offers mouthwatering flavors of citrus, melon, and white peach mingled with aromas of lemongrass and a crisp, clean finish. Clos du Bois Sauvignon Blanc pairs well with your favorite salads or shellfish dishes.
Cut a piece of ginger off the ginger root.
Using a spoon, peel the skin off the ginger root.
Use a grater with small holes to grate the ginger over a small bowl.
Spiralize the zucchinis and chop the bell peppers.
Grate the ginger and the two garlic cloves.
Juice the limes and dice the Jalapenos.
Start baking the 1/2 Package of SeaPak Butterfly Shrimp Family Size by following the instructions on the box.
While the shrimp bakes, combine 1/4 cup of almond butter, two tablespoons of Coconut Aminos, two tablespoons of fresh lime juice, one tablespoon grated ginger, 2 Garlic Cloves grated ~ 1 tablespoon, 1/2 teaspoon diced jalapeno in a bowl and mix with a fork until smooth.
Mix the almond sauce, zucchini noodles, and bell peppers.
When the shrimp is finished baking, mix them in with almond sauce and veggies.
Since we have been focusing on getting healthier, we have been avoided eating soy. Coconut Aminos is the answer to getting a soy flavor without eating soy sauce. If you don't have this issue, feel free to replace the Coconut Aminos in this recipe with Soy Sauce. Both soy sauce and Coconut Aminos pair well with SeaPak Shrimp and Clos du Bois wine.
Grate the ginger and the 2 garlic cloves.
While the shrimp bakes, combine 1/4 cup of almond butter, 2 tablespoons of Coconut Aminos, 2 tablespoons of fresh lime juice, 1 tablespoon grated ginger, 2 Garlic Cloves grated ~ 1 tablespoon, 1/2 teaspoon diced jalapeno in a bowl and mix with a fork until smooth.
Mix together the almond sauce, zucchini noodles, and bell peppers.
Feel free to save this Thai Shimp Recipe with Almond Butter Sauce. Thanks!
Please enjoy Clos du Bois wines responsibly.


Montag or the library-in-the-making explores the links between literature and the visual arts, reflecting artists' unflagging interest in the literary medium. It brings together some thirty works on the subject, either in the form of adaptations of famous texts via the visual arts (sculpture, videos, installation, design, etc.) in particular, or by directly reworking the textual matter, subjecting it to a host of transformations, new twists, recoups and other 'affronts'. A final section is devoted more specifically to libraries, as well as to books, which are regularly the targets of censorship in repressive political regimes; in view of such violations book production has become stronger than ever among artists for whom literature remains an unrivalled field of experimentation and who are highly instrumental in its revival.


How Russia exported kleptocracy to the US.
Washington told itself a comforting story that minimized the importance of this outbreak of kleptomania: These were criminal outliers and rogue profiteers rushing to exploit the weakness of the new state.
How Russia exported kleptocracy to America: When the USSR fell, officials plundered, and US banks welcomed their loot.


Counselling & Psychotherapy for abuse, anxiety, depression, trauma, sexuality, addictions, anger, couples counselling, bullying, self-esteem, panic attacks, OCD and miscarriage.
Offering support for individuals and couples, Brian is a professionally trained Counsellor and is also a qualified Relationship Counsellor. Brian works closely with his Clients for their wellbeing, either for short term or longer term counselling.
We offer the following services at Open Minds Centre: 1. Integrative Psychotherapy / Counselling 2. Clinical Hypnotherapy 3. EMDR, CBT 4. Training .


text:
en Français in Italiano
The Lithuania Tribune, March 15, 2022
Olivier Dupuis and Carmelo Palma
NATO's Ukraine policy – which combines strong political support, substantial military logistical support and strategic restraint – is certainly not perfect. It is surprising, for example, that the Atlantic organisation did not anticipate events, by providing anti-missile and anti-aircraft defence systems to Ukraine in good time. It was clear that the resounding failure of the Russian president's "special operation" would inevitably lead him to opt for a strategy of terror, to "Chechenise" the war by targeting civilians and creating millions of refugees – not least in order to destabilise the whole of Europe and increase the costs of its solidarity with Ukraine. Nevertheless, the resilience of NATO and its remarkable unity proved wrong the hasty judgment that it was brain-dead. NATO is alive and its brain is too.
The same cannot be said of the European Union. The decision taken in Versailles is still not a real answer to the urgent request of the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to settle once and for all the question of Ukraine's EU membership. It is a sign, if not of brain death, then at least of the EU's deep coma. The preparatory work for the Versailles summit revealed the resistances lurking within the founding countries themselves. The final document recognises Ukraine's membership of the European family but does not give a timetable for the necessary family reunification. It shows how the various delaying strategies stem from a profound misunderstanding of the opportunities and risks involved. Ukraine has long since ceased to be a country that one can decide whether or not to welcome into the EU. In practical terms, it has already become the frontier of the confrontation between the EU and the expansionist aims of the Russian Federation. A Putin victory in Ukraine would not only be a victory against the government in Kyiv, but also against those in Berlin, Rome, Paris – and against the institutions of the Union. Any future agreement between Russia and Ukraine must also be an agreement on the security of Europe.
The question of Ukraine's accession to the Union is more central and "existential" for the EU member states than the resolution of a regional crisis in its eastern neighbourhood.
Alongside the military question – i.e., the creation of a framework for Ukraine's future security, whether through withdrawing or freezing Ukraine's application for NATO membership, through neutrality status, or by any other proposal accepted by the Ukrainians – EU accession is a powerful guarantee against any future attempt by Moscow to destabilise and interfere in Ukraine's internal affairs. At the same time it is an instrument for strengthening the rule of law and democracy in Ukraine.
EU accession is certainly not a gesture owed by the Union to President Zelensky, a kind of compensation that the Ukrainian leader could offer to his people for their sacrifices. He will not need to be forgiven for anything. He embodies his whole people's will to resist and to be free, and he is leading this resistance with his government and his army.
Three times in the last two decades – in 2004 with the Orange Revolution, in 2014 with the Revolution of Dignity, and now in the resistance against Russian aggression – the Ukrainian people have shown the world and a dozing Europe their indomitable desire for freedom and their tremendous aspiration for democracy and the rule of law. It is in the Union's strategic interest to take Ukraine out of the geopolitical no-man's land where it is stuck and to integrate it into the concert of European democracies.
It would also be a tangible manifestation of Europe's determination to eradicate the potent European forces working in the service of the Kremlin. This fifth column, which is steeped in the revanchist, chauvinist and fundamentally violent ideology of the Russian president, has won over large sections of European public opinion and significant parts of the European ruling classes: political, military, academic and media.
These powerful forces are still at work. They are working today to torpedo the opening of the process of Ukraine's accession to the Union. Their objective: to resume business as usual with Moscow as soon as possible. They now have their standard-bearer in the person of Mark Rutte, the Dutch prime minister. In a complete break with the spirit and the letter of the consensus reached at the Versailles summit, he declared afterwards that the Commission's assessment "will take time — months, maybe years, before you get to anything".
In peacetime this statement by the Dutch premier would be a serious breach of the EU's formal and informal rules of operation. In times of war, such as the present, it is nothing less than sabotage. This is surprising coming from someone who recently spoke out in favour of abolishing the unanimity rule in foreign-policy matters. Less surprising when one knows the character's penchant for delay. He was prime minister when his country organised a grotesque referendum on the EU-Ukraine association agreement, setting back Ukraine and the other EU member states by two years.
The Versailles accord provides for the granting of candidate-country status to Ukraine, a prerequisite for the formal opening of accession negotiations. Now it falls to the institutions concerned to follow up on this. The Commission will give its opinion in the next few days and the Council of Ministers will pronounce on it at its next meeting on 21 March. Any delay would send a very clear message of disengagement to both Kyiv and Moscow.
As for the fast track, mentioned several times by President Zelensky and which seems to worry Mark Rutte a lot, it does not imply special favours for Ukraine. It simply means making Ukraine's accession a political priority for the Union.
(Translation by Harry Bowden | Voxeurop)
This entry was posted in Europe and tagged European Union, Netherlands, Russia, Ukraine. Bookmark the permalink.
Posted on 15 mars 2022 by olivierdupuis
← Ukraine : l'Otan peut attendre, pas l'Union européenne
Rutte e gli altri →
2 thoughts on "Ukraine and the Dutch shopkeeper"
Pingback: Rutte e gli altri - L'Européen
Pingback: L'Ukraine et le boutiquier hollandais - L'Européen

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


On Wednesday, the consultant working with the Prison Relocation Commission publicly released information about six sites on its short list as well as how it ranked 26 sites initially proposed for the new Utah State Prison. You can read its site selection report at this link.
And this document shows how the top 14 sites were rated based on key criteria — proximity, land and environment, infrastructure, community services, development costs and community acceptance.
The commission voted to accept the six sites on the consultant's short list; those sites will now go through more detailed evaluations. It also approved additional guidelines for reviewing the sites, including land conditions, population density and local/state future economic development plans. And the commission said additional sites may yet surface.
The commission's next meeting is set for Dec. 22.


You're not really crafting if your hands stay perfectly manicured!
Time to play catch up again! I've been very busy with projects and I need to discipline myself to post regularly. I know that many other crafters know how that is. It is more fun to craft than to sit at the computer most days!
So here are my latest projects, the ones I can post at least. I have a big one that is going to remain hidden for a bit since it is a wedding shower gift and I don't want to tip off the bride that there is a surprise for her and her groom.
This canvas project is a keepsake gift for a bridal shower that took place last month. Shane and Melissa are getting married on April 6th and I wanted to commemorate the event for them.
Using their home color scheme as a guide, I created this small canvas that sits on a wooden plate stand. I used acrylic paints for this piece. A wooden heart adds dimension to the canvas. Eyelet lace surrounds the perimeter. Congrats!
And here is the happy bride-to-be at the shower displaying the new sign.
This window frame piece was originally a cupboard door (from what I could tell). It was for sale for a great price so I couldn't resist! Using chalk paint I have basecoated the piece in one of my favorite turquoise shade of blue. From there I made a crackle layer with mucilage school glue. (I found some that was in a pen-like container so it made it really easy to apply!) After the glue got tacky I then brushed white chalk paint over top and like magic it crackled. I sealed the whole piece with my fave General Finishes High Performance Topcoat.
For accent, I attached a long country garland that had beads, rusty hearts and leaves. Down the road I may put photos behind the glass but for now I like it as it is.
A plain wooden plaque painted with acrylic paints is for a new baby girl. After painting and lettering I glued a wooden heart to the plaque to add dimension. Light distressing along the edges adds a bit of character. This baby girl truly is made of sugar and spice and everything nice!
Back in 2014 I picked up the file cabinet (featured in an earlier blog update) and a walnut wooden table. Time was at a premium so I didn't start working on the table until recently.
After a good cleaning, I started 'slopping' on three different colors of chalk paint all over the table surfaces. It almost looked like a bright camouflage pattern. After that was dry, I put a coat of white chalk paint on top of the entire piece. Then came the fun part....I wet distressed the white, rubbing to expose the various shades of blue and a bit of the walnut original wood.
After I was happy with the look I waxed the table with clear wax and then highlighted different areas with dark wax. It will become my sewing table.
I am always happy to donate items to local fundraisers and this scarf is a good example. It will be included in the silent auction grouping for a church sale. Using double strands of yarn, this long scarf with fringe is lightweight cotton so is suitable for accessorizing on not-so-chilly days and evenings.
That's it for now. I am thinking of re-vamping the way I present this blog so may be making some changes in the future.


Southend-on-Sea, Essex. Southend's history as a holiday resort dates from the early years of the last century when the villages of Leigh and Prittlewell commenced that expansion which now stretches along the mouth of the Thames estuary for some 7 miles. The mention of the name Southend evokes an almost automatic response - "The Pier", and with its length of almost 1 ½ miles it is in fact the longest in the world - a far cry from the small wooden jetty erected in the 1830s. The pier with its railway, its amusements and its arcades caters for the fun-seeking tripper as well as serving as a port of call for the ships which make the voyage to London and the French ports. Excitement may be found, too, at the famous Kursaal, where every possible fairground device makes the season one long Bank Holiday fair.
The quieter side of life may be found at the resorts along the coast - at Westcliff, with its Edwardian bandstand, and at Thorpe Bay on the other side of the pier. As it has grown, so Southend has swallowed the villages which were once its neighbours. Eastwood, Leigh, Prittlewell, Shoebury and Southchurch once had separate identities, and each still retains something of its old character. Of the old churches and buildings which remain, the oldest are the ruins of Prittlewell Priory, founded c. 1110 in Priory Park by the Benedictines. The churches of Prittlewell, Southchurch, Eastwood and South Shoebury have Norman work and those of North Shoebury and Leigh are interesting though later.
Porters in Southchurch Road, Southend, is the Mayor's Parlour and is early 17th-century. South-church Hall, now a library, was a moated manor house of the 14th century, while Thorpe Hall along the boulevard is dated 1668.
Find availability in a Southend-on-Sea bed and breakfast, also known as B&B or b and b, guesthouse, small hotel, self-catering or other accommodation.


In the event of an emergency, the injured employee should call 911, seek immediate medical attention at the closest facility and report the injury to the employer as soon as possible.
If the employee requires additional medical or rehabilitation services, the employer may be able to choose the doctor. Check with your state resources to learn more, and always select the doctor who will provide the best medical care. This will help to prevent recurring injuries and allow your employee to return to work as quickly as possible.
Do not wait to contact the carrier; some states have a limited window of time after the injury in which the claim can be filed.
Train employees on proper techniques for lifting, operating equipment, handling tools or chemicals, and what to do in an emergency.
Provide and require the use of proper safety equipment such as gloves, protective eyewear, face masks, hair nets and steel-toed boots.
Reinforce a drug-free environment to further reduce the risk of accidents.
Maintain any equipment or tools used by employees to reduce risk of injury.


There are specific scopes of work in a small washroom remodel that may require the knowledge of a trade certain service provider … someone skilled and trained in that trade. Below are a couple of considerations that might save you a few headaches down the roadway.
1. Relocating Walls – Think about hiring a home renovation service provider or small basic specialist if you prepare to move walls. Several walls in your small restroom remodel could be load-bearing which means a designed portion of the total loading or weight from your roofing system or 2nd floor will bear on that wall. To move a bearing wall will need crafted calculations, likely a plan testimonial by your regional governing authority and a certified professional to perform the work. If you attempt to do it yourself, this can become expensive and a nightmare.
2. Wet Work – Think about working with a professional if you prepare to get rid of or relocate a tub, add a shower, change plumbing components such as a commode or a sink or are including lighting or altering lights. A plumbing professional will be able to install a brand-new toilet, drop in a brand-new sink and attach faucets or set a pedestal sink.
3. Hot Work – An electrician will include or relocate outlets. If you are adding recessed down lights in your ceiling, an electrician can suggest a fixture to fit the depth of your ceiling above the drywall. Your electrician can likewise identify if you have enough circulation space around the fixtures so they do not overheat and can likewise advise components that are fit to wet areas. Both of these trades will take care of piping in your walls or floors.
A benefit to employing a makeover or small basic specialist for your bathroom remodel is that not all work is covered by one trade.
A remodel or small basic service provider will be accountable for coordinating and employing all the trades needed to complete the work.
That consists of mechanical, plumbing, electrical, drywall, floor covering, painting, caulking and sealing. Contractually, he is your first line of protection if there are any trade workmanship problems.
Ensure your contractor is accredited, has ample coverage of employees compensation insurance for your state, and service providers basic liability insurance. Have him list you as an extra insured specific to your task.
A professional's warranty is normally 1 year for labor and materials. Manufacturer's guarantees are occasionally longer. For instance, the guarantee from a company like Kohler on a toilet may be 3 years.
When your professional's guarantee expires, any cases against the maker's guarantees will have to taken care of straight by you. Guarantee your professional provides you with all the producer's operations and upkeep information in addition to their guarantee info.


If you have any request to alter your reproduction of View of the Palazzo Mancini on the Corso, you must email us after placing your order and we'll have an artist contact you. If you have another image of View of the Palazzo Mancini on the Corso that you would like the artist to work from, please include it as an attachment. Otherwise, we will reproduce the above image for you exactly as it is.


La Plata County does not require a standard business license. If you are locating a business within a municipality - you will need to contact them directly.
Contact the Planning Department to determine if your desired location may be used for the proposed business.
The County currently does not issue sign permits, however, all signs installed in the county must meet code requirements regarding size, design and location (LPLUC Chapter 98). Please contact Planning Department staff for more information on sign codes.
A special event permit is required for activities at a specific location that may attract 50 or more people, that may attract more than 25 vehicles a day, and that last less than 72 hours. Examples of special events are block parties, festivals and concerts. Private gatherings at private residences that last less than 24 hours and do not charge for admission do NOT require special event permits. Please contact the Planning Department for special event permit applications.
For any event using or crossing a County Road, you must first obtain a Special Events - County Road Use Permit by submitting the application (with required attachments) at least 45 days prior to the proposed event. Applications shall be submitted in person to the County Planning Department at 211 Rock Point Drive at the Tech Center in Durango. Special events using County Roads are approved or denied by county staff.