So I keep hearing this theory of sorts pop up every now and then in conversations or discussions around the Internet whereby people state the Constitution isn't a legally bound document due to XYZ.

Usually people are using it as a defense for getting out of some form of judicial proceedings.

Figured I'd throw it up to the 442 Lawyer Elite to see what people think as well.

-PB

I only did a little bit of Law and from what I remember from a couple of legal courses at Uni is that the Constitutional defines the relationship of different entities within a state and sets the framework for which all legislative and common law can be legally integrated.
Institutions like the High Court of Australia get their powers of Judicial Review of legislation through the Constitution.

People who say it isn't legally binding are crazies because if that's the case then all other legal matters might as well be thrown into the shit pit.

That's where I sit from my zero legal background.

Is the one of those threads where all those people who did half a law degree or one or two units at uni get to their once in a lifetime opportunity to dazzle everybody with their knowledge of law even though they really know fark all and now work in call centres?

Doesn't stop you spouting shit about stuff you know nothing about :lol:

Gets overridden by some number of facebook likes, IIRC.

Fark, and I get hammered for my threads on 'theory'!

Can't let you take a roasting for this one fella.

-PB

Hoff?