On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:54:20 +0000, actionforum@comcast.net actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
Now if the queen or governer general could invalidate the constitution, you might have an argument that Austrailia was not a republic or true constitutional monarchy. The fact that the constitution gives these positions their limited roles, makes Austrialia a type of republic, more correctly referred to as a constitutional monarchy, because that is more specific.
As I said before, I am not aware of any commonly accepted definition of 'republic' which includes constitional monarchies.
In any case, I really doubt that everyone on this list is interested in this discussion. I suggest [[Talk:Australia]] or [[Talk:Republic]].
Steve