Given the Sovereign's isolationism as the ideology of heteronomy
against autonomy perpetuated against her own son Prince Charles on the
occasion of his wedding to a divorcee. That mono-gamous gamo-genesis
engaged in as faith based claims to mono-genes [John 1:17-18] as piety
whilst perpetuating heteronomy against autonomy [John 5:43-47], is
incapable of claiming a Judaeo-Christian identity and therefore of
necessity needs to differentiate it's Sovereign being as vitality of
mind and autonomy of Will in perpetuity from the underlying
philosophical mechanism, which gave rise to the hymeneal principle of
morals as heteronomy against autonomy, that were the Categorical
Imperatives of German Fascism of 1933 to 1945.

That one may not only justifiably question the fidelity of her claim to
Judaeo-Christian identity, but regard as invalidated the Letters Patent
to the Australian Constitution of 1901 as declaration made by Queen
Victoria at Westminster on 29th October 1900, to "reserve to Ourselves
Our heirs and successors, full power and authority from time to time to
revoke, alter, or amend these Our Letters Patent."

As a unified system, the Grapple Homoiotic Noumenon proposes political
action by the emendation of invalidated Letters Patent.  That the
formula of progression as the legislative exclusion of individuals with
same gender aspirations from religious married life is as an ideology
of heteronomy against autonomy indistinguishable from German fascism,
and a violation of the 'right of humanity in their own person' as
natural, common law and constitutional right of free-will, perpetuity
of being and belief in God associated to the Commonwealth as an
autonomous sovereignty.

There exists a historical precedent (quite apart from first Australian
contact understood to have occurred in circa 1420 CE) for advancing an
argument on a question of fidelity to the Hyponomic Principle {ie.
under law; subject to law; time as object matter}, that has a
consequential effect upon any sovereign claim within the Letters Patent
to the Australian Constitution of 1901 as declaration made by Queen
Victoria at Westminster on 29th October 1900, to "reserve to Ourselves
Our heirs and successors, full power and authority from time to time to
revoke, alter, or amend these Our Letters Patent" over the continent of
Australia (Nouvelle Hollande) as nomarchy, is entirely dependent upon
recent advances in cosmology in a post Gregorian calendar reform world
of 1582 CE:

a) the production of the English language, King James Bible of 1611 CE
including the anachronism [1 John 5:7] within the epistle's codex
portion on "The Certainty of God's Witness" [1 John 5:6-17], and

b) the meandrous relationship of Australia's eastern shore discovery on
subsequent 'secret orders' during Captain James Cook's (1728-1779 CE)
voyage of 1768-1770 CE and scientific expedition (inc. naturalist
Joseph Banks and the astronomer Charles Green) to observe the planet
Venus transiting the Sun as astronomical event at Tahiti.

To borrow the contemporaneous words of the Philosopher, Immanuel Kant,
the Constitution is therefore a law which is so holy (inviolable) that
it is already a crime even to call it in doubt in a practical way, and
so suspend its effect for a moment, is thought as if it must have risen
not from human beings but from some highest, flawless lawgiver; and
that is what the saying 'ALL AUTHORITY IS FROM GOD' means. This saying
is not an assertion about the historical basis of the civil
constitution; it instead sets forth an idea as a practical principle of
reason: THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE PRESENTLY EXISTING LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
OUGHT TO BE OBEYED, WHATEVER ITS ORIGIN.

Now, from this principle follows the proposition: THE SOVEREIGN HAS
ONLY RIGHTS AGAINST HIS SUBJECTS AND NO DUTIES (THAT HE CAN BE COERCED
TO FULFILL)--Moreover, even if the organ of the sovereign, the ruler,
proceeds contrary to law, for example, if he goes against the law of
equality in assigning the burdens of the state in matters of taxation,
recruiting, and so forth, subjects may indeed oppose this injustice by
complaints (gravamina) but not by resistance.

Indeed, even the constitution cannot contain any article that would
make it possible for there to be some authority in a state to resist
the supreme commander in case he should violate the law of the
constitution, and so limit him. For, someone who is to limit the
authority in a state must have even more power than he whom he limits,
or at least as much power as he has: "Time was, when she was the queen
of all the sciences; and, if we take the will for the deed, she
certainly deserves, so far as regards the high importance of her
object-matter, this title of honor. Now, it is the fashion of the time
to heap contempt and scorn upon her; and the matron mourns, forlorn and
forsaken, like Hecuba. At first, her government, under the
administration of the dogmatists, was an absolute despotism. But, as
the legislative continued to show traces of the ancient barbaric rule,
her empire gradually broke up, and intestine wars introduced the reign
of anarchy; while the skeptics, like nomadic tribes, who hate a
permanent habitation and settled mode of living, attacked from time to
time those who had organised themselves into civil communities."
[Immanuel Kant 1781, Preface to Critique of Pure Reason]

That, should there be any further cosmological discovery as scientific
endeavours or improvements of our rational understanding as to these
norms of nature as 'the universal order established by the Creator',
that such 'State of Mind' could justifiably have an effect upon
fidelity to the originating 'binding or obligatory norm': "In this
act [of marriage] a human being makes himself into a thing, which
conflicts with the right of humanity in his own person. There is only
one condition under which this is possible: that while one person is
acquired by the other as if it were a thing, the one who is acquired
acquires the other in turn; for in this way each reclaims itself and
restores its personality. But acquiring a member of a human being is at
the same time acquiring the whole person, since a person is an absolute
unity.

That this right against a person is also akin to a right to a thing
rests on the fact that if one of the partners in a marriage has left or
given itself into someone else's possession, the other partner is
justified in retrieving a thing." [Immanuel Kant]

As my autonomous and sovereign natural and common law expression of
religious and political belief and activity as right is
Constitutionally compliant, lawful, articulated and circumscribed by
number and language as a unified system.  Empirically validated by
Australia's 28 year geodesic total solar eclipses for: 4 December 2002
and 25 November 2030, and compatible with the number schema deployed
within jurisprudence as paradigm of mind and being.  Which has been
articulated according to the encyclical metaphysical architecture
intrinsic to language and chronological overlay as claimed compliance
to the principles of individual, government and non-government
organisational and military accountability [#51, #66, #77, #37 -
Non-Deeming Action/ Administration of Government, #31 - Military
Strategies as Guides/ Quelling War, #62, #40, #57, #21] and [#43, #43,
#9, #30 - Government without Coercion/ Be Chary of War, #30, #34, #3,
#2, #59] expressed as a "require[ment] and command [for] all Our
Officers and Ministers, Civil and Military, and all other the
inhabitants of Our said Commonwealth to be obedient, aiding, and
assisting unto Our said Governor General, or, in the event of his
death, incapacity, or absence, to such person or persons as may, from
time to time, under the provisions of these Our Letters Patent,
administer the Government of Our said Commonwealth" and the notion of
'Administration of Government' conveyed by Paragraph 8 of the
Letters Patent to the Australian Constitution of 1901.

- dolf
-
<http://www.sybilline.bigpondhosting.com/Chronicles/charlescarter.html>