While I fully understand Australia is under full Marxist attack, this story doesn’t make sense. No definition of “Native Title” I am aware of could be a vehicle for this. Only radical title. Native title is simply possessory rights. Radical title is vested in a sovereign through which all other property rights are derived in western property law. Possessory rights do not equal title or deed.
Native title became famous in Australian law from a case called Mabo v. Queensland. All sorts of fake news was written about that case. As if it were some radical departure from centuries of english common law. It wasn’t. Native title has always existed in the common law. But the doctrine of terra nullius was speciously used to avoid applying the doctrine of native title. In essence, by declaring discovered land idle/vacant, terra nullius vested title in the crown with the crown determining the possessory rights. Which was true of much land taken by the crown. But also, if the native population wasn’t Christian, they would declare terra nullius and just take it. Or kill everyone and take radical title by conquest.
Basically, if Australia wanted to give all this to another sovereign, they could. And Native Title would not be the vehicle to transfer radical title. That simply could not happen. It would be non sensical. A doctrine that grants only possessory rights subject to the sovereign could not convey radical title to another sovereign.
Are you talking about the old birthright citizenship case? Or a different one?
Mabo has a lot more in common with the Marshall Trilogy SCOTUS cases of the late 1820's/early 30's than the birthright citizenship case. The same concept of sovereignty is explored.
I suppose one of the trilogy cases - johnson v mcintosh - might be similar to the birthright citizenship case. The short version is that SCOTUS held that the purchasers did not hold title to the land because the sovereign at the time of purchase was the english crown, and after getting kicked out, the US now had title and did not have to recognize grants from the old sovereign because of the doctrine of conquest. It has been awhile since I read that birthright citizenship case but I believe it had to do with the unification of the crown. Scotland and England had separate kings until something like the 1620s or so...my English history sucks so I am shooting from the hip. And because this guy was born under the new crown he was not technically a foreigner trying to own land in England.
While I fully understand Australia is under full Marxist attack, this story doesn’t make sense. No definition of “Native Title” I am aware of could be a vehicle for this. Only radical title. Native title is simply possessory rights. Radical title is vested in a sovereign through which all other property rights are derived in western property law. Possessory rights do not equal title or deed.
Native title became famous in Australian law from a case called Mabo v. Queensland. All sorts of fake news was written about that case. As if it were some radical departure from centuries of english common law. It wasn’t. Native title has always existed in the common law. But the doctrine of terra nullius was speciously used to avoid applying the doctrine of native title. In essence, by declaring discovered land idle/vacant, terra nullius vested title in the crown with the crown determining the possessory rights. Which was true of much land taken by the crown. But also, if the native population wasn’t Christian, they would declare terra nullius and just take it. Or kill everyone and take radical title by conquest.
Basically, if Australia wanted to give all this to another sovereign, they could. And Native Title would not be the vehicle to transfer radical title. That simply could not happen. It would be non sensical. A doctrine that grants only possessory rights subject to the sovereign could not convey radical title to another sovereign.
Do you see any links between Calvins case and Mabo/native title acts?
Are you talking about the old birthright citizenship case? Or a different one?
Mabo has a lot more in common with the Marshall Trilogy SCOTUS cases of the late 1820's/early 30's than the birthright citizenship case. The same concept of sovereignty is explored.
I suppose one of the trilogy cases - johnson v mcintosh - might be similar to the birthright citizenship case. The short version is that SCOTUS held that the purchasers did not hold title to the land because the sovereign at the time of purchase was the english crown, and after getting kicked out, the US now had title and did not have to recognize grants from the old sovereign because of the doctrine of conquest. It has been awhile since I read that birthright citizenship case but I believe it had to do with the unification of the crown. Scotland and England had separate kings until something like the 1620s or so...my English history sucks so I am shooting from the hip. And because this guy was born under the new crown he was not technically a foreigner trying to own land in England.