"== Literal text ==
I have changed ""According to the literal text of the constitution, the Governor-General is the representative of the Queen of Australia."" to refer to Queen Victoria instead. I did this to make a point and that point is that the literal text of the Constitution cannot be taken as an unfailingly reliable guide to either practice or law.

Read the Constitution and you will find no mention of the Prime Minister, who is undeniably the head of government, even if one might imagine that this position is occupied by the Governor-General from a cursory reading of the Constitution. The Constitution declares that there shall be an Inter-State Commission, but the truth is that this body does not exist.

Please, if you refer to the literal text of the Constitution, either stick to the literal text and refrain from inserting material that does not belong - you will search in vain for the title ""Queen of Australia"", for example - or qualify it by referring to documents and events such as the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 where the title ""Queen of Australia"" was introduced.  23:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Skyring - It is interesting how your own comments can be used to demonstrate how you add your own point of view - ""I did this to make a point!"". A point about ""literal"" text is make by using the adjective ""literal"". Your point belongs elsewhere.

Anyway, the literal text does not mention ""Queen Victoria"" it mentions the ""Queen"". It further states that the ""Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time"". This is what I has done. Maybe, there is a more accurate way of making this subtitution, but ""Queen Victoria""! That's wrong, wrong, wrong!

Is it? Have you checked the original? I think that you will find that instead of checking, you jumped in with some more untruths. Please think instead of responding when I press your buttons.  21:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I notice you haven't responded to this. Have you checked the original? This is in Parliament House, and is on public didplay.  00:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes I have checked: www.foundingdocs.gov.au

""Not found The page you requested is not available at this address."" I suggest you check the original. I have.  00:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rather than just jump in and make changes after 15 seconds thought, go back have a think for serveral days before you start adding stuff like this!. It just wastes time. Also, when you say ""Please!"", ""Read the constitution"", you are showing contempt for others. 
 01:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When someone makes an obvious mistake like saying the literal text of the Constitution refers to the Queen of Australia, then I am quite justified in asking that person to read it.  21:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you refer to the ""literal text"" of the Constitution you will have to concede that it contains no reference to a ""Queen of Australia,"" and that is because the thought of Australia as a state separate from the British Empire would have been quite foreign to the men who wrote the Constitution.  01:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I explained the substitution logic above and applied it. Then skyring put in ""Queen Victoria"" !!! So I reduced it to just just ""Queen"" (ie no substiution.) I have no problem either way.  11:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let's stick with the Queen, shall we? That's probably the best bet.  21:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thought the point about literal text had been made, but I see that it has not been appreciated. The Constitution does not state that the Governor-General is the representative of the Queen. If you want to quote the literal text of the Constition, then by all means do so, but don't go making stuff up that you think might or should or could be in there, when it clearly isn't.  23:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nowhere in the literal text of the Constitution will you find the statement ""the Governor-General is the representative of the Queen"". Nowhere. s2 states ""A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative"". That is a clear statement of intention. I noted s101 previously, which states: ""There shall be an Inter-State Commission"". There is not an Inter-State Commission, so clearly it is incorrect to say that the literal text of s2 means that the Governor-General is now the Queen's representative, given the example