There may be confusion on certain aspects of the Constitution (whether United States, Australian, Canadian) and the interpretation and applicability in law (contracts). The information covered here is not exhaustive but is simply a catalyst for further research in applicability to one’s own affairs. Focus is on the Australian Constitution, hereinafter The Constitution.
Many may refer to The Constitution in order to assist in resolving a dispute with an opposite party and may include bringing into a court constitutional clauses and considerations. However, do we really understand what The Constitution is and how it applies with regards to legal matters and to which entities (eg Persons, The People, Man)? Firstly, let’s define Constitutor; “He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another; and this is always a principal obligation.”. It can be thus described that the Commonwealth of Australia has stepped in to pay the debts of the States. Hence, in the Constitution it states; the States shall only coin Gold or Silver. Thus, the CofA is stepping in with it’s own money to pay the debts of the States, so please stop using Gold and Silver (for now).
Therefore, anyone (usually a Person entity) taking a benefit of the Commonwealth of Australia must pay in public funds, eg Australian Dollars (fiat money). Arguments that a debt cannot lawfully be paid is most likely a moot point as one only has to ask: Are you taking a benefit from the Commonwealth? The answer will invariably be Yes. Careful consideration needs to be undertaken when taking such a position on whether a debt cannot be lawfully paid (This is not to say a Creditor cannot resolve a matter for the Person entity).
Constitutional Matters: The People and Persons
Does the Constitution represent man/woman or something else? Both The People and Persons are covered in the Constitution, one legal definition for People is: The aggregate or mass of the individuals who constitute the state (Black’s 5th) – sounds like the people are defined as groups of individuals (in fact persons). We also reasonably know that a Person is a legal entity under the definitions of the various Statutes and ACTs (eg ACT Interpretation ACT for Australia).
Therefore, by objecting to be a Person (or Strawman) but then to use the Constitution as a reference with an opposite party will undermine one’s very own contract eg standing in the private but using a public reference. It would shift you out of the private and back into the public and back to a person entity. The exception to this would be to use a jurisdictional reference to a Constitution that pre-dates the incorporation of Persons (mid 1800s from memory). In the United States the jurisdiction would be the Republic.
In Summary, careful considerations are needed when using Constitutional references that do not undermine one’s position; in Contracts one must be clear, a failure of clarity will lead to presumptions by the opposite party and adjudicator.
This is assembled as one interpretation, there are no doubt others that could be equally relevant.