It is important government continue – and be able to be properly scrutinised – during this time of crisis, and the Australian Constitution allows it to be done electronically.
The short answer is 'yes' - the states can impede people moving across borders if it is for the protection of public health.
Two former high court justices and constitutional experts have thrown their support behind the importance of a First Nations Voice to parliament.
The Constitution says that the governor-general can only act to fill a vacancy in the prime ministership if there is one - but in this case, some complex questions would have arisen.
Media companies' legal challenges to the legitimacy of recent AFP raids will allow the courts to clarify where the line is between national security and press freedom.
At a recent constitutional convention, high school students from across the country designed a new preamble to the Constitution to bring it into line with their idea of how Australia should be.
We now wait for the final count of seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate - and in the meantime, government continues.
First, change the constitution. Then, negotiate the detailed design of the First Nations voice to parliament: this is the only way to bring about meaningful reform.
The short answer is no. But the longer answer is that it has a complicated history (and the best remedy remains at the ballot box).
A decision to award A$2.5 million compensation for loss of native title marks an important shift in how such claims are handled.
While the Constitution was brought into play in the debate on this bill, it actually has little to say on the matter – and the government can still govern despite its passing.
There has been recent speculation that governments could advise royal assent not be granted if bills are passed against their wishes. Here's why this is very unlikely to happen.
A minority government would not mean the government would fall - but it would make governing more difficult.
Problems with section 44 of the Constitution have absorbed a great deal of time, money and energy over the past year – it's time all politicians worked towards genuine reform.
It is possible the home affairs minister is in breach of Section 44(v) of the Constitution – and if the High Court were to find him so, it would cause yet another headache for the government.
Just when we thought the dual citizenship debacle was coming to an end, there may be another sting in our Constitution's tail.
A report into the dual citizenship saga provides a number of practical recommendations to improve compliance with section 44 of the Constitution, but also confirms there is no easy fix.
Ahead, the choice is between a patch-up or a proper solution. The patch up is inevitable in the short term but is a cop-out as a long-term answer.
Today's High Court decision against Katy Gallagher has clarified how to interpret the constitution on this matter. But the problem of dual citizenship can only be properly fixed by a referendum.
Today's High Court decision on whether Labor Senator Katy Gallagher is eligible to hold her seat will have significant implications for the whole parliament.