Australia

I'm happy you've looked up the definition of race. My comment was about your use, not the definition.

Now we are on the same page, i'm sure you can see that the use of the word 'race' didn't meaningfully capture the kind of group we're talking about.

Unfortunately you've applied my use of the word irrevocable too broadly. Fair enough there was no explicit mention of group. I was inferring the ability of Parliament to remove without replacement, not the general populace, who always have the referendum option for constitutional change open. We had previously discussed the need for parliamentry restraint as a key reason for the Voice, therefore i didn't feel a need to re-establish the notion. Nonetheless, now we understand each other on that point also.

Your last point is good, and i largely agree with the sentiment. The problem with the US constitutional example is that its not an example of an irrevocable law, and no law should be thought as irrrevocable in the broad sense. They could and probably should amend their constitution.

Lack of gun reform in the US is actually a problem of their legal and political systems losing the essence that makes the Western legal system strong. Our legal systems are supposed to slowly react with the changing world, be it a local Magistrate interpretting common law, or the Constitution, these legal instruments are built as changeable entities. Because as you rightly point out nothing can be truly irrevocable. (And this is why i am personally worried about the increasing codification of laws, like the police assault offences i highlighted earlier).

With my clarification of parliament being unable to revoke a Voice power, i hope you understand the misunderstanding between our positions.