VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[chasej]

Hi everyone,

Can I just confirm that when the High Court is interpreting the Constitution and comes across an implied rights (eg. freedom of political communication) that a referendum is not able to ever change this, because it is not entrenched or expressly written?

Thanks

It's possible for the constitution to be changed to say 'there is no implied right to freedom of political communication in this country'. I imagine it would also be possible to change the words of the constitution so that the right can no longer by implied by the wording or the system the constitution creates.  But I doubt it would ever happen because a proposal to reduce already limited rights in this country would not garner much support most likely.

It would depend on the wording of the alteration to the constitution and then the high court decision on what happens with them.

I don't think this issue is so relevant though.

[clarke54321]

It's possible for the constitution to be changed to say 'there is no implied right to freedom of political communication in this country'. I imagine it would also be possible to change the words of the constitution so that the right can no longer by implied by the wording or the system the constitution creates.  But I doubt it would ever happen because a proposal to reduce already limited rights in this country would not garner much support most likely.

It would depend on the wording of the alteration to the constitution and then the high court decision on what happens with them.

I don't think this issue is so relevant though.

Okay, thank-you. 

[ccdes0001]

Sorry guys but this is such a basic question but what is the purpose of the division of power...?
Is it just to outline the law making powers between the different parliaments

[chasej]

Sorry guys but this is such a basic question but what is the purpose of the division of power...?
Is it just to outline the law making powers between the different parliaments

What do you mean by the division of power? Are you sure you don't mean separation of powers?

[meganrobyn]

Sorry guys but this is such a basic question but what is the purpose of the division of power...?
Is it just to outline the law making powers between the different parliaments

Yes, the division of power really is just to allocate powers between parliaments! Before federation the states had everything (all law-making powers) and the Cwlth didn't exist. So, as part of federation, they wrote a list of things the Cwlth could make law about in the Constitution, said some were shared but others were totally theirs, and everything not listed stayed with the states. Essentially, to clear up confusion and stop them fighting. We just have the fancy name 'division of powers' for that quite practical agreement.

[swaglord500]

Okay. So I've considered your feedback and attempted to reword my answers for the first question so that I have more of an opinion. Does this work better now?

1) Evaluate the means by which the rights of Australians are protected by the Constitution.

There are three means by which the rights of Australians are protected by the Constitution: structural protections, expressed rights and implied rights.

The fact express rights are explicitly outlined in the Constitution and cannot be amended or taken away without a successful referendum ensures the rights of Australians are firmly protected as the parliament of the day cannot simply revoke the rights of constituents as they so desire. However, we have very few express rights (only five in number – s. 51, s. 80, s. 92, s. 116 and s. 117) and those express rights are often limited by nature. An example of this is s. 80, to do with trial by jury; it applies only to indictable Commonwealth offences. There is no such guarantee for indictable State offences. Thus, while express rights can be effective in protecting the rights of Australians, the fact that there are so few and that the ones we do have are so limited in nature means that the express rights outlined in the Constitution are not very effective in the long run in protecting the rights of Australians.

Implied rights are inferred by the High Court and therefore exist only so long as the High Court says they do. The High Court, however, has no obligation to maintain previous rulings in similar cases when presented with a similar case; thus, it is possible they could rule completely to the contrary to their previous rulings. This means that whether or not an implied right exists depends on the interpretation of the High Court and the judges presiding at the time. As a result, the implied rights of Australians could very easily be taken away by the High Court. Thus, while implied rights can broaden what rights Australians have, the fact that they exist only so long as the High Court says it does means that they do not very securely protect the rights of Australians.

Structural protections are mechanisms written into the Constitution. They are not in and of themselves rights but they should ensure the protection of our rights because they protect against an abuse of power. Thus, while they do ensure the protection in rights as they are structures, they do nothing to broaden the base of rights protected in the Constitution.

--

I still have no idea how structural protections could protect the rights of Australians though. Can someone please explain?

Side note: In your original answer you referred to "HCA interp" is that High Court Interpretation? And what's "full enforceability"?

Wait... you wrote a Legal studies textbook? 

Good answer above 

Re: structural protections-  the 'founding fathers'-who wrote the Constitution- rather than instituting an extensive list of express rights, chose to embed mechanisms within the Constitution to ensure 'good government'- which in turn, would protect the rights of the Australian population.

Representative govt- democratically elected- by the people for the people
Responsible govt- govt responsible to Parl-> responsible to people-> links also to Bicameral system of Parl- Upper house to review/scrutines- holds govt accountable (except if govt holds power in UH)
HC- set up as the 'guardian' of the Constn- determine if govt acting 'ultra vires'
Sep of Powers- prevent abuse of power- checks and balances- blah blah

hope this helps clarify and not too late

[HopefulLawStudent]

I did my SAC two days ago so a little too late but thanks anyway! In case you were wondering, I got 23/25 for my SAC which isn't the best but it isn't the worst either, I suppose. Thanks for all your help to everyone who answered my million and one questions in the lead up, I really appreciate it!

[chasej]

I did my SAC two days ago so a little too late but thanks anyway! In case you were wondering, I got 23/25 for my SAC which isn't the best but it isn't the worst either, I suppose. Thanks for all your help to everyone who answered my million and one questions in the lead up, I really appreciate it!

you should be very happy with 23/25, you're on track to do very well with those scores.

[clarke54321]

Hi everyone,

I know this sounds petty, but I am having trouble writing a meaningful conclusion at the end of my answers. They are often too generic and my teacher says that I will lose marks over this.

I am finding it difficult to make it meaningful without introducing any new points.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated! 

[swaglord500]

Hi everyone,

I know this sounds petty, but I am having trouble writing a meaningful conclusion at the end of my answers. They are often too generic and my teacher says that I will lose marks over this.

I am finding it difficult to make it meaningful without introducing any new points.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated! 

Difficult to give clear direction without seeing your answer- but as a general rule- restate your position and then use evidence form the 'body' of your answer to reinforce your position.

Here is an example of some feedback (in red) given to a student re: a conclusion to an AOS 1 q.

hope this helps

Overall parliament is an effective law maker as the members are elected by the community to represent their values and beliefs qualify this- and as such will represent the values of their electorate during the sitting of Parliament or risk not being re-elected. Additionally, Parliaments ability to delegate their power-enables specialists in the area to be responsible for making laws relating to their area, thus arguably ensuring a more effective representation of community values. (or something similar- like an essay- ensure your ‘overall’ conclusion uses points form your’ body’ to support your stance.)

[clarke54321]

Difficult to give clear direction without seeing your answer- but as a general rule- restate your position and then use evidence form the 'body' of your answer to reinforce your position.

Here is an example of some feedback (in red) given to a student re: a conclusion to an AOS 1 q.

hope this helps

Overall parliament is an effective law maker as the members are elected by the community to represent their values and beliefs qualify this- and as such will represent the values of their electorate during the sitting of Parliament or risk not being re-elected. Additionally, Parliaments ability to delegate their power-enables specialists in the area to be responsible for making laws relating to their area, thus arguably ensuring a more effective representation of community values. (or something similar- like an essay- ensure your ‘overall’ conclusion uses points form your’ body’ to support your stance.)

Thanks Swaglord 

[meganrobyn]

Hi everyone,

I know this sounds petty, but I am having trouble writing a meaningful conclusion at the end of my answers. They are often too generic and my teacher says that I will lose marks over this.

I am finding it difficult to make it meaningful without introducing any new points.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated! 

In Legal Studies you need to have a conclusion, you don't need to write a conclusion per se. Basically, you get marked on quality+quantity of points, combined with relevance/responsiveness to the question. As long as you make your answer relevant and responsive to the question, you don't need a 'conclusion' the way you do in English. If anything, having a conclusion takes away from time to make more points or more detailed points. The Assessor's Report only cautions that students need to come to a conclusion that is specific to the question, and not generic (says nothing except repeats the question) or rote-learned (sounds like it's responding to another question).

A better way is to have a clear argument from the start, and then to write your entire piece in a way that flows with that argument/response. You can still have both sides - but you phrase counterarguments as things you rebut, or as 'even though' concessions. This makes the whole response more thoughtful, and stops it being a pre-memorised list of generic points.

And think about it: if you use points from your answer in your conclusion, you're just repeating yourself. And you're only getting credit for those points once.

(If you get to the end of your answer and are concerned you haven't made your response/argument 100% clear, by all means of course have one short, clear, direct sentence saying what it is )

[swaglord500]

In Legal Studies you need to have a conclusion, you don't need to write a conclusion per se. Basically, you get marked on quality+quantity of points, combined with relevance/responsiveness to the question. As long as you make your answer relevant and responsive to the question, you don't need a 'conclusion' the way you do in English. If anything, having a conclusion takes away from time to make more points or more detailed points. The Assessor's Report only cautions that students need to come to a conclusion that is specific to the question, and not generic (says nothing except repeats the question) or rote-learned (sounds like it's responding to another question).

A better way is to have a clear argument from the start, and then to write your entire piece in a way that flows with that argument/response. You can still have both sides - but you phrase counterarguments as things you rebut, or as 'even though' concessions. This makes the whole response more thoughtful, and stops it being a pre-memorised list of generic points.

And think about it: if you use points from your answer in your conclusion, you're just repeating yourself. And you're only getting credit for those points once.

(If you get to the end of your answer and are concerned you haven't made your response/argument 100% clear, by all means of course have one short, clear, direct sentence saying what it is )

One would assume this advice is not pertinent to higher order thinking questions?

In such questions, a weak conclusion will cost students marks.

One one line 'conclusion' to an 8-10 mark question will NOT be given full marks. Neither will a 'pissy' couple of sentences with zero depth.

Please be clear in your explanations- preferably by using clear examples.

[meganrobyn]

One would assume this advice is not pertinent to higher order thinking questions?

In such questions, a weak conclusion will cost students marks.

One one line 'conclusion' to an 8-10 mark question will NOT be given full marks. Neither will a 'pissy' couple of sentences with zero depth.

Please be clear in your explanations- preferably by using clear examples.

This advice is ONLY for 'higher order' thinking questions. They are the only ones requiring an opinion or conclusion at all.

Conclusions per se are not allocated marks. Responsiveness to the question is - in the sense that the student must have a clear position on the question, and it is a factor taken into account in a global assessment. Therefore a one-line conclusion will not cost marks. Not only can one's response be made clear in one line, you don't even need a one-line conclusion if your responsiveness is clear from the answer. And these responses can and will receive full marks if they have enough good, responsive points, and a long conclusion that simply repeats what has already been said will not change this.

Please be more respectful and less high-handed when responding to other people's comments. And I shall use examples when I like.

[chasej]

you both wrote essentially the same thing yet there is conflict?