VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[jellybean1029]

Hi Jellybean,

Yes, the process is part of the VLRC's role.

So in your answer you could talk about:

 -the VLRC engaging in community wide consultation and debate to assess views
- gathering information from experts who are able to provide advice and special knowledge throughout the process
-making recommendations for law reform on issues referred to it by the attorney-general (or minor issues of community concern which can be conducted without the permission of the attorney-general)

More specific to the role:

-Monitor and coordinate law reform activity in Victoria
-Suggest to the attorney-general that he or she refer a law in need of investigation to the VLRC


I hope this helps. If you have any more questions I am happy to clear them up! 

Thank you for the reply. I have another question that I'm having some difficulties with
Evaluate the extent to which a petition is effective in influencing a change in the law
Do I talk about strengths and weaknesses of a petition? How many examples do I need?

[clarke54321]

Thank you for the reply. I have another question that I'm having some difficulties with
Evaluate the extent to which a petition is effective in influencing a change in the law
Do I talk about strengths and weaknesses of a petition? How many examples do I need?

With an 'evaluate the extent' type of question, you are required to come to an overall opinion. For example, 'While petitions are largely effective in influencing a change in the law, there are certain limitations which hinder this effectiveness.'

Therefore, you will be required to incorporate both strengths and weaknesses in your answer. However, if you are arguing an opinion like the one I provided above, you would focus more on the strengths as opposed to the weaknesses.

It is always good to have one solid example that you can use for these questions. I don't think the quantity is important, rather, it is the quality of the example that you need to focus on. 

[Notarobot]

Hello, I am quite confused about concurrent law-making powers (Unit 3 AOS 2). Can anyone help with this?

First up, I don't really understand why we have them. How is it a good thing? Wouldn't it be more sensible to just have exclusive (Commonwealth) and residual (State) powers?

Secondly, is my answer to this question below wrong or just not the best answer?

Q: How can s. 109 be seen as a restriction on the states' power?
A: Section 109 may be seen as a restriction on states' power because it limits the state's ability to make laws in areas of concurrent power (eg marriage) unless the Commonwealth also creates the same law.

(The suggested answer was that s. 109 tends to take powers from the states and give it to the Commonwealth.)

[Glasses]

Hello, I am quite confused about concurrent law-making powers (Unit 3 AOS 2). Can anyone help with this?

First up, I don't really understand why we have them. How is it a good thing? Wouldn't it be more sensible to just have exclusive (Commonwealth) and residual (State) powers?

Secondly, is my answer to this question below wrong or just not the best answer?

Q: How can s. 109 be seen as a restriction on the states' power?
A: Section 109 may be seen as a restriction on states' power because it limits the state's ability to make laws in areas of concurrent power (eg marriage) unless the Commonwealth also creates the same law.

(The suggested answer was that s. 109 tends to take powers from the states and give it to the Commonwealth.)

Hey Notarobot!

With regards to your first question, I'm not 100% sure what the justification of having concurrent law-making powers is, but I guess:
a) It saves the Commonwealth time and resources,
b) Some may argue that certain concurrent areas of law-making power are better left to the states (because of the differences between each state), and
c) Changing the division of powers in such a way would involve a very, very significant alteration to the Constitution.

With your second question:
The first part of your answer is correct, but the second part "unless the Commonwealth also creates the same law" is a bit iffy. Section 109 acts as a restriction on the law-making power of the states, because it means that in the event that there is an inconsistency between a law of the Commonwealth and a law of a state Parliament (in an area of concurrent law-making power), the law of the Commonwealth will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency between the two laws.

There are also a number of other arguments and points to make regarding why section 109 does and does not restrict the states, but for this question, the above should suffice.

Best of luck!

[meganrobyn]

Hello, I am quite confused about concurrent law-making powers (Unit 3 AOS 2). Can anyone help with this?

First up, I don't really understand why we have them. How is it a good thing? Wouldn't it be more sensible to just have exclusive (Commonwealth) and residual (State) powers?

Secondly, is my answer to this question below wrong or just not the best answer?

Q: How can s. 109 be seen as a restriction on the states' power?
A: Section 109 may be seen as a restriction on states' power because it limits the state's ability to make laws in areas of concurrent power (eg marriage) unless the Commonwealth also creates the same law.

(The suggested answer was that s. 109 tends to take powers from the states and give it to the Commonwealth.)

The basic answer to the first is that many areas of law-making are broad, and have hundreds of laws that could be made within them. Some laws ought sensibly to be national, while others ought sensibly to be state-based and different from state to state. Like taxation - taxes going towards roads, for instance, are logically better state-by-state because the road needs and usages are different; we have a national income tax, though, at the very least because people work with clients from across multiple states (for one eg).

With the second, you always need to include the mark allocation - a 1 mark answer is entirely different from a 5 mark answer. With the one you've given, the second part doesn't make sense. It's actually the opposite of what you've written: that the state power is limited when the Cwlth *has* made the same law. Also, it's not that they can't pass the law - it's that it may be invalidated if challenged in the courts.

[illmaticisthegoatalbum]

I just got my first Legal Sac results back. I got a C. What's the chances of me still getting a study score of like above 35? I really want to study Law at any Uni, but I'm freaking out I won't be able to do it now

[Glasses]

I just got my first Legal Sac results back. I got a C. What's the chances of me still getting a study score of like above 35? I really want to study Law at any Uni, but I'm freaking out I won't be able to do it now

To make things short and sweet; yes, a study score above 35 is definitely still possible!

[Help.Me.]

What minimum SAC scores should I be averaging for a 40+, assuming that my schools SACs are generally difficult with an average cohort?
Thanks!

[Glasses]

What minimum SAC scores should I be averaging for a 40+, assuming that my schools SACs are generally difficult with an average cohort?
Thanks!

Whilst I wish there were, unfortunately there is no definitive answer to this question; seeing as the important thing that comes out of SACs is your ranking, not your actual score. I'd highly recommend you read this https://atarnotes.com/forum/index.php?topic=160060.0 to get a better understanding of how SAC rankings and all of that works

[stunner05]

so not sure if i am doing this right since i am a new, but i did have a question. so I have a sac coming up in 5 days and i was just wondering if anyone knew the difference between specific and exclusive power. my teacher said that specific is concurrent and exclusive power and it is listed on the constitution but that does not make much sense to me. thankyouu

[Aaron]

so not sure if i am doing this right since i am a new, but i did have a question. so I have a sac coming up in 5 days and i was just wondering if anyone knew the difference between specific and exclusive power. my teacher said that specific is concurrent and exclusive power and it is listed on the constitution but that does not make much sense to me. thankyouu

You have asked your question perfectly Good job. Feel free to ask as many as you would like. I won't even try answering, given I know pretty much zero about Legal Studies.. but your question will get answered soon, so keep checking every so often!

[Glasses]

so not sure if i am doing this right since i am a new, but i did have a question. so I have a sac coming up in 5 days and i was just wondering if anyone knew the difference between specific and exclusive power. my teacher said that specific is concurrent and exclusive power and it is listed on the constitution but that does not make much sense to me. thankyouu

Here to answer!

So what your teacher said is right. "Specific powers" are simply those powers which are explicitly stated in the Constitution as powers of the Commonwealth. Now, these specific powers can either be exclusive powers or concurrent powers. (Meaning exclusive powers and concurrent powers are types of specific powers).
So basically:
Specific powers = listed as powers of the Commonwealth in the Constitution.
Exclusive powers = those specific powers which are held purely by the Commonwealth.
Concurrent powers = those specific powers which are held by both the Commonwealth and state Parliaments.
Residual powers = those powers which are held by the state parliaments, as they are not mentioned in the Constitution as powers of the Commonwealth.

Does this make sense?

[Notarobot]

Hello,

My question is about a case study in Unity 3, area of studies 2 (the Constitution and the protection of rights). According to my notes, in class we learned that Roach v. Electoral Commissioner (2007) is an example of implied rights. However, some other sources seem to suggest that it is not, and they use the case to discuss other areas such as structural protections and even (I think) High Court interpretation. I feel confused about this  .

Is the Roach v. Electoral Commissioner (2007) case an good example to use for implied rights, or for the structural protection of rights (specifically representative government), or for High Court interpretation? Or can it be used to discuss more than one of these areas? What does this case best exemplify?

Thanks for any explanations and help!

[clarke54321]

Hello,

My question is about a case study in Unity 3, area of studies 2 (the Constitution and the protection of rights). According to my notes, in class we learned that Roach v. Electoral Commissioner (2007) is an example of implied rights. However, some other sources seem to suggest that it is not, and they use the case to discuss other areas such as structural protections and even (I think) High Court interpretation. I feel confused about this  .

Is the Roach v. Electoral Commissioner (2007) case an good example to use for implied rights, or for the structural protection of rights (specifically representative government), or for High Court interpretation? Or can it be used to discuss more than one of these areas? What does this case best exemplify?

Thanks for any explanations and help!

Hi Notarobot,

In recent times, arguments in favour of the Roach case being an implied right (implied right to vote) are becoming more and more accepted. However to be safe, I would choose a case such as the ACTTV one, where there is no ambiguity. This was also recommended to me by an examiner.

The Roach case is definitely applicable to a constitutional protection of rights case. It upholds the structural protection of the right for parliament to be chosen directly by the people (also right to a representative government). While Section 7 and 24 were looked at to decide this matter and deduce that parliament had to be chosen 'directly by the people,' I wouldn't use this case as an example of high court interpretation. There are better examples to be chosen.

I hope this helps. Please ask more questions if this isn't clear!

[Notarobot]

Hi Notarobot,

In recent times, arguments in favour of the Roach case being an implied right (implied right to vote) are becoming more and more accepted. However to be safe, I would choose a case such as the ACTTV one, where there is no ambiguity. This was also recommended to me by an examiner.

The Roach case is definitely applicable to a constitutional protection of rights case. It upholds the structural protection of the right for parliament to be chosen directly by the people (also right to a representative government). While Section 7 and 24 were looked at to decide this matter and deduce that parliament had to be chosen 'directly by the people,' I wouldn't use this case as an example of high court interpretation. There are better examples to be chosen.

I hope this helps. Please ask more questions if this isn't clear!

Thanks a lot for the answer clarke54321!

So would it be acceptable to use:
 * R v. Brislan (1935) Wireless Telephone Case as an example for the High Court interpretation of the Constitution;
* Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) Case as an example of implied right; and
* Roach v. Electoral Commissioner (2007) as an example of structural protection?