VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[Bluegirl]

Ok here is how I would go about it:

1. Talk about the numerous checks and balances in place in the Aust. Parliamentary system.
Most people won't do this and will lose marks. Remember, anything given in the statement must be discussed.

2. Explain the doctrine of separation of powers. Outline the three areas of powers.

3. State whether you agree with the fact that the separation of powers is the most important.

4. Branch out your arguments on whether you agree/disagree. Take note of taskword "Justify" . Aim to have at least 10 points made.

I don't want to bias you with your opinion but be careful with absolute statements like "X is the most important". Separation of powers may be very important but you can never argue successfully that the other principles (responsible/representative government) is not as important.

So would I write it in paragraphs? How would I separate them?
Thankyou so much though, definitely have more direction now!

[Bluegirl]

Yes, everything in Legal Studies is in paragraphs.

Don't use dot-points or diagrams unless you run out of time. (Even then, aim for full sentences). 

There is no set structure so as long as you cover everything in cohesive paragraphs, you should be fine.

Thanks! Should be right now

[Bluegirl]

'What are some reasons for the separation of powers?'

My book only really says it's to provide a system of checks and balances to protect against possible power abuse, but are there any others?
I also wrote to divide government power into different bodies so that no one person has all the power.

What else is there?

[HawthornM8]

'What are some reasons for the separation of powers?'

My book only really says it's to provide a system of checks and balances to protect against possible power abuse, but are there any others?
I also wrote to divide government power into different bodies so that no one person has all the power.

What else is there?

That is pretty much it. If one body had power over the entire legal system it would right to use the true definition of tyranny in that case. The constitution was put in place to separate the powers but naturally, the legislative/executive overlap. That is all there is to it I'll quickly get my separation of powers notes ...

''1.3.3   Seperation of Powers
There are three separate types of powers in  in our legal system and these powers should be held by separate bodies so that no one body has absolute power over the functions of the legal system.
1.3.3.1   Legislative Power
The power to make laws, which resides with parliament. As government controls the lower house, they control what legislation is introduced.
1.3.3.2   Executive Power
The power to administer laws and manage the business of government. This power is vested to the Governor General but in practice is carried out by the government.
1.3.3.3   Judicial Power
The power given to courts and tribunals to enforce the law and settle disputes which is vested ii the high court and other federal courts. This power is kept independent and separate from the other two powers.
1.3.3.4   Are powers really separated?
The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands may justly be pronounced as the very definition of tyranny. Legislative and executive powers are linked as government controls the lower house so they can control what legislation is introduced into parliament.
''

[Versace]

Hey
I was wondering when/what type of questions should I incorporate case examples into my answers?
What types of contemporary case examples should I be looking out for?

[HawthornM8]

If you are asked to 'explain' something like 'demonstrations' and how this can influence the law for 4 marks, how would this work out?

Would you define or show your knowledge that you know what a demonstration is -> Give an example of how a demonstration could change the law (e.g. has the same effect as picket lining out the front of parliament so they MUST respond -> ... then what?

I had this as a 4 marker and I just am not sure. Legal seems hard to know how to structure/get marks.

[Politics]

If you are asked to 'explain' something like 'demonstrations' and how this can influence the law for 4 marks, how would this work out?

Would you define or show your knowledge that you know what a demonstration is -> Give an example of how a demonstration could change the law (e.g. has the same effect as picket lining out the front of parliament so they MUST respond -> ... then what?

I had this as a 4 marker and I just am not sure. Legal seems hard to know how to structure/get marks.

Aswell as this, you would also add that the aim of many demonstrations is to get mass media coverage in order to publicize and reach a greater audience and hopefully influence parliament greater than before.

[aqple]

If you are asked to 'explain' something like 'demonstrations' and how this can influence the law for 4 marks, how would this work out?

Would you define or show your knowledge that you know what a demonstration is -> Give an example of how a demonstration could change the law (e.g. has the same effect as picket lining out the front of parliament so they MUST respond -> ... then what?

I had this as a 4 marker and I just am not sure. Legal seems hard to know how to structure/get marks.

1. Define demonstration, why people do it
2. Why the law needs to take demonstrations seriously (representative & responsible government)
3. What is needed from a demonstration to influence law
4. How demonstrations can/can't influence law

And give examples to strengthen response

[M_BONG]

If you are asked to 'explain' something like 'demonstrations' and how this can influence the law for 4 marks, how would this work out?

Would you define or show your knowledge that you know what a demonstration is -> Give an example of how a demonstration could change the law (e.g. has the same effect as picket lining out the front of parliament so they MUST respond -> ... then what?

I had this as a 4 marker and I just am not sure. Legal seems hard to know how to structure/get marks.

My response from last year (copied straight from notes)

"A demonstration is an assemblage of individuals protesting in the aim to influence a change in the law. For a demonstrations to be successful, it should incite media attention and be held in a prominent location (eg. Parliament house). In reality, demonstrations are often not successful as they are difficult to organise, marred by violence or are far too controversial for parliament to legislate on. However, given significant media attention and large attendance, demonstrations can be successful. One example of demonstrations is a string of protests aimed at obstructing the entrance of abortion clinics, to protest against ntentional abortion. This demonstration was unsuccessful in influencing a change in the law".


Basic breakdown for 4 marks:

1. Define.
2. Example
3. Explain
4. Give brief overview of strengths and weakness

ALSO: In defining or explaining "demonstrations" don't use "demonstrate against" or something like that.

[meganrobyn]

My response from last year (copied straight from notes)

"A demonstration is an assemblage of individuals protesting in the aim to influence a change in the law. For a demonstrations to be successful, it should incite media attention and be held in a prominent location (eg. Parliament house). In reality, demonstrations are often not successful as they are difficult to organise, marred by violence or are far too controversial for parliament to legislate on. However, given significant media attention and large attendance, demonstrations can be successful. One example of demonstrations is a string of protests aimed at obstructing the entrance of abortion clinics, to protest against ntentional abortion. This demonstration was unsuccessful in influencing a change in the law".


Basic breakdown for 4 marks:

1. Define.
2. Example
3. Explain
4. Give brief overview of strengths and weakness

ALSO: In defining or explaining "demonstrations" don't use "demonstrate against" or something like that.

I would include explaining demonstrations by saying 'protest', as well - they are treated as synonymous in the course. So I'd substitute 'protesting' for what protesting actually IS.

Also, remember the task word. If the question just asks to 'explain' (and 4 marks is a heckuva lot for just that), it doesn't actually ask for any evaluation - so I'm not sure where the weaknesses come in. I would therefore amend your marks breakdown to have #4 as how demonstrations can be effective in influencing parliament.

Also, the unsuccessful example seems to work against the answer. Either use a successful example, or say why the example you've chosen was unsuccessful, linking it to your 'strength' of what a protest needs to BE successful (aka illustration in the negative).

But you know I think you're amazing help for everyone, Zez!

[Eluminum]

Hi, can anyone help me with this?

"To what extent do we have true separation of powers in Australia?

[Bluegirl]

How do we evaluate the effectiveness of methods used to influence legislative change. (In particular, the extent to which other methods are more or less effective)
I know it was kind of answered in previous posts but yeah.

[HawthornM8]

Hi, can anyone help me with this?

"To what extent do we have true separation of powers in Australia?

You have a look at both sides, separated with a 'however.' You give examples of how Australia does have a true separation of powers ... however ... there is an overlap between executive and legislative despite the constitution detailing that the powers must be separate etc.

For the core of my work on that mark I got 3 out of 4 because I didn't use some key word when explaining one of them.

[mad_maxine]

You have a look at both sides, separated with a 'however.' You give examples of how Australia does have a true separation of powers ... however ... there is an overlap between executive and legislative despite the constitution detailing that the powers must be separate etc.

For the core of my work on that mark I got 3 out of 4 because I didn't use some key word when explaining one of them.

Yes, but also add that it doesn't completely overlap as the judiciary remains completely independent of the other two arms of power. Thus, this independence ensures that the abuse of power is less likely. Something to that effect, it's been a while since I've done legal 

[Politics]

Yes, but also add that it doesn't completely overlap as the judiciary remains completely independent of the other two arms of power. Thus, this independence ensures that the abuse of power is less likely. Something to that effect, it's been a while since I've done legal 

However, the Executive overlaps into the Judiciary as the Governor General appoints Judges to the courts, and the Judiciary can deem law inavlid if it is contrary to the constitution or did not follow proper procedures, so in reality all of the arms overlap in one way or another.