How did you go?

[hjm2]

Hey guys,

I thought a lot of questions were very poorly worded. Despite this, I think it was an easy exam and I don't understand how VCAA haven't figured out how to maintain some consistency between years yet.

For the section 109 question, I confused myself halfway through my answer and said that although s.109 does restrict state parliament because the inconsistent part of their law will be invalid, it doesn't completely restrict them because they still have residual powers for which they are completely autonomous in their law-making. Do you think this is too far a stretch? Was the answer that it doesn't completely restrict them because ONLY the inconsistent part will be invalid, not the whole law?

I'm pretty sure you had to talk about how it restricted their concurrent powers, because if there is an inconsistency it becomes invalid. I'm just assuming that because part A of the questions was a 2 mark concurrent question (from memory).

S.109 only applies to concurrent powers, I think residual and exclusive powers were irrelevant to this question.

[sam-17]

Hey guys,

I thought a lot of questions were very poorly worded. Despite this, I think it was an easy exam and I don't understand how VCAA haven't figured out how to maintain some consistency between years yet.

For the section 109 question, I confused myself halfway through my answer and said that although s.109 does restrict state parliament because the inconsistent part of their law will be invalid, it doesn't completely restrict them because they still have residual powers for which they are completely autonomous in their law-making. Do you think this is too far a stretch? Was the answer that it doesn't completely restrict them because ONLY the inconsistent part will be invalid, not the whole law?

I'm pretty sure you had to talk about how it restricted their concurrent powers, because if there is an inconsistency it becomes invalid. I'm just assuming that because part A of the questions was a 2 mark concurrent question (from memory).

S.109 only applies to concurrent powers, I think residual and exclusive powers were irrelevant to this question.

While s.109 only applies to concurrent powers, the question was along the lines of to what extent does s.109 restrict law-making powers of the States and for being the amount of marks it was (I think 7) you would need to have mentioned that although 109 constricts the States and Cmth legislating on the same areas, the States are able to make legislation in residual areas that the Commonwealth cannot do so therefore, it is not completely restricted as a law maker.

[Chazef]

I avoided mentioning residual powers and (after explaining what s109 does) just said that states were not completely restricted due to being able to make laws which comply with commonwealth law on concurrent matters and how they can make laws if the commonwealth hasn't already covered something in a concurrent area. Also pretty sure the question was only around 4 marks

[sadboy222]

Hey guys,

I thought a lot of questions were very poorly worded. Despite this, I think it was an easy exam and I don't understand how VCAA haven't figured out how to maintain some consistency between years yet.

For the section 109 question, I confused myself halfway through my answer and said that although s.109 does restrict state parliament because the inconsistent part of their law will be invalid, it doesn't completely restrict them because they still have residual powers for which they are completely autonomous in their law-making. Do you think this is too far a stretch? Was the answer that it doesn't completely restrict them because ONLY the inconsistent part will be invalid, not the whole law?

I'm pretty sure you had to talk about how it restricted their concurrent powers, because if there is an inconsistency it becomes invalid. I'm just assuming that because part A of the questions was a 2 mark concurrent question (from memory).

S.109 only applies to concurrent powers, I think residual and exclusive powers were irrelevant to this question.

While s.109 only applies to concurrent powers, the question was along the lines of to what extent does s.109 restrict law-making powers of the States and for being the amount of marks it was (I think 7) you would need to have mentioned that although 109 constricts the States and Cmth legislating on the same areas, the States are able to make legislation in residual areas that the Commonwealth cannot do so therefore, it is not completely restricted as a law maker.

This is pretty much what i said

[hjm2]

Hey guys,

I thought a lot of questions were very poorly worded. Despite this, I think it was an easy exam and I don't understand how VCAA haven't figured out how to maintain some consistency between years yet.

For the section 109 question, I confused myself halfway through my answer and said that although s.109 does restrict state parliament because the inconsistent part of their law will be invalid, it doesn't completely restrict them because they still have residual powers for which they are completely autonomous in their law-making. Do you think this is too far a stretch? Was the answer that it doesn't completely restrict them because ONLY the inconsistent part will be invalid, not the whole law?

I'm pretty sure you had to talk about how it restricted their concurrent powers, because if there is an inconsistency it becomes invalid. I'm just assuming that because part A of the questions was a 2 mark concurrent question (from memory).

S.109 only applies to concurrent powers, I think residual and exclusive powers were irrelevant to this question.

While s.109 only applies to concurrent powers, the question was along the lines of to what extent does s.109 restrict law-making powers of the States and for being the amount of marks it was (I think 7) you would need to have mentioned that although 109 constricts the States and Cmth legislating on the same areas, the States are able to make legislation in residual areas that the Commonwealth cannot do so therefore, it is not completely restricted as a law maker.

If the question was "the states are completely restricted as a law maker, discuss" then it would be necessary to mention residual powers to prove that the states are not restricted. However, the question was something like "S.109 acts as a restriction on the states law making, discuss". This only requires that you explain why S.109 is a restriction on the states and does not necessitate the mention of residual powers as they have nothing to do with S.109 or the question itself. And yeah, it was 4 marks.

[michak]

Hey guys,

I thought a lot of questions were very poorly worded. Despite this, I think it was an easy exam and I don't understand how VCAA haven't figured out how to maintain some consistency between years yet.

For the section 109 question, I confused myself halfway through my answer and said that although s.109 does restrict state parliament because the inconsistent part of their law will be invalid, it doesn't completely restrict them because they still have residual powers for which they are completely autonomous in their law-making. Do you think this is too far a stretch? Was the answer that it doesn't completely restrict them because ONLY the inconsistent part will be invalid, not the whole law?

I'm pretty sure you had to talk about how it restricted their concurrent powers, because if there is an inconsistency it becomes invalid. I'm just assuming that because part A of the questions was a 2 mark concurrent question (from memory).

S.109 only applies to concurrent powers, I think residual and exclusive powers were irrelevant to this question.

While s.109 only applies to concurrent powers, the question was along the lines of to what extent does s.109 restrict law-making powers of the States and for being the amount of marks it was (I think 7) you would need to have mentioned that although 109 constricts the States and Cmth legislating on the same areas, the States are able to make legislation in residual areas that the Commonwealth cannot do so therefore, it is not completely restricted as a law maker.

If the question was "the states are completely restricted as a law maker, discuss" then it would be necessary to mention residual powers to prove that the states are not restricted. However, the question was something like "S.109 acts as a restriction on the states law making, discuss". This only requires that you explain why S.109 is a restriction on the states and does not necessitate the mention of residual powers as they have nothing to do with S.109 or the question itself. And yeah, it was 4 marks.

Yeah you just needed to talk about concurrent powers
But the question said to what extent and for 4 marks i was kinda stuck on what to write
So I tacked on a bit at the end that said that though they are restricted tehy can still make these inconsistent laws because they only become invalid if the commonwealth questions the states legislation - don't know if its write but it said what extent so i thought you should put something that was looking at the other side 

[danicalifornia]

Hey guys,

I thought a lot of questions were very poorly worded. Despite this, I think it was an easy exam and I don't understand how VCAA haven't figured out how to maintain some consistency between years yet.

For the section 109 question, I confused myself halfway through my answer and said that although s.109 does restrict state parliament because the inconsistent part of their law will be invalid, it doesn't completely restrict them because they still have residual powers for which they are completely autonomous in their law-making. Do you think this is too far a stretch? Was the answer that it doesn't completely restrict them because ONLY the inconsistent part will be invalid, not the whole law?

I'm pretty sure you had to talk about how it restricted their concurrent powers, because if there is an inconsistency it becomes invalid. I'm just assuming that because part A of the questions was a 2 mark concurrent question (from memory).

S.109 only applies to concurrent powers, I think residual and exclusive powers were irrelevant to this question.

While s.109 only applies to concurrent powers, the question was along the lines of to what extent does s.109 restrict law-making powers of the States and for being the amount of marks it was (I think 7) you would need to have mentioned that although 109 constricts the States and Cmth legislating on the same areas, the States are able to make legislation in residual areas that the Commonwealth cannot do so therefore, it is not completely restricted as a law maker.

If the question was "the states are completely restricted as a law maker, discuss" then it would be necessary to mention residual powers to prove that the states are not restricted. However, the question was something like "S.109 acts as a restriction on the states law making, discuss". This only requires that you explain why S.109 is a restriction on the states and does not necessitate the mention of residual powers as they have nothing to do with S.109 or the question itself. And yeah, it was 4 marks.

Yeah you just needed to talk about concurrent powers
But the question said to what extent and for 4 marks i was kinda stuck on what to write
So I tacked on a bit at the end that said that though they are restricted tehy can still make these inconsistent laws because they only become invalid if the commonwealth questions the states legislation - don't know if its write but it said what extent so i thought you should put something that was looking at the other side 

So did most of you argue that they completely restrict their concurrent powers? Because as you said, the question said "to what extent" which is why i thought they were looking for both sides of the argument.

I walked out of the room thinking that it was an easy exam, but looking back, there were a lot of questions that I'm really unsure about. I thought for sure the A+ range would go up to like a 65-70 but now i'm not so sure anymore! Hopefully it stays at 60 so we can all scrape through..

[michak]

Hey guys,

I thought a lot of questions were very poorly worded. Despite this, I think it was an easy exam and I don't understand how VCAA haven't figured out how to maintain some consistency between years yet.

For the section 109 question, I confused myself halfway through my answer and said that although s.109 does restrict state parliament because the inconsistent part of their law will be invalid, it doesn't completely restrict them because they still have residual powers for which they are completely autonomous in their law-making. Do you think this is too far a stretch? Was the answer that it doesn't completely restrict them because ONLY the inconsistent part will be invalid, not the whole law?

I'm pretty sure you had to talk about how it restricted their concurrent powers, because if there is an inconsistency it becomes invalid. I'm just assuming that because part A of the questions was a 2 mark concurrent question (from memory).

S.109 only applies to concurrent powers, I think residual and exclusive powers were irrelevant to this question.

While s.109 only applies to concurrent powers, the question was along the lines of to what extent does s.109 restrict law-making powers of the States and for being the amount of marks it was (I think 7) you would need to have mentioned that although 109 constricts the States and Cmth legislating on the same areas, the States are able to make legislation in residual areas that the Commonwealth cannot do so therefore, it is not completely restricted as a law maker.

If the question was "the states are completely restricted as a law maker, discuss" then it would be necessary to mention residual powers to prove that the states are not restricted. However, the question was something like "S.109 acts as a restriction on the states law making, discuss". This only requires that you explain why S.109 is a restriction on the states and does not necessitate the mention of residual powers as they have nothing to do with S.109 or the question itself. And yeah, it was 4 marks.

Yeah you just needed to talk about concurrent powers
But the question said to what extent and for 4 marks i was kinda stuck on what to write
So I tacked on a bit at the end that said that though they are restricted tehy can still make these inconsistent laws because they only become invalid if the commonwealth questions the states legislation - don't know if its write but it said what extent so i thought you should put something that was looking at the other side 

So did most of you argue that they completely restrict their concurrent powers? Because as you said, the question said "to what extent" which is why i thought they were looking for both sides of the argument.

I walked out of the room thinking that it was an easy exam, but looking back, there were a lot of questions that I'm really unsure about. I thought for sure the A+ range would go up to like a 65-70 but now i'm not so sure anymore! Hopefully it stays at 60 so we can all scrape through..

Yeah cause it said to what extent i thought we had to look at both sides. Thats why i talk about yeah they can still make the law if they wish and it stays valid until commonwealth challenges the legislation in the high court - thus not totally restricted. Don't knwo if they will accept this though.

I'm with you about the exam was feeling really good whilst doing it but now thinking about it im not quite sure. 
I'm assuming the A+ cutoof will be similar to last years - really need that A+

[connej]

Hey guys,

I thought a lot of questions were very poorly worded. Despite this, I think it was an easy exam and I don't understand how VCAA haven't figured out how to maintain some consistency between years yet.

For the section 109 question, I confused myself halfway through my answer and said that although s.109 does restrict state parliament because the inconsistent part of their law will be invalid, it doesn't completely restrict them because they still have residual powers for which they are completely autonomous in their law-making. Do you think this is too far a stretch? Was the answer that it doesn't completely restrict them because ONLY the inconsistent part will be invalid, not the whole law?

I'm pretty sure you had to talk about how it restricted their concurrent powers, because if there is an inconsistency it becomes invalid. I'm just assuming that because part A of the questions was a 2 mark concurrent question (from memory).

S.109 only applies to concurrent powers, I think residual and exclusive powers were irrelevant to this question.

While s.109 only applies to concurrent powers, the question was along the lines of to what extent does s.109 restrict law-making powers of the States and for being the amount of marks it was (I think 7) you would need to have mentioned that although 109 constricts the States and Cmth legislating on the same areas, the States are able to make legislation in residual areas that the Commonwealth cannot do so therefore, it is not completely restricted as a law maker.

The amount of marks was actually 4 for this question. You don't HAVE to mention residual powers, the question is not specifically asking for that and it is kind of irrelevant to the question really. Its asking for the impact of s.109, residual powers have nothing to do with section 109.

That question kind of shocked me as in all the practise exams i did, i didn't come across a question along those lines. There were a number of questions that were in that same category in the exam, such as the first one and the VLRC one.

I was expecting there to be more evaluations, a referendum question and a comparison in constitutional approaches. These were in the the exam but they were not as prominent as i thought they would be

[bopbopbop]

Hey guys,

I thought a lot of questions were very poorly worded. Despite this, I think it was an easy exam and I don't understand how VCAA haven't figured out how to maintain some consistency between years yet.

For the section 109 question, I confused myself halfway through my answer and said that although s.109 does restrict state parliament because the inconsistent part of their law will be invalid, it doesn't completely restrict them because they still have residual powers for which they are completely autonomous in their law-making. Do you think this is too far a stretch? Was the answer that it doesn't completely restrict them because ONLY the inconsistent part will be invalid, not the whole law?

I'm pretty sure you had to talk about how it restricted their concurrent powers, because if there is an inconsistency it becomes invalid. I'm just assuming that because part A of the questions was a 2 mark concurrent question (from memory).

S.109 only applies to concurrent powers, I think residual and exclusive powers were irrelevant to this question.

While s.109 only applies to concurrent powers, the question was along the lines of to what extent does s.109 restrict law-making powers of the States and for being the amount of marks it was (I think 7) you would need to have mentioned that although 109 constricts the States and Cmth legislating on the same areas, the States are able to make legislation in residual areas that the Commonwealth cannot do so therefore, it is not completely restricted as a law maker.

The amount of marks was actually 4 for this question. You don't HAVE to mention residual powers, the question is not specifically asking for that and it is kind of irrelevant to the question really. Its asking for the impact of s.109, residual powers have nothing to do with section 109.

That question kind of shocked me as in all the practise exams i did, i didn't come across a question along those lines. There were a number of questions that were in that same category in the exam, such as the first one and the VLRC one.

I was expecting there to be more evaluations, a referendum question and a comparison in constitutional approaches. These were in the the exam but they were not as prominent as i thought they would be

I'm hoping for like 58 or so now. I keep seeing these posts and deducting marks from my score. LOL

[michak]

Hey guys,

I thought a lot of questions were very poorly worded. Despite this, I think it was an easy exam and I don't understand how VCAA haven't figured out how to maintain some consistency between years yet.

For the section 109 question, I confused myself halfway through my answer and said that although s.109 does restrict state parliament because the inconsistent part of their law will be invalid, it doesn't completely restrict them because they still have residual powers for which they are completely autonomous in their law-making. Do you think this is too far a stretch? Was the answer that it doesn't completely restrict them because ONLY the inconsistent part will be invalid, not the whole law?

I'm pretty sure you had to talk about how it restricted their concurrent powers, because if there is an inconsistency it becomes invalid. I'm just assuming that because part A of the questions was a 2 mark concurrent question (from memory).

S.109 only applies to concurrent powers, I think residual and exclusive powers were irrelevant to this question.

While s.109 only applies to concurrent powers, the question was along the lines of to what extent does s.109 restrict law-making powers of the States and for being the amount of marks it was (I think 7) you would need to have mentioned that although 109 constricts the States and Cmth legislating on the same areas, the States are able to make legislation in residual areas that the Commonwealth cannot do so therefore, it is not completely restricted as a law maker.

The amount of marks was actually 4 for this question. You don't HAVE to mention residual powers, the question is not specifically asking for that and it is kind of irrelevant to the question really. Its asking for the impact of s.109, residual powers have nothing to do with section 109.

That question kind of shocked me as in all the practise exams i did, i didn't come across a question along those lines. There were a number of questions that were in that same category in the exam, such as the first one and the VLRC one.

I was expecting there to be more evaluations, a referendum question and a comparison in constitutional approaches. These were in the the exam but they were not as prominent as i thought they would be

I'm hoping for like 58 or so now. I keep seeing these posts and deducting marks from my score. LOL

Dude don't worry about it
For the longer questions even if people on here have different answers from yours doesn't mean you still want get any marks
I'm sure your whole answer wasn't incorrect 

[charmanderp]

Let's end this pointless argument now. Everyone just revel in the fact that the year is over (for Legal Studies anyway)! You've given it your all, now let the results speak for themselves and be happy with how you feel you engaged with the subject, not the 2 digit number that you get on December 17th.

[ThyJovan]

And don't worry everyone, whether you put proclamation or royal assent, it turns out you were right.

[michak]

And don't worry everyone, whether you put proclamation or royal assent, it turns out you were right.

How do you know this?

[sam-17]

And don't worry everyone, whether you put proclamation or royal assent, it turns out you were right.

How do you know this?

He posted somewhere earlier he went to the Assessors meeting. I don't know how though if he is a student? I think he wouldve meant his teacher is an assessor and went to the meeting. I had a feeling they'd except both though, cos it was an extremely poor written question