Legal Studies Aos 2 Constitution/Protecting Rights Prac Questions

[redlynk]

I'm after some prac questions for my next sac.

If anyone could please post some here or point me in the right direction it would be greatly appreciated.

[AbominableMowman]

Here's some of the stuff that i used for my revision. Have fun!
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/aa4mmanqy8uqhuw/t4DaWb586Q

[jeanweasley]

Just some questions that I've done. It may not cover all of AOS2 as we haven't finished it yet.

1.   How can specific powers be made exclusive?
2.   Explain two restrictions imposed on the law-making powers of the Victorian Parliament stated in the Constitution.
3.   Explain two restrictions imposed on the law-making powers of the Commonwealth Parliament stated in the Constitution.
4.   Describe the process for changing the wording of the Commonwealth Constitution.
5.   Many argue that referendums are not an effective method of changing the Constitution. Justify this view, including an example.

6.   The role of the High Court differs to the role of the referendum in relation to changing the Constitution. Explain two differences in the two methods.
7.   Why has it been necessary for the High Court to interpret the Constitution?
8.   Explain one method of changing the balance of powers which does not involve a High Court interpretation or a referendum.
9.   Provide one reason why a state parliament may refer its lawmaking powers to the Commonwealth Parliament.
10.   Briefly summarise the significance of one High Court case that have influenced the balance of power between State and Commonwealth Parliament. In your explanation, outline which section of the Constitution was interpreted by the High Court, the High Court decision and the impact of the decision on the law making powers of State and Commonwealth Parliament.
 

[redlynk]

thanks guys been a real help

[jeanweasley]

thanks guys been a real help

You're welcome. Tell me how your SAC goes.

[geemajic]

Hi everyone!
My sac is in two days and one of our practice questions is "Analyse the implied right to vote."
I'm unsure how to approach with it as I haven't faced an analyse question yet. I know that I talk about Roach and sections 7, 24 and 41.
Thank you!

[meganrobyn]

Hi everyone!
My sac is in two days and one of our practice questions is "Analyse the implied right to vote."
I'm unsure how to approach with it as I haven't faced an analyse question yet. I know that I talk about Roach and sections 7, 24 and 41.
Thank you!

Really don't worry too much about this question; it's flawed on a number of levels.

Firstly, 'analyse' means have an opinion on how effective or good something is, then look at reasons for and against that opinion (same as evaluate, critically examine, etc). So it's really not hard. But the question asks you to analyse the right, which doesn't actually make sense. Asking you to evaluate the *effectiveness* of the right would make sense, but they haven't asked that. So what do they want you to have an opinion on?

Secondly, there is no implied right to vote. There is the structural protection of a democratically elected, representative parliament - but no right to vote. Some people call the structural protection of a democratically elected, representative parliament a "right to vote" (which is technically a bit off), but even in that case it's not an implied right.

Thirdly, s41 was a transitional provision for federation, which ceased to really have any effect in 1902. So don't worry about it at all. If, however, you want to talk about voting as a structural protection determined in Roach, look at the structure of representative government established by Chapter 1 of the Constitution (with special reference to ss7 and 24).

Basically, in effect, I have no idea what they want from this question. My answer? My opinion is that there is no implied right to vote. The end. <jokes>

Just grab a question on rights from the 2012 or 2011 exams instead