vashappenin's last minute Legal Studies question thread

[vashappenin]

Hi guys,
So I've been revising through each dot point from the study design for the billionth time, making sure I know every little thing relevant to the exam. I've come across some doubts, so I thought it'd be best to make a thread that I can update as I get through each AOS. These questions are quite specific and focus on little details, but I just need some clarification nonetheless! If others have any questions relating to the AOS, feel free to ask them as well

Unit 3 AOS1:
- Do we need to know specifically how to explain parliamentary committees, cabinet, executive council, etc?
- Do we need to know the names of specific acts for examples corresponding to reasons for changing the law or can we just explain how our example reflects the reason?
- For the strengths/weaknesses of parliament, do we need to know restrictions placed on parliament as well?? I remember my teacher made us study separate restrictions and separate strengths/weaknesses, but the study design only asks for strengths/weaknesses?
- When talking about the second reading stage, do we mention the committee stage as part of it or is that considered as a separate optional stage?

That's all for now but if I have any others, I'll add them onto the list.
Thanks!

Oh, and I know I could just add these questions onto the stickied question thread, but it's hard for me to keep track of people's answers when they're in the thread so this is easier for me! Once the exam's done, mods can delete this if they want

[michak]

Hi guys,
So I've been revising through each dot point from the study design for the billionth time, making sure I know every little thing relevant to the exam. I've come across some doubts, so I thought it'd be best to make a thread that I can update as I get through each AOS. These questions are quite specific and focus on little details, but I just need some clarification nonetheless! If others have any questions relating to the AOS, feel free to ask them as well

Unit 3 AOS1:
- Do we need to know specifically how to explain parliamentary committees, cabinet, executive council, etc?
- Do we need to know the names of specific acts for examples corresponding to reasons for changing the law or can we just explain how our example reflects the reason?
- For the strengths/weaknesses of parliament, do we need to know restrictions placed on parliament as well?? I remember my teacher made us study separate restrictions and separate strengths/weaknesses, but the study design only asks for strengths/weaknesses?
- When talking about the second reading stage, do we mention the committee stage as part of it or is that considered as a separate optional stage?

That's all for now but if I have any others, I'll add them onto the list.
Thanks!

Oh, and I know I could just add these questions onto the stickied question thread, but it's hard for me to keep track of people's answers when they're in the thread so this is easier for me! Once the exam's done, mods can delete this if they want

AOS1
- no don't need to know these, this was done in units 1/2
- look if you just happen to know the act and are sure of it, if you believe it is needed in your answer write it, but it isn't necessary at all. A good explanation is more than sufficient.
- Well some of the restrictions can be used as a comparison with courts if you wish but a question on parliament restrictions what happen, only strengths/weaknesses.
- I would always mention the committee stage as it is a very important part of the second reading. Mention what happens during this committee but also mention that it can be skipped if there is already agreement on the bill.

[vashappenin]

AOS1
- no don't need to know these, this was done in units 1/2
- look if you just happen to know the act and are sure of it, if you believe it is needed in your answer write it, but it isn't necessary at all. A good explanation is more than sufficient.
- Well some of the restrictions can be used as a comparison with courts if you wish but a question on parliament restrictions what happen, only strengths/weaknesses.
- I would always mention the committee stage as it is a very important part of the second reading. Mention what happens during this committee but also mention that it can be skipped if there is already agreement on the bill.

Ok thank you!
So with the parliament, just knowing strengths and weaknesses in detail would be suffice? Restrictions aren't really that important if you know the strenghts and weaknesses right?

[90+FTW]

Hi guys,
So I've been revising through each dot point from the study design for the billionth time, making sure I know every little thing relevant to the exam. I've come across some doubts, so I thought it'd be best to make a thread that I can update as I get through each AOS. These questions are quite specific and focus on little details, but I just need some clarification nonetheless! If others have any questions relating to the AOS, feel free to ask them as well

Unit 3 AOS1:
- Do we need to know specifically how to explain parliamentary committees, cabinet, executive council, etc?
- Do we need to know the names of specific acts for examples corresponding to reasons for changing the law or can we just explain how our example reflects the reason?
- For the strengths/weaknesses of parliament, do we need to know restrictions placed on parliament as well?? I remember my teacher made us study separate restrictions and separate strengths/weaknesses, but the study design only asks for strengths/weaknesses?
- When talking about the second reading stage, do we mention the committee stage as part of it or is that considered as a separate optional stage?

That's all for now but if I have any others, I'll add them onto the list.
Thanks!

Oh, and I know I could just add these questions onto the stickied question thread, but it's hard for me to keep track of people's answers when they're in the thread so this is easier for me! Once the exam's done, mods can delete this if they want

1) Briefly.
2) I'd specifically give the Act.
3) It's always good to know. So yes.
4) The committee stage is NOT necessarily apart of the Second Reading, it's typically reserved for controversial issues that require significant debate. Its a separate stage, simply note that it is optional, but do not labour the point.

[M_BONG]

Ok thank you!
So with the parliament, just knowing strengths and weaknesses in detail would be suffice? Restrictions aren't really that important if you know the strenghts and weaknesses right?

Well, restrictions on parliament can be a strength, or a weakness. For example, parliament is not always sitting can be considered a weakness as it is not always able to respond to needs of electorate.

Plus, isn't the committee stage a separate stage after a vote is taken, which marks the end of the Second Reading stage?
I am pretty sure second reading:
1. Outline of purpose of bill by relevant minister.
2. Adjourned; debate put on agenda, MPs get to look through and study the bill
3: Debate commences; shadow minister can respond to bill
4: vote taken at the end.
Compatibility statement = optional. I only include it if the question says "... through its passage in the Victorian parliament"
THEN: Committee stage, which is a separate stage.

[michak]

Well, restrictions on parliament can be a strength, or a weakness. For example, parliament is not always sitting can be considered a weakness as it is not always able to respond to needs of electorate.

Plus, isn't the committee stage a separate stage after a vote is taken, which marks the end of the Second Reading stage?
I am pretty sure second reading:
1. Outline of purpose of bill by relevant minister.
2. Adjourned; debate put on agenda, MPs get to look through and study the bill
3: Debate commences; shadow minister can respond to bill
4: vote taken at the end.
Compatibility statement = optional. I only include it if the question says "... through its passage in the Victorian parliament"
THEN: Committee stage, which is a separate stage.

Yeah the restrictions can be used as a strength or weakness.

And yeah sorry your right about the second reading stage. Its been a while for me, but yes the committee stage is a separate optional stage.

Apologies for any confusion.

[vashappenin]

Thanks, yeah I know they're separate stages but my teacher always told us to just mention the committee stage whenever taking about the second reading stage just to show that it is an optional stage that follows, but if it's of no relevance then I don't want to waste my time doing that, you know??

[eeps]

Don't really have anything to add other than, as was previously mentioned, about providing an Act/date with your answer. Those little things, like dates, Acts etc., can really make your answer standout from other students (I've probably said this many times before). I was always of the belief that putting an example down was beneficial (even if the question didn't explicitly ask for it sometimes).

Once the exam's done, mods can delete this if they want

Nah, don't worry about it.

I would have liked to help out more with questions and such, but I had uni exams last week and tomorrow/Tuesday (date of the Legal Studies exam). But members like Megan, michak and other past/current Legal Studies students (too many to remember) have been really good in answer questions (and they all do a better job than me). The Legal Studies board in general and Question Thread has been far more active than when I did Legal Studies, which is great.

Hence, I would just like to wish all of you sitting the Legal Studies exam good luck!

[vashappenin]

Unit 3 AOS2
- What did you guys say was the impact on lawmaking powers for the Brislan and Franklin Dam Cases?
- In how much detail do we need to know about each of the 5 express rights?
- With the Roach case, is it in relation to the structural protection of a right to vote or is that an implied right? I've been learning the right to vote as a structural protection but I've read in some sources that it's an implied right...

Thanks

[TheWackyCheese]

1. For the Brislan Case, the impact of law making powers was that it extended the meaning of S.51 to allow legislation regarding wirelesses. For the Tasmanian Dam case, it showed that the Commonwealth can encroach on residual powers to uphold international treaties they have entered into giving almost unlimited scope to encroach on state powers.
2. Just remember the section numbers and their names. I think the names are pretty self explanatory as to what they protect.
3. The right to vote is a structural protection because of representative government (Government of elected individuals that represent the community's needs). The only implied right is the implied right to freedom of political communication. With the Roach Case, the High Court found that the structural protection of representative government protected the right to vote.

[michak]

1. For the Brislan Case, the impact of law making powers was that it extended the meaning of S.51 to allow legislation regarding wirelesses. For the Tasmanian Dam case, it showed that the Commonwealth can encroach on residual powers to uphold international treaties they have entered into giving almost unlimited scope to encroach on state powers.
2. Just remember the section numbers and their names. I think the names are pretty self explanatory as to what they protect.
3. The right to vote is a structural protection because of representative government (Government of elected individuals that represent the community's needs). The only implied right is the implied right to freedom of political communication. With the Roach Case, the High Court found that the structural protection of representative government protected the right to vote.

1. This is because international treaties fall under the constitution section of External affairs, which not all state powers fall under, so just be carefully in saying they can encroach on all the state's powers.

[vashappenin]

Ok thanks!
Unit 3 AOS3
- how many effects and reasons for statutory interpretation should we know?
- the 2 ways courts make law are through deciding in a new issue brought before them when there is no legislation governing the area and throughout statutory interpretation. Is the first way basically the doctrine of precedent?
- how many aspects of the relationship between courts and parliament should we know?

[anna.xo]

Good luck to everyone tomorrow ! Hope you guys go SMASH that exam ! 

[michak]

Ok thanks!
Unit 3 AOS3
- how many effects and reasons for statutory interpretation should we know?
- the 2 ways courts make law are through deciding in a new issue brought before them when there is no legislation governing the area and throughout statutory interpretation. Is the first way basically the doctrine of precedent?
- how many aspects of the relationship between courts and parliament should we know?

1. well you could potentially get a 2mark to 10 mark question so know as many as you can. This also goes with strengths/weaknesses and advanatges/disadvantages questions.
2. Yes. Courts make law through the doctrine of precedent which means either following a current precedent or using statutory interpretation to come up with a new law if no other law or precedent exits.
3. Refer to 1. If you get a 10 mark question on this at least 4 really well maybe even 5 (comparisons between the two that is).

[TheWackyCheese]

1. This is because international treaties fall under the constitution section of External affairs, which not all state powers fall under, so just be carefully in saying they can encroach on all the state's powers.

Sorry yeah, the external affairs power allows the commonwealth to implement laws to uphold responsibilities in treaties and international agreements that they have entered into.