Legal Studies Exam Discussion

[clidedescope]

There were a few questions that I thought might be trick questions (like the referendum one where they referred to it as passing a law? Was that meant to be one of the reasons it was unsuccessful?)

/silent screaming
Oh my god, can somebody tell me exactly what the referendum question said?? Because if it said to pass a law and not change the wording of the Constitution, then does that mean that we were supposed to point out that's not what referendums are for in the first place as part of our answer? Because I just pointed out the lack of fulfillment of the double majority provision, hence why it failed!
If I stuffed up there I'm gonna be very sad with myself. What a silly way to lose marks, especially when I thought I'd done alright.

[Politics]

/silent screaming
Oh my god, can somebody tell me exactly what the referendum question said?? Because if it said to pass a law and not change the wording of the Constitution, then does that mean that we were supposed to point out that's not what referendums are for in the first place as part of our answer? Because I just pointed out the lack of fulfillment of the double majority provision, hence why it failed!
If I stuffed up there I'm gonna be very sad with myself. What a silly way to lose marks, especially when I thought I'd done alright.

|
However, the Constitution is 'technically' legislation,
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT or Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
So...maybe?

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/

So maybe it was a trick question for people to say that ^, but really it was double majority? Idk time will tell

From wikipediea (yes, wikipedia haha)
Before the Bill was passed, however, one final change was made by the imperial government, upon lobbying by the Chief Justices of the colonies, so that the right to appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council on constitutional matters concerning the limits of the powers of the Commonwealth or States could not be curtailed by parliament. Finally, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act was passed by the British Parliament in 1900"

So it is a bill, like any other legislation, so hence changing it would be changing law? again time will tell haha 

[TrivStar]

/silent screaming
Oh my god, can somebody tell me exactly what the referendum question said?? Because if it said to pass a law and not change the wording of the Constitution, then does that mean that we were supposed to point out that's not what referendums are for in the first place as part of our answer? Because I just pointed out the lack of fulfillment of the double majority provision, hence why it failed!
If I stuffed up there I'm gonna be very sad with myself. What a silly way to lose marks, especially when I thought I'd done alright.

That's exactly what I was thinking in the exam. I can't remember the question now ugh but it had the example and it definitely described it as "the commonwealth parliament has passed a law to change the constituon etc etc." I sat there for a while why they purposefully avoided using the word referendum, if it was to trick kids reading the question or meant to be part of the answer?? Either way I don't think it would've dropped that many points...I hope...

[AmericanBeauty]

WTF are you talking about? There was a referendum question? I remember stating something like a referendum failed because they only received 2/6 rather than 4/6. But IDK what the question was.

[Politics]

WTF are you talking about? There was a referendum question? I remember stating something like a referendum failed because they only received 2/6 rather than 4/6. But IDK what the question was.

Thats the question we are talking about, but it didn't use the word "referendum" so we are wondering why it didn't and what it could possibly mean.

[clidedescope]

WTF are you talking about? There was a referendum question? I remember stating something like a referendum failed because they only received 2/6 rather than 4/6. But IDK what the question was.

^ I'm pretty sure we're walking about that question.

Haha, oh geez. Thank you though guys, I'm just gonna try to avoid thinking about it; there's nothing I can do now but wait, I wouldn't have been the only one to make the mistake if I am wrong. It's all up to the VCAA gods now.

[Jawnle]

'A majority of voters in two states and a majority of all voters in Australia have voted in favour of a proposed law to alter the Commonwealth Constitution.'

Explain why the proposed law would be unsuccessful.

[M_BONG]

'A majority of voters in two states and a majority of all voters in Australia have voted in favour of a proposed law to alter the Commonwealth Constitution.'

Explain why the proposed law would be unsuccessful.

Yeah this is definitely a double majority question phrased differently - so yeah a Constitution question.

Also, keep in mind a referendum is initiated by Fed parliament via. a Constitution Alteration Bill that must pass both houses of parliament. So a referendum begins with a 'proposed law' (bill). Hmm, 5 marks for this question might be a little bit of a stretch if it's only asking you to explain double majority.

Technically a referendum is not a proposed law (sorry, responding to Politics below me). A referendum is just a vote on a proposed change in the wording of the Constitution - not a law in itself. It begins with a proposed law (bill) though.

[Politics]

'A majority of voters in two states and a majority of all voters in Australia have voted in favour of a proposed law to alter the Commonwealth Constitution.'

Explain why the proposed law would be unsuccessful.

Yeah, a "proposed law" is technically a referendum, as referendums have to go through parliaments as bills first, ie. 1967 referendum = Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967 Act
- http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2004C01002

[clidedescope]

Hmm, 5 marks for this question might be a little bit of a stretch if it's only asking you to explain double majority.

I don't think this was a 5 marker. I thought it was 3, from memory. If it were 5, there's definitely more than double majority.

[TrivStar]

Yeah this is definitely a double majority question phrased differently - so yeah a Constitution question.

Also, keep in mind a referendum is initiated by Fed parliament via. a Constitution Alteration Bill that must pass both houses of parliament. So a referendum begins with a 'proposed law' (bill). Hmm, 5 marks for this question might be a little bit of a stretch if it's only asking you to explain double majority.

Technically a referendum is not a proposed law (sorry, responding to Politics below me). A referendum is just a vote on a proposed change in the wording of the Constitution - not a law in itself. It begins with a proposed law (bill) though.

I discussed double majority but also put in an example of a referendum which achieved the double majority, because I thought the amount of marks needed more then just double majority explanation (I think it might've been 3)

[AmericanBeauty]

I discussed double majority but also put in an example of a referendum which achieved the double majority, because I thought the amount of marks needed more then just double majority explanation (I think it might've been 3)

I dont think an example would have helped. I said that a constitutional alteration bill had to pass the houses. then the double majority i explained how they achieved the majority in population but not 4/6 states. I then said due to not getting 4/6, it will not be granted royal assent and will not become law.

[TrivStar]

I dont think an example would have helped. I said that a constitutional alteration bill had to pass the houses. then the double majority i explained how they achieved the majority in population but not 4/6 states. I then said due to not getting 4/6, it will not be granted royal assent and will not become law.

Damn I considered saying the parliament processes, probably should have. The question threw me because of the wording, and I bet the vcaa intended that haha!

[Jawnle]

I think it was important to mention the fact that although it achieved majority of Australia, it needed both of the requirements of the double majority to be achieved. Thus, it was unsuccessful because it only achieved one aspect of the requirement.

[chasej]

I think it was important to mention the fact that although it achieved majority of Australia, it needed both of the requirements of the double majority to be achieved. Thus, it was unsuccessful because it only achieved one aspect of the requirement.

yeh that's exactly what I did. I explained what was happening in the scenario i.e. a referendum to change constitution's wording. explained the double majority provision. then explained why it didn't meet that provision.

I'm pretty sure it was 3 marks too.

Thats the question we are talking about, but it didn't use the word "referendum" so we are wondering why it didn't and what it could possibly mean.

It didn't use the word referendum but it was obviously a referendum as it was a vote for a proposed change to the constitution. I don't think there was any hidden meaning - it was just to try and trick students who don't read the question properly or didn't study the referendum process properly.

omfg the second bit of this question, please for the love of god tell me that the jury does not make precedent? I wrote that the judge makes precedent due to the obiter dictum or comments made along the way which contains the ratio decidendi, which forms the precedent. I Swear to god if I got that wrong I'm going to punch myself.

The jury doesn't make precedent as precedent is formed by the judge's ratio decidendi, reasons for the decision, juries do not give reasons for their decision thus no precedent is made.

The obiter dictum does not form part of the ratio decidendi but rather are other comments made by the judge in the judgment which don't effect the reasons for the decision, but can often provide interesting commentary about social values and recommendations for updates in the law etc., basically as the definition states, they are comments made by the way which aren't directly relevant. Both the obiter and ratio are found in a judgement, but they are separate from each other and mean different things.