Hey 2017 Legal Studies students!
So last year I
tried to start a thread basically for practicing extended responses (see
VCE Legal Studies - Extended Response Mastery Thread) which was admittedly a bit of a bust; so instead of learning my lesson, I'm going to try and get something similar (but a bit different) going again this year in the form of a competition (which will hopefully help you guys master your answer technique and content understanding).
How does it work?- Every week or so we will have a 'round' where I will create and post a practice exam question.
- You guys will (hopefully/please) post an answer to that round's question (in this thread, and please using a spoiler); following which I will correct and provide feedback for each answer posted.
- After that 'round' one (or more) of the answers posted will be the 'sample answer' for that question, and the posters will be awarded 'points' (see the point system below).
What's the Point System?- Basically, each poster will receive one point for each mark they're given for their posted answer (complicated, I know).
- The points (or marks) will accumulate each round, and will contribute to each user's place on the 'leaderboard'.
- The user(s) whose answer became the sample answer for that round will also be awarded a bonus point.
Questions and AnswersRound 1 (18 Feb - 3 Mar)
QUESTION: 'Individuals and groups can use a number of methods to influence legislative change, such as demonstrations and petitions.' Briefly explain these two methods and justify which should be used by an individual or group to push for a change in the law. {5 marks}.
ANSWER (USER [Notarobot]): Petitions are electronic or physical written requests for change which collect signatures from those in support of the change to show the level of support. Demonstrations are mass gatherings of people in support of a change issue. Either method has advantages and disadvantages and can be better applied to different circumstances. Demonstrations are a good option when causes are mostly peaceful and have large community support, for example support of gay marriage but a bad option when the cause has little financial support and organisational skills as demonstrations are usually difficult and costly to organise. Petitions are a good option when individuals want to make change as they are easy and free to create on online petition websites such as change.org. However, they are a bad option in cases where an issue has very little support as they are highly unlikely to be brought to parliament without substantial support.
ANSWER (GLASSES): A petition is a formal, written request to the government for a particular law that is considered outdated or unjust to be changed; and in order to have the possibility of influencing law reform, should be tabled in parliament by a member of the lower or upper house. In contrast, a demonstration is a gathering of members of the community, in a public place, to alert the government of a needed change in the law, and to show the participants’ support of said legislative change.
To push for a change in the law, an individual or group should make use of a demonstration, rather than a petition. Demonstrations are advantageous because unlike petitions, which are not ‘visual’, they are extremely attention grabbing and quite often publicised. Similarly, demonstrations (and particularly those with many participants) are likely to gain widespread awareness and support in the community and nationally for a cause - especially with media attention. Accordingly, this wide-scale support is more likely to get the attention of members of parliament, who are responsible for changing the law, meaning that the actual likelihood of law reform increases (especially if members of parliament become actively involved and ‘take on’ the cause). Thus, an individual or group should utilise a demonstration, rather than a petition, to influence law reform.
Round 2 (6 Mar - 20 Mar)
QUESTION: 'The operation of the separation of powers is the same both in theory, and in practice.' Analyse this statement. {6 marks}.
ANSWER (USER [Bentamy]): The operation of separtation of powers is the same both in theory, and in practice to a limited extent.
Separation of powers exists to ensure that no one body has complete legal and political control. The Australian parliament systems separates the legislative function carried out by parliament (law-making), the executive function (administration of laws) carried out by the Governor-General in theory, but the cabinet in practice, and the judicial function carried out by the courts (applying and interpreting the law).
Although the executive and legislative function should be separated in theory, in practice there is an overlap between these two functions in the Australian parliament systems. This is because the cabinet, comprised of the Prime Minister and senior government ministers, undertakes the legislative function as they are part of parliament, and the cabinet also undertakes the executive function, by administering the laws through their departments, in practice. Therefore, there is not a true separation of powers in practice between the executive and legislative.
However, the judiciary is truly separated from the legislative and executive branches both in practice and theory, which ensures cases are handled in an independent and impartial manner, which is not subject to political interference, thereby avoiding corruption. The importance of this separation was demonstrated by the High Court’s decision in the Malaysian Solution case, where they held the Gillard government’s law to be ‘ultra vires’. This shows the importance of the courts providing a check and balance on parliament’s law-making power.
In conclusion, the separation of powers is the same in practice and in theory to a limited extent, as the judiciary is completely independent, however there is still an overlap between the legislative and executive branches.
Round 3 (3 Apr - 5 May)
QUESTION: 'Alfred and John are arguing over the powers of the Courts and the Commonwealth Parliament. Alfred believes that the Commonwealth is always able to override the decisions of the courts through the legislation it enacts. However, John believes this is not always case.' Which person, Alfred or John, is correct? Justify your answer. {4 marks}.
1. Notarobot:
7 Points2. Bentamy:
6 Points3. DoctorTwo:
3 Points3. Bubbly_bluey:
3 Points4.
5.
Once again, absolutely everyone is welcome and encouraged to join in (and at any time you'd like - it doesn't matter if you join in later)!!IMPORTANT: In order to make a post, you will have to click here and make an ATAR Notes account. 
Home
Help
Search
Login
