Legal Studies: Discussion, Questions & Potential Solutions

[Guest1256]

Does anyone think changes beliefs values and opinions within society was a valid link to law reform from the tanning units, or should I have used changes in technology?

[firetruckspotter27]

I did the same as you. I was considering changes in technology, but I didn't think that solariums were a particularly new invention. Society's opinion on them may have changed after those ABC reports highlighting their dangers.

[DoctorTwo]

You could probably say many things as long as they were justified since there were no specific 'reasons for law reform' that were explicitly stated in the study design and I'm sure they'll accept changes in technology or changes in beliefs or values if you explained it rationally. I said something like it was a newly recognised health risk to the community so it needed to be restricted or something.

There was a question about the relevancy of section 109 if the commonwealth was to pass legislation that allowed that tanning units. What were you supposed to write for four marks? I defined section 109 and stated that the commonwealth law would prevail over the state law as it was a concurrent power and so it would prevail to the extent of the inconsistency between it and state law. However, that only seems like a 2/4 to me..

Also for the last question, did you need three strengths and three weaknesses essentially, because I only did 2 and 2 and tried to link it back so it looks like a 4/6

I'm not sure what they were specifically looking for in the 109 question but I think if you filled up the lines and weren't too repetitive you would've gotten full marks as long as it's explained correctly. I think I did run out of things to say and have to repeat myself though so I ended up saying that only the specific part of the Victorian law which was in conflict with the Commonwealth law would be inoperable or something, but I think if you just explained it well enough and filled up the lines you should get full marks.

For the last question, I think they wanted you to relate it to the numbers in the Senate which were in the question and explain strengths and weaknesses of that, but I think you should also have had a different factor that impacts the ability of Parliament to make laws (other than the role of the houses) and could have gotten full marks off of that. I doubt that they wanted you to explain all 4 factors but if you did I'm sure you will get full marks as long as there were both strengths and weaknesses. If I had to guess, I would say 2 marks for explaining 2 factors then 2 marks for strengths of those factors and 2 marks for weaknesses but it's probably globally marked so you could get marks doing it differently like you did. I didn't relate it back to the numbers in the Senate but I think we may lose some marks if we didn't since it was Section B but hopefully not.

[dcassss]

quick question. is the right to vote mentioned anywhere in the constitution? i conducted a quick google search and it said s.41 of the constitution talked about the right to vote. is there anywhere else? 

[DoctorTwo]

quick question. is the right to vote mentioned anywhere in the constitution? i conducted a quick google search and it said s.41 of the constitution talked about the right to vote. is there anywhere else? 

From my understanding there is no 'right to vote'. Sections 7 and 24 kind of almost establish this but the High Court hasn't explicitly said that there is an implicit or express right to vote.
Also, from what I read about Section 41, it doesn't create any 'right to vote', it simply says that those who are allowed to vote in state elections must also be allowed to vote in Commonwealth elections. According to a research paper on the Commonwealth Parliament website, (https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0102/02RP17) "Section 41 owes its place in the Constitution to attempts at the Adelaide Convention of 1897-98 to constitutionally entrench adult female suffrage in federal elections. These attempts failed. However, a compromise was reached based on the idea that those women who were qualified to vote under State law should be not deprived of that right at federal elections. This compromise is reflected in [Section 41]."