HSC Legal Studies Question Thread

[jamonwindeyer]

I need help in finding 3 articles for the sub heading Rights and Responsibilities for my media file thx.

Have you checked out our Media file? it's HSC related but I bet you could use some of them

[Aaron12038488]

So i have to purchase a scrapbook for my media file, and i'm not sure which one to buy. Some range between $4-7 while others are hovering at $15. Also should it be A2 and what specifications are needed.

[Aaron12038488]

how big should it be ^^

[jamonwindeyer]

Whatever you think Aaron!! There's no specific criteria

[sophiegmaher]

I was wondering how to organise notes regarding the themes and challenges..?

[jamonwindeyer]

I was wondering how to organise notes regarding the themes and challenges..?

Your best bet is probably to have one A4 page per theme and challenge, detailing some laws, cases, media, treaties, stats (etc) you can use to argue points based on that theme/challenge! Ultimately though, it is up to you how to do it - Everyone does their study notes a little differently

[elysepopplewell]

I was wondering how to organise notes regarding the themes and challenges..?

I'll also suggest approaching each theme and challenge as though it is an essay question itself, rather than just an argument to incorporate into other essays. It might be worth throwing up the theme and challenge and treating it as the essay question, then brainstorming it out! I did this on a white board before my HSC exam, and I found it really effective.

[anotherworld2b]

Hi I'm back
I asked for help with this particular question 'Identify three different ways that power can be shifted from the states to the Federal Government' before. I was provided with information that Referendums and Cooperative federalism are two different ways that power can be shifted from the states to the Federal Government. A third way was HCA but I'm not sure what HCA is exactly or what it is short for.

I was hoping to get some help with these questions please.
2. Identify three specific examples of how power has slowly shifted from the states to the Federal Government
3. Identify three powers that the States has retained, and powers that are not allowed to be controlled by the Federal Government

[chelseam]

A third way was HCA but I'm not sure what HCA is exactly or what it is short for.

Hey! Maybe it stands for the High Court?

[elysepopplewell]

Hi I'm back
I asked for help with this particular question 'Identify three different ways that power can be shifted from the states to the Federal Government' before. I was provided with information that Referendums and Cooperative federalism are two different ways that power can be shifted from the states to the Federal Government. A third way was HCA but I'm not sure what HCA is exactly or what it is short for.

I was hoping to get some help with these questions please.
2. Identify three specific examples of how power has slowly shifted from the states to the Federal Government
3. Identify three powers that the States has retained, and powers that are not allowed to be controlled by the Federal Government

HCA is High Court of Australia

For question 2: I don't know this off the top of my head, I don't know much about the way the powers came to be divided, only that they are! But, I've taken this from online: (Source here) Sorry to not be able to definitively help you, this is the best I could find. I'd love if someone else could pipe in about this!

There was considerable comment during the Convention Debates as to what powers should be vested in the Commonwealth and what powers should remain with the States (an issue still debated to this day). In his speech on 13 March 1891, Sir Henry Parkes (NSW) said that the institutions of government in the separate colonies were as perfect as could be found anywhere in the world but that there were limits on what could be achieved individually:

There are a number of things which no one of the separate governments can by any possibility do, and those things are amongst the highest objects of government.(26)

Parkes suggested defence as one of those activities that could not efficiently be carried out by the separate colonies independently of one another. Similarly, on 16 March 1891, Mr Deakin (VIC) said:

The states will retain full powers over the greater part of the domain in which they at present enjoy those powers, and will retain them intact for all time. But in national issues, on the subject of defence, as people who desire to have their shores defended, and to see their resources developed by means of a customs tariff and a customs union - on these questions there are no longer state rights and state interests to be guarded in the constitution, but the people's interests are one, and they call upon us to deal with them as one.(27)

The legislative powers of the Commonwealth Parliament are, in the main, to be found in Part V, Chapter I of the Constitution. Section 51 of the Constitution lists the majority of those matters on which the Parliament may legislate, often referred to as the Commonwealth's heads of power. The Parliament may, for example, make laws on:

trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States [s 51(i)];
taxation [s 51(ii)];
defence [s 51(vi)];
corporations [s 51(xx)];
immigration [s 51(xxvii)]; and
external affairs [s 51(xxix)].

For question 3: The state government controls transport, education, housing, roads, railways, state police, and ambulant services. I'm not so sure about the wording "not allowed to control" in terms of the federal government, but I know these things are state controlled.

Here's a website made by The Parliament of Australia that might be helpful.

[anotherworld2b]

thank you so much for your help

HCA is High Court of Australia

For question 2: I don't know this off the top of my head, I don't know much about the way the powers came to be divided, only that they are! But, I've taken this from online: (Source here) Sorry to not be able to definitively help you, this is the best I could find. I'd love if someone else could pipe in about this!

There was considerable comment during the Convention Debates as to what powers should be vested in the Commonwealth and what powers should remain with the States (an issue still debated to this day). In his speech on 13 March 1891, Sir Henry Parkes (NSW) said that the institutions of government in the separate colonies were as perfect as could be found anywhere in the world but that there were limits on what could be achieved individually:

There are a number of things which no one of the separate governments can by any possibility do, and those things are amongst the highest objects of government.(26)

Parkes suggested defence as one of those activities that could not efficiently be carried out by the separate colonies independently of one another. Similarly, on 16 March 1891, Mr Deakin (VIC) said:

The states will retain full powers over the greater part of the domain in which they at present enjoy those powers, and will retain them intact for all time. But in national issues, on the subject of defence, as people who desire to have their shores defended, and to see their resources developed by means of a customs tariff and a customs union - on these questions there are no longer state rights and state interests to be guarded in the constitution, but the people's interests are one, and they call upon us to deal with them as one.(27)

The legislative powers of the Commonwealth Parliament are, in the main, to be found in Part V, Chapter I of the Constitution. Section 51 of the Constitution lists the majority of those matters on which the Parliament may legislate, often referred to as the Commonwealth's heads of power. The Parliament may, for example, make laws on:

trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States [s 51(i)];
taxation [s 51(ii)];
defence [s 51(vi)];
corporations [s 51(xx)];
immigration [s 51(xxvii)]; and
external affairs [s 51(xxix)].

For question 3: The state government controls transport, education, housing, roads, railways, state police, and ambulant services. I'm not so sure about the wording "not allowed to control" in terms of the federal government, but I know these things are state controlled.

Here's a website made by The Parliament of Australia that might be helpful.

[Aaron12038488]

in which two circumstances can a precedent be created?

[elysepopplewell]

in which two circumstances can a precedent be created?

I'm not so sure about this question, I can't answer definitively. A precedent is created after the magistrate/judge has looked to previous cases for guidance, but has not found one with facts similar enough to use a precedent previously set. The purpose of the doctrine of precedent is to promote the rule of law - legislation can only go so far in appreciating the facts of individual cases, so judge-made-law steps in to look at the intricacies of cases and treat similar cases similarly. Is this in your textbook? I'd love someone else to jump in if they can answer this definitively! I don't know a textbook answer, I'm just guessing based on logic. But if we are talking about when to use precedents:

The two conditions that need to be met in order to use a precedent:
1. The precedent must have been set in a higher court in the same legal system or hierarchy of courts as the court the present case is before.
2. The material facts must be the same.

[LOVEPHYSICS]

in which two circumstances can a precedent be created?

Precedent is '[t]he making of law by a court in recognising and applying new rules while administering justice' - Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition.

Essentially, a judge would make law or create precedent where there is no relevant law governing the present facts or the interpretation of a statute. Another circumstance I can think off is where a judge decides to override. Here, a relevant precedent does exist for the present facts, but the superior judge thinks the precedent from the inferior court is bad law and thus decides to supersede it thereby creating a new one.

The two conditions that need to be met in order to use a precedent:
1. The precedent must have been set in a higher court in the same legal system or hierarchy of courts as the court the present case is before.
2. The material facts must be the same.

Just to be clear, using precedents is quite different to creating one. Also, a court can use or adopt any precedent it wishes - even those from a foreign jurisdiction or from an inferior court, subject to the doctrine of stare decisis - courts must follow any applicable precedents or decisions of superior domestic courts.

[elysepopplewell]

Precedent is '[t]he making of law by a court in recognising and applying new rules while administering justice' - Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition.

Essentially, a judge would make law or create precedent where there is no relevant law governing the present facts or the interpretation of a statute. Another circumstance I can think off is where a judge decides to override. Here, a relevant precedent does exist for the present facts, but the superior judge thinks the precedent from the inferior court is bad law and thus decides to supersede it thereby creating a new one.

Just to be clear, using precedents is quite different to creating one. Also, a court can use or adopt any precedent it wishes - even those from a foreign jurisdiction or from an inferior court, subject to the doctrine of stare decisis - courts must follow any applicable precedents or decisions of superior domestic courts.

Thanks for your input! Was hoping someone would pipe in here