Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 01:01:36 am

Author Topic: Express Rights ..z.z.z.z.  (Read 19858 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

meganrobyn

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 837
  • Respect: +62
Re: Express Rights ..z.z.z.z.
« Reply #15 on: May 06, 2012, 08:18:02 pm »
0
My teacher also told us there are 5 express right, as mentioned earlier and two implied right (3.3). The two implied rights are the right to vote and freedom of political speech?
The ability to vote isn't a right at all, because not everyone can vote, and rights are legally-protected entitlements that are granted to everyone and cannot be taken away or breached. Voting can be taken away based on unsoundness of mind, whether you've committed treason (since you've tried to destroy the system, it makes sense that you're removed from it) and if you've been imprisoned for longer than three years (as it's likely you've committed a major crime - less serious offences will generally warrant shorter jail terms).

Sections of the Constitution like 7 and 24 make it look like there's a right to vote by saying that members of the House of Reps and Senate must be "directly chosen by the people", but it doesn't specify who "the people" are. It is therefore up to the Commonwealth to determine who can or cannot vote.

That's a brilliant answer. You should write a textbook.
[Update: full for 2018.] I give Legal lectures through CPAP, and am an author for the CPAP 'Legal Fundamentals' textbook and the Legal 3/4 Study Guide.
Available for private tutoring in English and Legal Studies.
Experience in Legal 3/4 assessing; author of Legal textbook; degrees in Law and English; VCE teaching experience in Legal Studies and English. Legal Studies [50] English [50] way back when.
Good luck!

Iniquity

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Respect: +4
  • School Grad Year: 2013
Re: Express Rights ..z.z.z.z.
« Reply #16 on: May 06, 2012, 08:42:38 pm »
0
My teacher also told us there are 5 express right, as mentioned earlier and two implied right (3.3). The two implied rights are the right to vote and freedom of political speech?
The ability to vote isn't a right at all, because not everyone can vote, and rights are legally-protected entitlements that are granted to everyone and cannot be taken away or breached. Voting can be taken away based on unsoundness of mind, whether you've committed treason (since you've tried to destroy the system, it makes sense that you're removed from it) and if you've been imprisoned for longer than three years (as it's likely you've committed a major crime - less serious offences will generally warrant shorter jail terms).

Sections of the Constitution like 7 and 24 make it look like there's a right to vote by saying that members of the House of Reps and Senate must be "directly chosen by the people", but it doesn't specify who "the people" are. It is therefore up to the Commonwealth to determine who can or cannot vote.

That's a brilliant answer. You should write a textbook.
Thanks so much! That means a lot coming from someone who's written a textbook themselves. :)

meganrobyn

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 837
  • Respect: +62
Re: Express Rights ..z.z.z.z.
« Reply #17 on: May 06, 2012, 09:22:40 pm »
0
My teacher also told us there are 5 express right, as mentioned earlier and two implied right (3.3). The two implied rights are the right to vote and freedom of political speech?
The ability to vote isn't a right at all, because not everyone can vote, and rights are legally-protected entitlements that are granted to everyone and cannot be taken away or breached. Voting can be taken away based on unsoundness of mind, whether you've committed treason (since you've tried to destroy the system, it makes sense that you're removed from it) and if you've been imprisoned for longer than three years (as it's likely you've committed a major crime - less serious offences will generally warrant shorter jail terms).

Sections of the Constitution like 7 and 24 make it look like there's a right to vote by saying that members of the House of Reps and Senate must be "directly chosen by the people", but it doesn't specify who "the people" are. It is therefore up to the Commonwealth to determine who can or cannot vote.

That's a brilliant answer. You should write a textbook.
Thanks so much! That means a lot coming from someone who's written a textbook themselves. :)

My pleasure! Now I want to see your explanation of in what way it's a structural protection ;)

Actually, I have written a textbook, haven't I? I take it back: you shouldn't. I shouldn't wish that on you. Writing a textbook is a pain in the ___!!!  ;D
[Update: full for 2018.] I give Legal lectures through CPAP, and am an author for the CPAP 'Legal Fundamentals' textbook and the Legal 3/4 Study Guide.
Available for private tutoring in English and Legal Studies.
Experience in Legal 3/4 assessing; author of Legal textbook; degrees in Law and English; VCE teaching experience in Legal Studies and English. Legal Studies [50] English [50] way back when.
Good luck!

Iniquity

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Respect: +4
  • School Grad Year: 2013
Re: Express Rights ..z.z.z.z.
« Reply #18 on: May 07, 2012, 12:59:12 pm »
0
My teacher also told us there are 5 express right, as mentioned earlier and two implied right (3.3). The two implied rights are the right to vote and freedom of political speech?
The ability to vote isn't a right at all, because not everyone can vote, and rights are legally-protected entitlements that are granted to everyone and cannot be taken away or breached. Voting can be taken away based on unsoundness of mind, whether you've committed treason (since you've tried to destroy the system, it makes sense that you're removed from it) and if you've been imprisoned for longer than three years (as it's likely you've committed a major crime - less serious offences will generally warrant shorter jail terms).

Sections of the Constitution like 7 and 24 make it look like there's a right to vote by saying that members of the House of Reps and Senate must be "directly chosen by the people", but it doesn't specify who "the people" are. It is therefore up to the Commonwealth to determine who can or cannot vote.

That's a brilliant answer. You should write a textbook.
Thanks so much! That means a lot coming from someone who's written a textbook themselves. :)

My pleasure! Now I want to see your explanation of in what way it's a structural protection ;)

Actually, I have written a textbook, haven't I? I take it back: you shouldn't. I shouldn't wish that on you. Writing a textbook is a pain in the ___!!!  ;D
I'm not entirely sure how to explain that it's a structural protection, but I'll give it a go anyway!

As the High Court has stated that a substantial proportion of the population must have the ability to vote (and this ability can only be taken away for a substantial reason), this upholds the principle of representative democracy. Governments will be unlikely to pass legislation that infringe voters' rights (even if there is nothing in the Constitution preventing them from doing so) for fear of losing office, and regular elections will ensure that any government that does breach citizen's rights is likely to be voted out of office. However, we cannot rely on structural protection alone, as voters may be unaware of or indifferent to the plight of unpopular minorities targeted by the government; such a government may be re-elected by the majority and the minority's rights will continue to be infringed.

Something like that? I have a SAC on this stuff tomorrow, so do let me know if I'm completely wrong :)

Oh, almost forgot - which textbook did you write? Will you ever put yourself through that torture again? :P
« Last Edit: May 07, 2012, 01:04:30 pm by Iniquity »

meganrobyn

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 837
  • Respect: +62
Re: Express Rights ..z.z.z.z.
« Reply #19 on: May 07, 2012, 09:06:53 pm »
0
I like the start and general idea of your answer, but think it would be stronger if you were more explicit about the High Court's formulation of the protection from the Roach Case. Phrasing it as a negative (ie in terms of what the parliament *cannot* do) can also help, as it parallels the enunciation of our express and implied rights (eg s116 prevents the Cwlth Plt from infringing our freedom of religion by...etc).

So, after your intro, perhaps drawing the chain of logic out a little more clearly - like: a system of rep govt is established by the Const, therefore the Plt cannot prevent significant sections of the people from voting without significant cause (eg prior serious imprisonment) as that would impair the popular representation and democratic quality; the flow-on protection derived from these popular and democratic elections will therefore be that the Plt is less likely to pass oppressive legislation because of acct etc.

I authored the Jacaranda online text, StudyON. I don't want to undertake anything that huge again in the near future, but I do seriously want to do some updates to it! This year I'm mainly just doing the CPAP lectures, updates, sacs, etc etc!

BTW I'm on my phone so proofing is too much trouble - I'll just apologise here in advance in case! Good luck tomorrow :)
[Update: full for 2018.] I give Legal lectures through CPAP, and am an author for the CPAP 'Legal Fundamentals' textbook and the Legal 3/4 Study Guide.
Available for private tutoring in English and Legal Studies.
Experience in Legal 3/4 assessing; author of Legal textbook; degrees in Law and English; VCE teaching experience in Legal Studies and English. Legal Studies [50] English [50] way back when.
Good luck!

Iniquity

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Respect: +4
  • School Grad Year: 2013
Re: Express Rights ..z.z.z.z.
« Reply #20 on: May 07, 2012, 09:47:53 pm »
0
I like the start and general idea of your answer, but think it would be stronger if you were more explicit about the High Court's formulation of the protection from the Roach Case. Phrasing it as a negative (ie in terms of what the parliament *cannot* do) can also help, as it parallels the enunciation of our express and implied rights (eg s116 prevents the Cwlth Plt from infringing our freedom of religion by...etc).

So, after your intro, perhaps drawing the chain of logic out a little more clearly - like: a system of rep govt is established by the Const, therefore the Plt cannot prevent significant sections of the people from voting without significant cause (eg prior serious imprisonment) as that would impair the popular representation and democratic quality; the flow-on protection derived from these popular and democratic elections will therefore be that the Plt is less likely to pass oppressive legislation because of acct etc.

I authored the Jacaranda online text, StudyON. I don't want to undertake anything that huge again in the near future, but I do seriously want to do some updates to it! This year I'm mainly just doing the CPAP lectures, updates, sacs, etc etc!

BTW I'm on my phone so proofing is too much trouble - I'll just apologise here in advance in case! Good luck tomorrow :)
Yeah, the Roach Case is definitely something that I need to revise - the practice SAC questions I've been doing so far haven't asked about it at all. Really appreciate the clarification! :)

Updates would be nice, but I'll have to purchase a copy before they'd be any use to me :P Also, do you have any exam preparation lectures (perhaps later in the year)?

I don't think there were any mistakes, so no need for apologies. You've been a great help so far :) I'll do my best to remember to post some more questions on here in preparation for future SACs, haha. And thanks - I'll need all the luck I can get!

meganrobyn

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 837
  • Respect: +62
Re: Express Rights ..z.z.z.z.
« Reply #21 on: May 07, 2012, 10:33:41 pm »
0
Ah, you don't need luck :)

Yeah, the CPAP exam revision one in October is the main one.
[Update: full for 2018.] I give Legal lectures through CPAP, and am an author for the CPAP 'Legal Fundamentals' textbook and the Legal 3/4 Study Guide.
Available for private tutoring in English and Legal Studies.
Experience in Legal 3/4 assessing; author of Legal textbook; degrees in Law and English; VCE teaching experience in Legal Studies and English. Legal Studies [50] English [50] way back when.
Good luck!

destain

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 277
  • Good morning
  • Respect: 0
  • School: Melbourne High School
Re: Express Rights ..z.z.z.z.
« Reply #22 on: May 08, 2012, 06:41:47 pm »
0
Right to vote - protected by the structure and text of the constitution so refer to Vicki Lee Roach, Roach V, Electoral Commissioner 2007

Implied Right- mechanisms in the Constitution that provide for the indirect protection of rights in our dealings with the Commonwealth parl. by preventing the abuse of power, refer to ACT V. Commonwealth of Australia 1992

Iniquity

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Respect: +4
  • School Grad Year: 2013
Re: Express Rights ..z.z.z.z.
« Reply #23 on: May 08, 2012, 07:53:37 pm »
0
Ah, you don't need luck :)

Yeah, the CPAP exam revision one in October is the main one.

Oh, but I do :P

Awesome, I'll do my best to be there :)

Implied Right- mechanisms in the Constitution that provide for the indirect protection of rights in our dealings with the Commonwealth parl. by preventing the abuse of power, refer to ACT V. Commonwealth of Australia 1992

Hmm...that sounds a bit more like a definition of the structural protection of rights than of implied rights (to me, anyway). With a general definition of implied rights, I'd mention that they're not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but the High Court has stated that the system of representative government the Constitution sets up indicates that the writers of the Constitution intended for the implied right to exist. Then you'd mention the freedom of communication of political matters, and refer to the ACT case and other cases if need be.

meganrobyn

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 837
  • Respect: +62
Re: Express Rights ..z.z.z.z.
« Reply #24 on: May 08, 2012, 11:15:22 pm »
0
Ah, you don't need luck :)

Yeah, the CPAP exam revision one in October is the main one.

Oh, but I do :P

Awesome, I'll do my best to be there :)

Implied Right- mechanisms in the Constitution that provide for the indirect protection of rights in our dealings with the Commonwealth parl. by preventing the abuse of power, refer to ACT V. Commonwealth of Australia 1992

Hmm...that sounds a bit more like a definition of the structural protection of rights than of implied rights (to me, anyway). With a general definition of implied rights, I'd mention that they're not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but the High Court has stated that the system of representative government the Constitution sets up indicates that the writers of the Constitution intended for the implied right to exist. Then you'd mention the freedom of communication of political matters, and refer to the ACT case and other cases if need be.

Finishing the definition with "when they read two or more sections together" is always good, because then you can reference ss7 and 24 explicitly in your example, as the representative parliament largely comes from them.

But, otherwise, the one above is the standard definition for structural protections rather than implied rights.

Hope the SAC went well!
[Update: full for 2018.] I give Legal lectures through CPAP, and am an author for the CPAP 'Legal Fundamentals' textbook and the Legal 3/4 Study Guide.
Available for private tutoring in English and Legal Studies.
Experience in Legal 3/4 assessing; author of Legal textbook; degrees in Law and English; VCE teaching experience in Legal Studies and English. Legal Studies [50] English [50] way back when.
Good luck!

destain

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 277
  • Good morning
  • Respect: 0
  • School: Melbourne High School
Re: Express Rights ..z.z.z.z.
« Reply #25 on: May 12, 2012, 10:18:23 am »
0
wooops ... but yeah i did alright i guess i forgot to remember an example of a watchdog approach so i lost an easy mark there sigh...but decent overall