VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[Chazef]

I wrote way too much for this four mark question: Use one example to explain and illustrate how the law-making powers of the commonwealth parliament and the state parliaments have been changed by high court interpretation of the commonwealth constitution (4 marks) {2005}

Answer: Sections 73, 75 and 76 of the constitution set-out the high court’s ability to settle disputes over conflictions between commonwealth and state law and disputes involving the meaning of words and phrases in the constitution.

 The high court has the power to change the constitution by interpreting words and phrases to apply the original intentions of the constitution’s authors to the case at hand. This keeps the constitution relevant and up-to-date, without changing the words themselves but by giving meaning to them.

An interpretation which established new areas of law under the commonwealth parliament would change the balance of law making powers in favour of the commonwealth, with interpretations which restrict the commonwealth’s law-making power changing the balance in favour of the states.

An example is the Franklin Dam Case, in which the state of Tasmania argued that the commonwealth’s laws which prevented construction at the Franklin River to uphold the UNESCO convention (an international treaty) was beyond their law-making power. The High Court interpreted the external affairs power (S51xxix) of the constitution and decided the commonwealth was able to make laws on otherwise residual matters in order to uphold international treaties. This largely increased the commonwealth’s power over the states, with the external affairs interpretation being used many times since when the commonwealth passes law on fundamentally residual matters.

What can I do to reduce this?

[meganrobyn]

I wrote way too much for this four mark question: Use one example to explain and illustrate how the law-making powers of the commonwealth parliament and the state parliaments have been changed by high court interpretation of the commonwealth constitution (4 marks) {2005}

Answer: Sections 73, 75 and 76 of the constitution set-out the high court’s ability to settle disputes over conflictions between commonwealth and state law and disputes involving the meaning of words and phrases in the constitution.

 The high court has the power to change the constitution by interpreting words and phrases to apply the original intentions of the constitution’s authors to the case at hand. This keeps the constitution relevant and up-to-date, without changing the words themselves but by giving meaning to them.

An interpretation which established new areas of law under the commonwealth parliament would change the balance of law making powers in favour of the commonwealth, with interpretations which restrict the commonwealth’s law-making power changing the balance in favour of the states.

An example is the Franklin Dam Case, in which the state of Tasmania argued that the commonwealth’s laws which prevented construction at the Franklin River to uphold the UNESCO convention (an international treaty) was beyond their law-making power. The High Court interpreted the external affairs power (S51xxix) of the constitution and decided the commonwealth was able to make laws on otherwise residual matters in order to uphold international treaties. This largely increased the commonwealth’s power over the states, with the external affairs interpretation being used many times since when the commonwealth passes law on fundamentally residual matters.

What can I do to reduce this?

I love the final paragraph. You don't actually need the first three, though! The question asks for the example as the focus, not the method itself, and that example's great.

I would cut the first three paragraphs, perhaps putting "Using their power under s76" down before "The High Court interpreted...", and then incorporating some of paragraph three into a final sentence elaborating on the impact right at the end. You've said the impact in terms of the Cwlth gaining power, but not really explained the corresponding decrease for the states.

Note: Saying 'an interpretation that gives a broader interpretation to existing specific powers', thereby encompassing more areas within the power (eg radio and TV within "like services" to telegraphs and telephones), would be slightly more correct than saying the interpretation establishes *new* areas.

[Chazef]

Okay another question, will this exam have any evaluation questions worth more than 10 marks? (e.g. evaluate adversary system, 12 marks)

[eeps]

Okay another question, will this exam have any evaluation questions worth more than 10 marks? (e.g. evaluate adversary system, 12 marks)

Don't think so. In recent years (including last year), 10 marks has been the maximum for any given question.

[meganrobyn]

VCAA exam specifications: http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/legalstudies/legalstud-samp-w.pdf

[vashappenin]

'The Australian parliamentary system has borrowed and adapted a number of concepts from other countries.' Discuss (6 marks)
This question is from the A+ notes guide, and I was wondering if it's necessary for us to know such details in so much depth. I thought we just needed to know that it was based on the Westminster system, but if not then what am I expected to know??!

Thanks

[michak]

'The Australian parliamentary system has borrowed and adapted a number of concepts from other countries.' Discuss (6 marks)
This question is from the A+ notes guide, and I was wondering if it's necessary for us to know such details in so much depth. I thought we just needed to know that it was based on the Westminster system, but if not then what am I expected to know??!

Thanks

You are correct don't need to know this
You don't even need to know much about the Westminster model just that our system is based off it

[vashappenin]

Ok cool thanks
Haha that's a relief! I was beginning to freak out when I saw it!

[JordanBallLS50]

Chazef, the highest marks for a single legal studies question is 10. I did it last year and never came across one higher unless your counting 3)i)ii)iii) as one. But as for the example, no your certainly wont get a 12 marker or something like that. Just watch out for the marks, we got thrown a 7 marker. Id never done one!!! so that was a shock.

[jeanweasley]

I've a question. When it says to evaluate two strengths of Parliament, is it necessary to talk about its weaknesses as well when the question is specifically only asking for its strengths? My teacher wants us to put so much information into a question and I'm getting nervous because it feels like I don't have to read the question because she wants me to used prepared answers... Urgh. I'm so angry.

[unfamila]

I've a question. When it says to evaluate two strengths of Parliament, is it necessary to talk about its weaknesses as well when the question is specifically only asking for its strengths? My teacher wants us to put so much information into a question and I'm getting nervous because it feels like I don't have to read the question because she wants me to used prepared answers... Urgh. I'm so angry.

You have to talk about the strength and the corresponding weakness.
eg parliament provides arena for debate... but if govt holds majority in upper house it may become a rubber stamp.
And after you have discussed the S and W make a judgement on whether it is overall a s or w of the law-making process

[michak]

I've a question. When it says to evaluate two strengths of Parliament, is it necessary to talk about its weaknesses as well when the question is specifically only asking for its strengths? My teacher wants us to put so much information into a question and I'm getting nervous because it feels like I don't have to read the question because she wants me to used prepared answers... Urgh. I'm so angry.

Evaluate means to I look at the strengths and weaknesses of a point.
So what you do is write what your point is give a strength of it but then it's corresponding weakness.
Just remember that the atrenght and weakness have to match so if you have a point that doesn't have both dont use it.

And mk5w you don't always need to make a final judgement on the topic I would only do this in 10 or 8 mark questions

[jeanweasley]

Thanks for the reply.

So it doesn't matter even if the question was only asking for weaknesses, that I'd still have to discuss the strengths? Say if it's only worth 6 marks? Would each mark attribute to the strengths and weaknesses?

[unfamila]

If it says evaluate or critically evaluate you must discuss both the strength and corresponding weakness or vise-versa and make a judgement on whether overall you this it's a strength or a weakness of parliament.

EG- evaluate one strength and one weakness of parliament.(6 marks)

1 mark for Strength, 1 mark for corresponding  weakness, 1 mark for judgement.     3 marks
1 mark for weakness, 1 mark for corresponding strength, 1 mark for judgement.     3 marks overall (6 marks)

[michak]

If it says evaluate or critically evaluate you must discuss both the strength and corresponding weakness or vise-versa and make a judgement on whether overall you this it's a strength or a weakness of parliament.

EG- evaluate one strength and one weakness of parliament.(6 marks)

1 mark for Strength, 1 mark for corresponding  weakness, 1 mark for judgement.     3 marks
1 mark for weakness, 1 mark for corresponding strength, 1 mark for judgement.     3 marks overall (6 marks)

I was told different we never had to make a judgement there if it said critically evaluate or just evaluate and it was a six mark question I would make three points with their corresponding strength and weakness.
Ask you teacher what they want in their answers but this is what I did the whole year