LEGT1711 Midsession (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Dwight
- Start date
I'm thinking the SA section was about separation of powers and how it's bad that the government was telling the judiciary what to do.
I think you could argue it either way though, because s51 of the constitution gives them the power to legislate about telecommunications anyway. So I argued that they were within rights to do it anyway. Dunno if that's right, but that's what I put so oh well.
I think you could argue it either way though, because s51 of the constitution gives them the power to legislate about telecommunications anyway. So I argued that they were within rights to do it anyway. Dunno if that's right, but that's what I put so oh well.
lol...i'm hoping i did ok in the MC cos i totally flunked the short answers...i sat there staring at the clock...trying to figure out what law it was, and ended up flipping back through to the MC section and found something about laws disciminating against trade in a protectionist manner...and wrote something about that....there goes my 5 marks...-__-
i was expecting something like duty of care or lange...not...this..thing...
i was expecting something like duty of care or lange...not...this..thing...
Only the first few weeks are like pols1003politik said:
i thought the issue was (might be completely off):
separation of powers as someone said before, the government was forcing the courts to do something 'courts MUST authorise etc etc' and not allowing them to be independent
also they werent representing the wishes of the public
velox
Retired
says the man with the hd averageDwight said:
