property law essay (3 Viewers)

[scarecrow_of_oz]

i'm doing external affairs and defence

 

[Belinda]

I'm doing external affairs (Q3) and terrorism (Q4).

Q4 almost seems like the tute question except the tute question focused more on external affairs whereas we're not allowed to do so here.

I have a big question for Q4 part B: what restriction is it referring to? People tell me that it's to do with the nationhood power, others say implied immunity I'm confused... any ideas?

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

ooo we have a new member! hi belinda!! u're the first new person we've had to 3rd yr mac law discussions since i think first year!
i wish i could answer ur question but not quite up to that bit yet... but why would nationhood power be a restriction?

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

oh right - u mean that implied nationhood has restrictions... sorry i'm half asleep. there would be restrictions to both powers wouldn't there?

 

[Belinda]

oh right - u mean that implied nationhood has restrictions... sorry i'm half asleep. there would be restrictions to both powers wouldn't there?

Nah it's alright I'm half asleep too. I'm just confused about Part B in general, is the restriction it asks to do with the defence power mentioned in Part A or restrictions to the Commonwealth in regards to another issue or power? I emailed Margaret about the ambiguity, as soon as she response (I REALLY hope she does), I'll post back here. But for now... clueless!

Heh, I don't visit noticeboards a lot, but since I've signed up since the HSC, I find it more welcoming to post here rather than the cold and empty boards of law on WebCT.

 

[MaryJane]

Welcome Belinda!!

For part b, I'm going to mention restrictions on defence, nationhood power (briefly), and detention - I'm just following Nicola's tutorial answer structure

 

[Belinda]

Margaret emailed back and said "It means to ask whether there is any restriction on Commonwealth power (including the defence power) that may be relevant in this fact scenario that may render the proposed law unconstitutional."

Since it's any restrictions we can probably go through any restrictions relevant we can think of including defence.

Phew! And I was going to cover defence in it's entirety, including restrictions, in part A.

Mary Jane, I'm in Nicola's tute too, do you mean her answer structure as discussed in her tute?

 

[MaryJane]

Yeah... not the handout that she gave (re: external affairs), but the answer to the terrorist question.

Thanks for letting us know Margaret's answer! I'm going to find it hard not talking about the defence restrictions inpart A though, because it forms the argument.

I wish part B was the longer section, because I have so much more to talk about!

With part A, are you guys going to talk about characterisation (purposive defence stuff), the communist party case (for defence) etc?

 

[Belinda]

Yup I am, the whole reasonably adapted and appropriateness and the whole stream can't rise above the source thing.

You know how in part A you assume that the external affairs power is valid and we don't talk about it... do we just assume it for part A or for the whole question? Because if there isn't that assumption for part B, then maybe we can talk about that in terms of restrictions too.

 

[MaryJane]

I would talk about any possible restrictions re: external affairs in part B, because Margaret said it can be a restriction outside the realm of s 51 (vi).... If you can fit it into the tiny word limit!

 

[iwannarock]

wow a new addition welcome Belinda!

i would love to be of help but you guys seem to already know your stuff.

im gonna start the reading tomorrow, bang out 2000 words 2morow night............then bang out the other 2000 words monday night.

well thats the plan anyway.

why i'm starting so late you ask? its a combination of the fifa world cup, and one of my friends leaving for europe tomorrow and having a party last night.

i hope i get through it.

 

[Belinda]

Hope your plan works out!

Ick I'm a little worried about the essay on external affairs power. It seems to be asking a "what" question, i.e. to explain... I don't know how I can construct an argument on that. =/

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

lol i'm in ur boat iwr, still haven't finished the readings or started writing. i keep getting distracted by interesting and almost related stuff on the net - like parliamentary brawls and kirbs paying out the hc for whatever reason. lol the judges are so dramatic. kirbs thinks mchugh's an 'ancestor worshiper' and mchugh thinks kirbs is a 'legal heretic.'

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

and belinda the answer to the 'what' answer can be seen as controversial, so u can still argue what u think there

 

[Belinda]

Ah that's true.

Wow are you doing extra research on the net? O_O

I only just begun planning out the writing -___-;

 

[MaryJane]

"Extra research" or "procrastination hidden in the form of extra research"

I've written the draft to the hypothetical answer, and have just started trying to get my thoughts together to answer the essay question. I wish I didnt have to work on Tuesday

 

[Belinda]

Can't you call in sick or something, MaryJane?

Ack I'm getting so confused with the interpretation and characterisation... determining the scope of power falls under interpretation right?

 

[MaryJane]

I could... except for the fact I'm on a contract, and they know I have an assessment due that day.

Then again, they probably would be okay with it, seeing its a law firm... But I'd prefer the money

Yup:

Interpretation: Defining the scope of the Constitutional power

Characterisation: Purposive/ non-purposive distinction between the Parliamentary power/act which they are trying to pass.

And remember; characterisation tends to come before interpretation (cant rememebr the case, just remember Nicola drilling that in). I think its something to do with good old McHugh J.

 

[Belinda]

Thanks for clearing that up! How I understand it is that interpretation deals with the scope and limitation of the Constitutional power and the characterisation is the test to see whether the law fits into that power... I hope that's right. =|

BTW, yah characterisation comes first usually: Coleman v Power 2004 B&W603

 

[iwannarock]

alright i opened up word.

i haven't done all the reading about external powers but i'll wing it as i go. there doesn't seem to be too much reading anyway. i still haven't chosen which problem i'm doing. the first one seems simpler, but i missed the tute dealing with that prob question similar to it. on the other hand i was at the tute with the corporations power one so i remember stuff from it which could help for the second.

i have to will myself into believing that this essay is a separate question due 2morow if i'm ever gonna be able to get this thing done. its due monday. yes its due monday.......can't procrastinate now because its due monday. then the problem is due tuesday.........yes thats right. they both can't be done monday night........they can't both be done monday night!

i've gone mad already and im not even into the eye of the 48 hour long storm of essay and problem writing just yet.