property law essay (1 Viewer)

[Belinda]

I TOTALLY understand what you mean by that. I've only penned 200 or so words. Yes it's due tomorrow, if I don't get it done by tonight, I'm screwed. *chants*

I'm a little worried about how the footnoting example Margaret gave in her "exam tips" page looks nothing like the ones in the guide we have. =/

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

how are u guys starting it?
that's my main problem - how to start!!!

 

[iwannarock]

i just started with a really quick explanation of the external affairs powers.

you know eg: external powers falls under s51 which states parliament has power to legislate in these areas - (xxix) external affairs yada yada.

then i just said that the external affairs powers has been open to various interpretations as to the scope of how and when it can be applied yada yada yada.

it was really short.

now im talking about those interpretations. i assume its just pretty much pg 34 of the study guide. the lecture notes. lecture 19 second section on external affairs legislative power. pretty much that list covers the scope of its use and how its interpreted.

this characterisation business will confuse me but.

 

[iwannarock]

1930 words.

im going to bed.

i hope my problem question turns out better than the essay i just wrote.

 

[MaryJane]

Just remember guys, P=Degree

Thats what I'm relying on. I hate the thought of having to finish today, its just tooooo cold to think straight. Stupid Constitution. I wish it was never written.

Well, thats not true.. I'm glad it was written, I wish we didnt have to study it.

 

[MaryJane]

Ok, grrr!!

With the purposive/non-purposive distinction, is this how it goes??

Purposive: obviously the purpose of the law must reflect the purpose of the power. Is this through the "sufficient connection" and "reasonably appropriate and adaptive" tests? I have so many jumbled notes. I have what Nicola said, and then what the book says (which is nothing).

Non-purposive: that list in Grain Pool, right? With the 5 points?

Thanks guys... hope all is going well for you!

xoxo

 

[Belinda]

I think that's correct, that's what I'm putting.

Argh I'm so behind! No sleep for me tonight.

 

[iwannarock]

*stretches*

mornin'

alright.............23 hours to bang out this next 2000 words.

im off to go read

 

[iwannarock]

shit shit shit these problem questions are hard.

i wanted to do question 5........but i dont know how i can apply the corporations power to it properly let alone for 1500 words. and plus i dont know anybody doing it so i cant get help.


aaah.........and the defences one i know nothing about. is question 4 relatively straight forward once u do the reading on the defence power?

shit shit shit

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

it's pretty straight forward i guess
first u look at what heads it could fall under - either the defence power s51(6) or the implied nationhood power (B&W, p. 534). the look at the scope - whole 'waxes and wanes' thing - decide if it will be broadened in light of terrorism
then it's a test of proportionality - reasonably appropriate and adapted to purpose of defence? i said no it's a bit extreme given the violation of civil liberties, and didn't think the current terrorist situation was enough to justify it - consider the communist party case. part one's only gotta be 1000 words.
then part 2 - limitations... i'm a bit stuck there... i need at least 500 words - might talk about seperation of powers issue - ie no judicial review so may infringe on ch. 3 i guess there's also the civil liberties issue.
hey do u guys reckon it would be better to address the punitive/non-punitive issue in detail in the 'sustainability' or the 'limitations section.'?

 

[Belinda]

Don't we look at the characterisation first THEN look at Constitutional interpretation? I'm a little confused, do we look at scope first or proportionality first? It makes more sense doing proportion then scope but doesn't that go against the whole characterisation before interpretation?

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

characterisation and interpretation are quite interrelated

i think first u do a general characterisation test to see whether the law can be seen to fall within any head of power, then u interpret the scope of the power and then characterise the law more fully to see whether the law in question falls within the scope of the power - at least that's how i understand it

 

[MaryJane]

I read somewhere that the court is reluctant to discuss constitutional interpretation... when I find the page, I'll give it to you

Limitations, I just talked about the separation of powers too. You cant really do a whole lot in 650 words max.

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

i know - judicial parsimony - but they still need to interpret it if its scope is not clear

did u talk about the punitive/nonpunitive distinction in part 1?

 

[iwannarock]

alright part A done.

on to part B. i'm so screwed. ooooooh but im so close just another 500 words.

i guess i'll talk about separation of powers. aaaaaah that requires even mooooooooooore reading.

and scarecrow you're waaaaaaaaaay ahead of me with this punitive/non-punitive stuff. sorry i can't help you with that i got no idea.

i think one time im gonna have to study up big time in a law course so that when it comes to assignment time i can actually be of help to you guys. I'll know the answers to all your questions. To make up for all the help you guys have given me over the years.

 

[iwannarock]

yaaaaaaaaaay im done.

i only barely got over 500 words for part b. all i talked about was separation of powers and judicial review.........chu kheng something or other.

my brain is dead.

now that it is printed it is time to read over the awful garbage i have written.


P=Degree all the way!

good luck with it guys. you guys always seem to pull out the D's anyway.

 

[MaryJane]

I'm finished too - but have taken the day off work anyway! I finished last night about midnight-ish, got into bed, and didnt fall asleep until 4am, and then, I dreamt about the stupid assignment!! I hate it when assessments hijack your brain!!!

I totally agree IWR: P=degree!!! Yayayayaya!!!

Scarecrow: Are you talking about Q 4(a) when you say "part 1"? If so, I mentioned the punitive/non-punitive issue in part B, because I saw it as a possible limitation.

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

yup - that's what i did too.

side note: ARRRRRHHHHHHHH save me! i've only done 80 words for the external affairs question, it's nearly 11 and it confuses the crap out of me. bloody confusing interpretation/characterisation distinction why do u hate me?

 

[MaryJane]

Oh scarecrowww... I wish I could help! If you changed and did the first question, I'd be able to, but I avoided that external affairs one because I dont understand the stupid thing. Give me plain old aliens and naturalisation any day

 

[iwannarock]

scarecrow its pretty much as i said before "pg 34 of the study guide. the lecture notes. lecture 19 second section on external affairs legislative power. pretty much that list covers the scope of its use and how its interpreted"

basically just regurgitate the textbook. it seems everybody has done that.

the charactarization is purposive with regards to implementation of treaties. interpretation of the scope is broad. talk about all the cases in the list on pg 34 of the study guide.

and there aren't many limits. shit i just spent all sunday night talking about that crap and i can hardly remember anything from it.

let me go find my essay.