University : Griffith University UniLearnO is not sponsored or endorsed by this college or university.
Subject Code : LAW3016
Country : Australia
Assignment Task -                 
 

 

Question 1: 
Critically evaluate the competing legal and policy arguments used to support ‘originalist’ and  'non-originalist' methods of interpreting the Constitution. Discuss the extent to which  members of the High Court have favoured these methods of interpretation in deciding actual  cases. Give a reasoned explanation for your preferred technique of constitutional  interpretation. 

 

Question 2:  
In Love and Thoms v Commonwealth [2020] HCA 3 (‘Love’), the High Court of Australia  had to decide whether Indigenous Australians could be considered “aliens” for the purposes  of s 51(xix) of the Constitution, and therefore subject to a deportation order. A majority of  four judges decided that Indigenous Australians cannot be considered aliens for the purposes  of s 51(six) and a minority of three judges decided that Indigenous Australians can be  considered aliens for that purpose. Decisions such as Love highlight the differences in the  interpretation of the Constitution, including its heads of power, amongst the judges. 


Consider, compare and contrast the decisions of Gordon J (in the majority) and Keane J (in  the minority), focusing on each judge’s reasoning about the nature and extent of the  legislative power conferred by s 51(xix). Please give your reasoned explanation of which  judgment you prefer and why? 
You are required to read the case of Love and Thoms v Commonwealth, and to answer the  Assignment Question.

While your answer should focus on the judgements of Keane and  Gordon JJ, you could find useful insights in the other judgments so you are advised to read  the entire judgment. 
You are not required to analyse previous judgments on s 51(xix), except insofar as they are  discussed in or are relevant to your assessment of the two judgments, as the question raised in  this case was novel. Nor are you required to explain the history of native title. Nor are you  required to discuss the personal circumstances of either plaintiff.

 

NSTRUCTIONS 
The Assignment is worth 40% of your assessment, and will receive a mark out of 40. There is a strict maximum word limit of 2000 words: there is no 10% leeway; additional  words will not be read. This word limit does not count the footnotes or bilbiography. It does  count headings. 
 

 


This LAW3016 - Law Assignment has been solved by our Law Experts at onlineassignmentbank. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment Experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.


 

  • Uploaded By : admin
  • Posted on : December 10th, 2018
  • Downloads : 3

Whatsapp Tap to ChatGet instant assistance