One difference that Australia has against the US is that it is under “The Commonwealth” whereas the US is not; this usually means quite differential laws and rights. The Australian Constitution is similar in a way to the US Constitution as it also has a form of amendments, classed as ‘Articles’ and written as chapters. The purpose of the articles is also uniquely different to the US ten amendments. One item, mentioned in the Australian Constitution that states equality and fairness of finance and trade in all Australian States is no.99 of Chapter IV (Finance and Trade); “The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade, commerce, or revenue, give preference to one State or any part thereof over another State or any part thereof” (Parliament of Australia, 2012). Equality of a country’s states should be a legitimate law in all countries, however not all countries have this.
The construction of the desalination plant is flawed firstly as it is on the beautiful coastline in Wonthaggi in south eastern Victoria and it is frightening to think of what is currently in place, but above all it is not needed. That’s what the desalination plant is , an easy , get out of doing it properly short cut from politicians from the Liberal and Labour party’s
Attorney client privilege is a constitutional right Attorney client privileges are a constitutional right Attorney client privilege is not a constitutional right, the right to a fair trial is. The fact that attorney client privilege is a part of the current criminal justice system does not in turn make it fair or a constitutional right. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that attorney client privilege is even necessary. All the parts of a fair trial as described by the constitution can be attained without attorney client
If you asked any person from any place in the world, they would tell you they perceive Australia as an independent functioning nation. Therefore it is no longer necessary for Australia to have any ties to the British Monarchy on the other side of the world. At the end of the day Australia no longer has any relation to the queen apart from being a part of the commonwealth. Anyone in the world could tell you that Julia Gillard is our prime minister. But Julia Gillard, the average Australian is not understood by the rest of the world to run our country.
Can Congress pass legislation that allows for the creation of citizen suits that confer standing upon citizens who would not be able to allege an injury in fact? Opinion of the Court: Even if the Court were to assume that the agency-funded projects at issue threatened listed species, there was no proof that these actions would produce "actual or imminent" injuries to particular respondents who might someday wish to visit the foreign countries in question. The Court disregarded the proposed theory of "ecosystem nexus" which claimed that any person who used any part of a "contiguous ecosystem" adversed affected by a funded activity had standing to
Brought about by the Howard Government in 1996, the tightening of these gun laws were in response to Australia’s increasing crime rates averaging a rise of 18% each year, eventually leading to the Port Arthur Massacre of 1996 . Loop holes and extensive grey
Attorneys for Schenck challenged the constitutionality of the Espionage Act on First Amendment grounds. Freedom of Speech, Schenck's attorneys argued, guarantees the liberty of all Americans to voice their opinions about even the most sensitive political issues, as long as their speech does not incite immediate illegal action. Attorneys for the federal government argued that freedom of speech does not include the freedom to undermine the selective service system by casting aspersions upon the draft. In a 9–0 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed Schenck's conviction. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. delivered the opinion.
In the past few years there’s been a lot of controversy over whether or not modern day Australians should apologize for the past events of the stolen generation. This essay will support the statement made by John Howard which was “Modern Australians shouldn't be required to accept guilt and blame for past action.” The reasons we shouldn't have to accept guilt and blame for past actions are , we are not responsible for past actions, we directly had nothing to do with it, we are new Australians, and we have made up for our wrong by granting them their rights. The first reason as to why we should not have to apologize to the aboriginals is because we are not responsible for past action. The actions of past Australians towards the aboriginals
The Australian electorate is exceedingly careful about constitutional change, and it is unlikely that even a very limited Bill of Rights could be added to the Constitution. Once added, it would be largely up to the Cabinet to draft more bills to enforce these rights, the Parliament to pass more Acts, and the judiciary to whimsically interpret the Constitutional changes and the new laws. People like Ben could still be denied access to the processes put in place to defend their rights. If Australia had a constitutional Bill of Rights, and Ben's supporters had the money to mount a High Court case, the process could well have taken a much longer period than Ben could sustain his hunger strike, and he would find unacceptable such a long and difficult road to securing basic human
Genuinely, a political party who offers no real solutions to a significant issue of concern cannot be deemed as altruistic. And by, “alienating the opposing party with an ‘anti-Hispanic’ innuendo,” there is nothing productive or helpful for America that results (2). Furthermore, the article discusses how President Bush has “championed the immigrant cause” (1). At least, he is not making false accusations about the other party, is actually addressing the problem, and is trying to help foster effective solutions. It is most certainly more than the other party is doing.