23
Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

Comparative Constitutional Law

Class 11September 27, 2006

Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

Page 2: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

WRAP-UP

• Federal constitution

• Modern democracy/constitutional monarchy

Page 3: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

SEPARATION OF POWERS

• Advisory opinions permitted? (Contrast to U.S. and Canada)NO

• Executive-legislative separation?• Judicial independence? See s. 72

(appointed until age 70 (amended from life in 1977), can’t be removed except by both Houses of Parliament on ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity, salaries can’t be reduced while in office)

Page 4: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

AMENDMENT

• Contrast amendment procedures with U.S. and Canada

Page 5: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

AMENDMENT

• Contrast amendment procedures with U.S. and Canada AUSTRALIA: Requires federal legislation and approval by majority of voters nation-wide and in a majority of states

Page 6: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

U.S. Amendment Article V

• The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate

Page 7: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

Canada Part V 1982 Constitution Act

• Most amendments subject to 7-50 formula (resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces).

• Some require unanimous consent, others consent of only one province

Page 8: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

AMENDMENT

• How many times has the Australian Constitution been amended (compare with U.S. and Canada)

Page 9: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

RIGHTS

• Compare rights provisions in Australian and Canadian and U.S. Constitutions

Page 10: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

RIGHTS

• Compare rights provisions in Australian and Canadian and U.S. Constitutions Why are rights so limited? Doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: parliament as best doctrines of liberty. Natural rights, not utilitarian view. Desire for strong government

Page 11: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

AMENDMENT

• How many times has constitution been amended (compare with U.S. and Canada) 8 of 44 proposals (U.S. 27 Amendments, Canada 10 amendments)

Page 12: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

JUDICIAL REVIEW

• Contrast with U.S. and Canada

Page 13: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

COMPARE AND CONTRAST

• Australian High Court, U.S. Supreme Court and Supreme Court of Canada

• Jurisdiction, judiciary, leave to appeal, number of cases heard, number of judges, how they are appointed, background, # women and minority justices?

Page 14: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL

• All Commonwealth realms had right of appeal to Privy Council in England. Some retained this after independence but many began to find it out of tune with their values

Page 15: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

IMPACT OF PRIVY COUNCIL IN AUSTRALIA

• Compare with that of Canada

• See section 74 (inter se), 76

Page 16: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION

• What problems exist for interpreters of the Australian constitution?

• Positivist or normativist?

• Originalist or “living tree”?

• Compare to U.S. and Canada

Page 17: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION

• Formalism

• Literalism

• Engineers

Page 18: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

Sir Samuel Walker Griffith

• First Chief Justice of the High Court (1903-1919)

Page 19: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

High Court: First Sitting (1903)

Page 20: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

Justice O’Connor

• Served on High Court 1903-1912

• Former Senator• Favored Federation• Involved in

Constitutional convention

Page 21: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

Sir Edmund Barton

• First Prime Minister of Australia (1901-1903)

• Protectionist• Work defusing first

international cricket riot in 1879 (he was umpiring) led to start of his political career

• Leading federalist in NSW at time of constitutional conventions

Page 22: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

Justice Higgins

• Served as justice on the High Court 1906-1929

Page 23: Comparative Constitutional Law Class 11 September 27, 2006 Australian Constitutional Interpretation I

Justice Isaac Isaacs

• Served on the High Court 1906-1930

• Difficult, uncollegial• Radical• Later appointed

Governor-General• Opposed to Zionism