SEPARATION of POWERS in AUSTRALIA: Doctrine and Application | AUSSIE LAW
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 сер 2024
- The doctrine of the separation of powers applies differently in Australia. In this video, we will go over the meaning and justification of the doctrine of separation of powers, and how it is applied, if it is applied at all, in Australia. We will look at the Australian Constitution and some cases related to the separation of powers, the functions of the three branches of government: Executive, Judiciary and Legislature, and we will see how all of this is applied in the Australian legal system.
0:00 - Intro
0:51 - Origins of the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers
03:52 - Division of Powers?
05:57 - Separation of Powers in Australia
12:30 - Summary
*****
SUBSCRIBE to AUSSIE LAW: ua-cam.com/users/AussieLaw?s...
Do you want to learn more about Australian Constitutional Law? Do you want to understand the basic concepts and principles of the Australian Constitution? You've come to the right place! Welcome to AussieLaw, the channel where we explain the facts, concepts, principles, and legal provisions of the Constitution of Australia (and of Australian Public Law in general). I hope you will enjoy our short videos!
*****
RECOMMENDED READINGS:
- The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia (Aroney, Gernagelos, Murray and Stellios) : amzn.to/2NaMwDP
- Federal Constitutional Law - A Contemporary View (Joseph and Castan) : amzn.to/3ohX96w
- Principles and Practice of Australian Law (Elizabeth Ellis) : amzn.to/3vnX97i
- Hanks' Australian Constitutional Law (Clarke, Keyzer, Stellios) : amzn.to/3g2NpJt
- Australian Constitutional Cases (P. H. Lane)
- The Australian Federal System (P. H. Lane)
(I earn a small percentage from these qualifying purchases [at no additional cost for you!])
*****
LINKS:
- The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act : www.legislation.gov.au/Detail...
- Victorian Stevedoring and General Contracting Co Pty Ltd and Meakes v Dignan (1931) : jade.io/j/?a=outline&id=63528
- Australian Communist Party v The Commonwealth (1951) : jade.io/article/64758?at.hl=c...
- R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia (1956) : jade.io/article/65118
- Commonwealth v New South Wales (Wheat Case) (1915) : jade.io/article/62427
- Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia v. J. W, Alexander Ltd (1918) : jade.io/article/62727
- Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions for NSW (1996) : jade.io/article/67955
*****
Follow me on Twitter: / renatosmcosta
And check out my Academic Profiles:
www.uq.academia.edu/RenatoSaeg...
www.researchgate.net/profile/R...
#australianlaw #australianconstitution #separationofpowers
SUBSCRIBE: ua-cam.com/users/AussieLaw
BECOME A MEMBER: ua-cam.com/channels/loahlV-M4A0LIc14rmfNnw.htmljoin
0:51 - Origins of the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers
03:52 - Division of Powers?
05:57 - Separation of Powers in Australia
12:30 - Summary
i am 10 minutes away from my government and constitution law exam.. and watching these videos digest easier than university lectures
Hi! That’s exactly what I am here for. I’m glad they are helping you! Thanks for watching!
The night before my introduction to law and justice exam…Thankyou💓
Good luck!! Hope it went well!
Great vid👌🏽
Great Video...
without watching your video, its my understanding that seperation of powers is to do with government and democracy as a whole, the no one power has the abiility to pass laws or legislation without it going to a vote in parliament. before a law is passed it is made sure not to breach any current laws and if so as the constitution states if any conflict or contradiction of laws the new shall be valid and the former shall be nulled. however any contradictions to the constitution would need to go to a vote of the people and the constitution would have to be amended, any law made has the ability to be pledged against and letters to the royals saying why the law is unjust or why it is in breach of peoples constitutional rights can be done so for 6 months, after 6 months the law has the ability to get the royal assent. this is why government try and sneak laws in and dont inform the poeple, and constantly we see poeple get charged with a new "crime" that has no legal binding but if enough poeple are told they need a legal representative or legal aid to get any questions answered, they are told to plead guilty and case law begins its like a silent vote once enough poeple think they are actually charged with an actual crime. i think this statement breifly touches on seperation of powers however alot of australians rights arent upheld in the justice system such as Right to self reprentation, due process, fair and just trial so while poeple that swore oath to our great country's flag, i think it futile to think that seperation of powers is more than just a different sections playing bully in the play ground where they keep passing a citizens school bag to eachother until the citizen tires and gives up or runs out of money since the justice system tells them they need to get legal representation to get a fair trial... alot of spelling and punction errors but its legible
I’m a lawful human not a legal person. But this indicates to me that State Public Orders have no validity as powers to enact cannot be passed onto state appointed officers. I enjoy your videos. Thank you. 🙏
You’re a natural person. But both natural and legal persons are bound by the law
@@JamesVCTHlaw not statues, UNLESS I agree to contract with govcorp
@@amazingalloverfitness-onli1789 Statutes are laws no matter how much you wish they weren’t. They are legally enforceable on you whether you consent or not. There are 42,000 prisoners that are imprisoned in Australia under statutes. That would have been their first argument at trial if what you were saying was true.
@@amazingalloverfitness-onli1789Lore not law
Lost credibility claiming the bible and Christianity believe or even mention the pagan trinity. Nothing is further from the truth.
I didn't claim Montesquieu (nor his Doctrine) was based on Christianity. I said that the principles (the idea) are the same: three different entities/roles that also exist as one. There's nothing untrue about that.
@@AussieLaw I didn't say his beliefs were based on Christianity. I said the 3 in 1 idea that he has can't be compared with a Christian similarity, because TRUE Christianity has no such idea/doctrine.
So the connection/Simile/type does not exist to begin with so the example is a really bad one and to the uneducated on religion/scripture listening could easily be persuaded to think that the Christian God was 3 in 1, which IS 100% untrue