The Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act

Good afternoon, my name is Stephanie Jones and I am a currently a human rights lawyer. Human rights are the basic freedoms and protections that everyone is entitled to purely for simply just being a human being. Today I would like to use this opportunity to discuss with you the greatly debated issue of an Australian Bill of Rights. Australia currently does not have a Bill of Rights, but is the current legal system coping without one? The answer to that question in my opinion is no. Australia currently is not adequately protecting individual human rights without having a Bill of Rights. While many people would argue that yes, Australia protects individual rights well enough as it is, just as many people passionately argue that Australia does indeed need a Bill of Rights for a variety of reasons which will be talked about in greater depth later on. In my talk with you today, I would like to discuss with you all what exactly a Bill of Rights is and what it aims to achieve, how a Bill of Rights has worked in other countries and some of the more popular arguments for and against having one.

The delegation of powers between the state and federal governments of the United States of America is a country old conflict, a subject of debate to this day. Currently, state legislations have the ability to ratify amendments, manage public health and safety, make and enforce laws, make taxes, borrow money, supervise trade in the state, and whatever other laws are not reserved for the federal government or prohibited by the Constitution. However, limiting the powers of state governments is not unheard of. While this action would result in a variety of pros and cons, ultimately the division of power between the national and state governments should remain untouched. As previously mentioned, limiting the powers of state governments would not be without its pros.

Federalism is defined in our book as: “the relationship between the centralized national government and the individual state governments” (Berman and Murphy 92). Federalism is a very important government system that is frequently discussed and argued, even today. The topic of federalism has become a topic of argument because many people believe the federal government should have more power, and yet some other people believe the states should have most of the power. One of the ways that federalism is in our government is in our Congress, and indirectly through Congress to the difference in laws between the states. We can look at all the different speed limits in all of the individual states; they are not all the same. This is because the residents of any certain state and the representatives of that state can choose whatever they deem fit to set as limits. Another

States have always been sensitive about the amount of power they have; the federal government has always had to step carefully around the demands of the states. This has been true since the beginning of the United States. But both believe that they should have the most power when it comes to certain things. Individual states have different values and as such tend to implement different laws about certain topics; such states want their state laws to reflect these individual values instead of a blanket law from the federal government. States should have less power compared to the federal government when implementing laws dealing with topics such as the legalization of marijuana, gay marriage, and abortion.

Instead of the federal law, states took it into their own hand to make their own. It may seem comedic but some states made their own sort of “wacky” laws. Some of the laws are countless and it seems as if states took advantage of the Tenth amendment to just create their own regulations. In Alabama it is illegal to drive while blindfolded, and in Florida it is Illegal to sell your children, and in Arkansa it is prohibited to pronounce “Arkansas’’ incorrectly. Most of

In conclusion, state law and federal law are very similar as, they are each meant to dictate a measure of safety for the citizens of the United States of America. According to the United States Constitution federal law, which is dictated, allows the federal government the power to make laws for the people and for the country as a whole. State laws are meant to allow each state to be allowed to govern them and handle the issues within their states. This power was given to them from the Bill of Rights that was also outlined in the Constitution (FindLaw, 2012).

In the United States Constitution it is stated that “No single section of the constitution deals with federalism. Instead, the provisions dividing power between the states and the national government appear throughout the constitution. Most of the constitution is concerned with establishing the powers of the national government. National power is also based on the supremacy clause of article VI, which says that the constitution and laws made in accordance with it are “the supreme law of the land”. This means that when national and state laws conflict, the national laws will be followed. Article I, section 9 limits the power of the national government over individuals. The tenth amendment the constitution also limits the state powers in Article I, section10 and denies the states certain powers” (Keeping the

The US Constitution defines the federal government as “The Supreme Law of the land”, known as the Supremacy Clause. Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution states that, should the federal government exercise their rights enumerated in the Constitution, they would prevail over any conflicting state implementation of power. The clause ensures that the federal laws take precedence over state laws and ensures that state judges uphold these laws. The Supremacy Clause checks the power of the local governments by

The United States government system is very interesting and complexly designed. The state and federal government is a mirror of each other when it comes to the generics of the executive branch, legislative branch, and judicial branch, however, internally the state government has major differences on how the branches are conducted. Throughout this paper we will discuss the greatest difference between state and federal, which is the state cannot change or remove laws passed by the federal government but they could change how they execute the federal laws to their liking as long as it is constitutional.

The federal government and state governments have had a long history of powers struggles. The struggle goes back and forth between who has the right to make decisions and if there is a problem who should fix it. Sometimes it is better for the federal government to fix issues and during other situations it is better for the state or local governments to fix other issues. In the PBS special of the United States Constitution, Peter Sagal travels around the states documenting the various roles and impact the government has on the country as a whole and on the individual states.

This exclusion leaves the obligations of Public Authorities on the shoulders of; Public Officials, working in an administrative capacity; any entity with public function; The Victorian police; local government; ministers; and members of a parliamentary committee when working in an administrative capacity. This means that when members are authoring legislation, or when the judiciary is scrutinising legislation, the actors involved are not obliged to act in a compatible way with the charter. This makes enforcing legislation to be compatible with human rights nearly impossible, as there is no responsibility for the authors of that legislation to abide by the charter.

Since there is no text in the Constitution that states this the claims must be made by historical understanding and practice of the text. The people who are against this argue that in recent years that there has not been any precedent that relates to this kind of action. However they disagree with that and state there in fact has been the earliest congress had acts that also required state officials to participate in the enforcement of federal laws. They were doing so however since they did not know that power existed. The assumption that the federal government can command the state's executive power in the absence of a constitutional authorization is not indicated it is the opposite of that actually. Including that it has been around since the earlier is not true that there is some protection that the states have against this keeping their duty to keep their goals. The early legislation also has sources that indicate the original understanding of the Constitution. Alos that though they could and may be needed to regulate commerce they way the act was set up was not within its power to do so. They stayed with the old principle that states are not required to enforce it since state legislature is not required to follow or are a subject to federal direction. There is also a separation of powers that a state has and powers that the government

Through the progression of history the need for the principles articulated in Engineers’ Case was both necessary and appropriate. Callinan J in Workchoices’ Case made

The government occasionally push their powers to the Sates and tried to lessen the expansion of the federal government. On the other hand, the states complied case in point, Presidents Franklin Roosevelt 1930, and Reagan 81-89, used the New Deal program. Programs such as Agricultural Adjustment Administration to slowly reduced the growth of federal government, these programs administered by the states (ushistory, 3b). In the 60s, Nixon on his side openly wanted the powers of the federal government given back to the states that gave him a win during his campaign (ushistory, 3b). Also, the New Federalism during Reagan’s administration to returned the power to the states, unfortunately according to the United Sates Constitution the federal government law would triumph over any other states law. The states have the right to control and make laws on citizens safety, welfare, health, education, and protection. These powers only delegated to the states. For the states to able to counter the power of the federal government, the state should have enumerated powers, inherent powers, and elastic clause.

Throughout the years, several Court Cases in the United States have demonstrated the power of the Federal Government over the states. The Constitution of the United States assert the principles to govern the country and the distribution of power between the States and the Federal Government. However, “Necessary and Proper Clause” or “Elastic Clause” and the “Commerce Clause” give the Federal Government more power over the states. Furthermore the Commerce Clause give Congress the power to regulate interstate and foreign countries commerce. In others words, Congress has the power to regulate things that have direct effect in commerce.