Constitutional Interpretive Methods And Legal Doctrine

2123 Words9 Pages
Introduction The Federal government’s ability to create laws and enforce those laws on the States is an integral part of nationhood. While the Federal government can legislate the States, this is not to say that the States have no rights. In adopting principles from the United States of America’s constitution, the early Framers believed it important to distance themselves from the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty that is seen in the United Kingdom. While the ability to create laws is not a unique feature of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (“the Constitution”), it is vital that these laws are consistent with the Constitution. This essay, through its use of constitutional interpretive methods, legal doctrine and relevant case law will seek to establish that the Justice Knows No Walls Reform Act (“the Act”) is unlikely to be considered to be consistent with the Constitution and therefore cannot be constitutionally applied to prisons run by the States. The Power of the Legislature When the Commonwealth of Australia formed and created its Constitution, it inherited principles and ideas from both the United Kingdom and the United States of America as well as the fundamental “double majority” requirement for referendums from the Swiss Constitution. In determining the constitutional validity of a law, one must first look at whether or not the Commonwealth has the ability to create the law in the first place. Section 51 of Australia’s Constitution outlines
Open Document