Constitutional Law Assignment 2011
Outline:
The purpose of this paper is to Advise Allan, Belinda and CareFree Pty Ltd as to the constitutional validity of the Medicinal Cannabis Act 2011 (Cth) (MCA) in terms of whether its provisions apply to them under the trade and commerce power s 51(i) and as to whether the MCEA (Medicinal Cannabis Export Authority) is constitutionally valid in light of the separation of judicial power doctrine. This paper begins by analysing the validity of MCEA. In doing so the paper not only confers to the characterisation of the laws under the trade and commerce powers of s 51(i), but also includes the implied incidental powers and the doctrine of principles of separation of judicial power. There after it advises Allan, Belinda and Carefree Pty Ltd as to the constitutional validity of the MCA. The rational is simply to first understand the constitutional validity of MCEA, as the outcome of the advisory matter inherently depends on it. Jurisdiction:
The foremost step in determining the validity of the given ACT is to determine the jurisdiction of the given Act. This Medicinal Cannabis Act 2011 (Cth) is a commonwealth Act therefore falls under the Commonwealth Constitution instead of the state based constitution.
Validity of Medicinal Act 2011?
This paper aims to prove whether the given impugned law is valid or invalid. In doing so it follows a three step process in order to determine the validity of the Commonwealth legislation as set out in Grain pool of Western Australia V Commonwealth.
Commonwealth Constitution Head of Power:
The current given Act falls under s 51(i) of the Commonwealth Constitution. This section states that “The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States”.
In interpreting the Medicinal Cannabis Act 2011, this paper sought to adopt golden rule approach which states that the
The purpose of this paper is to Advise Allan, Belinda and CareFree Pty Ltd as to the constitutional validity of the Medicinal Cannabis Act 2011 (Cth) (MCA) in terms of whether its provisions apply to them under the trade and commerce power s 51(i) and as to whether the MCEA (Medicinal Cannabis Export Authority) is constitutionally valid in light of the separation of judicial power doctrine. This paper begins by analysing the validity of MCEA. In doing so the paper not only confers to the characterisation of the laws under the trade and commerce powers of s 51(i), but also includes the implied incidental powers and the doctrine of principles of separation of judicial power. There after it advises Allan, Belinda and Carefree Pty Ltd as to the constitutional validity of the MCA. The rational is simply to first understand the constitutional validity of MCEA, as the outcome of the advisory matter inherently depends on it. Jurisdiction:
The foremost step in determining the validity of the given ACT is to determine the jurisdiction of the given Act. This Medicinal Cannabis Act 2011 (Cth) is a commonwealth Act therefore falls under the Commonwealth Constitution instead of the state based constitution.
Validity of Medicinal Act 2011?
This paper aims to prove whether the given impugned law is valid or invalid. In doing so it follows a three step process in order to determine the validity of the Commonwealth legislation as set out in Grain pool of Western Australia V Commonwealth.
Commonwealth Constitution Head of Power:
The current given Act falls under s 51(i) of the Commonwealth Constitution. This section states that “The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States”.
In interpreting the Medicinal Cannabis Act 2011, this paper sought to adopt golden rule approach which states that the
Bibliography: Cases * Actors and Announcers Equity Association v Fontana Films Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 169. * Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129. * Bank of NSW v Commonwealth (Bank Nationalisation Case) (1948) 76 CLR 1. * Building Construction Employees and Builders ‘Labourers Federation of New South Wales V Minister for Industrial Relations (1986) 7 NSWLR 372. * Fairfax v Federal Commissioner of taxation (1965) 114 CLR 1. * Grain pool of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 202 CLR 479. * Grannall v Marrickville Margarine Pty Ltd (1955) 93 CLR 55. * Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead (1909) 8 CLR 330. * Re Dingjan: Ex parte Wagner (1995) 183 CLR 323. * Victorian Stevedoring & General Contracting Co Pty Ltd & Meakes v Dignan (1931) 46 CLR 73. Books * Tony Blackshield and George Williams, Australian Constitutional Law and Theory (Federation Press, Fifth ed, 2010) [ 3 ]. Amalgamated Society of Engineers V Adelaide Steamship Co ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129. [ 8 ]. Building Construction Employees and Builders ‘Labourers Federation of New South Wales v Minister for Industrial Relations (1986) 7 NSWLR 372. [ 9 ]. Bank of NSW v Commonwealth (Bank Nationalisation Case) (1948) 76 CLR 1. [ 12 ]. Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129. [ 14 ]. Tony Blackshield and George Williams, Australian Constitutional Law and Theory (Federation Press, Fifth ed, 2010) [ 15 ] [ 16 ]. Bank of NSW v Commonwealth (Bank Nationalisation Case) (1948) 76 CLR 1. [ 18 ]. Fairfax v Federal Commissioner of taxation (1965) 114 CLR 1. [ 19 ]. Actors and Announcers Equity Association v Fontana Films Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 169. [ 21 ]. Actors and Announcers Equity Association v Fontana Films Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 169. [ 22 ]. Re Dingjan: Ex parte Wagner (1995) 183 CLR 323. [ 24 ]. Grannall v Marrickville Margarine Pty Ltd (1955) 93 CLR 55. [ 27 ]. Grannall v Marrickville Margarine Pty Ltd (1955) 93 CLR 55. [ 29 ]. Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead (1909) 8 CLR 330. [ 30 ]. Victorian Stevedoring & General Contracting Co Pty Ltd & Meakes v Dignan (1931) 46 CLR 73. [ 32 ]. Waterside Workers Federation of Australia v Jw Alexander Ltd (1918) 25 CLR 434. [ 33 ]. New South Wales v Commonwealth wheat case (1915) 20 CLR 54. [ 34 ]. R v Kirby: Ex parte Boilermaker society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254. [ 35 ]. Hilton V Wells (1985) 157 CLR 57.