DOCSLIB.ORG

The Parliamentary System of Denmark (2005)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Parliamentary System of Denmark (2005) The Parliamentary System of Denmark 3 4 Contents Foreword 7 History of the parliamentary system of Denmark 9 Parliament building 11 Danish form of government 12 Electoral system 15 Sessional year and work in the Chamber 19 Committee readings 22 The Folketing Services 27 5 Cabinet responsibility was introduced in 1901. This meant that it became possible for a parliamen- tary majority to over- throw the Government. 6 Foreword Danish democracy was introduced gradually as a result of foreign influences as well as of national debates and intellectual fights which had been going on for generations. It is founded largely on the ideas which saw the light of day in the 18th and 19th centuries as a reaction against royal absolutism. One of the main thoughts originated in the belief that power as exercised in society should not be the right of the upper classes but of the lower, it should stem from the people. All men are born equal and are therefore entitled to vote at elections to legislative assemblies. After several decades of intellectual fights aimed at introducing a liberal Constitution, the central principles of Danish democracy were laid down in the Constitutional Act of June 1849, and they remain to this day the backbone of the present Constitutional Act of June 5th 1953. Today, Danish democracy is safeguarded by being a representative government built on individual rights laid down in the Constitutional Act. These rights comprise personal and political rights of freedom as well the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, the freedom of association and the freedom of belief. Furthermore, Danish democracy is characterized by universal suffrage, secret ballot, proportional representation, a unicameral system and Cabinet responsibility. Though Danish democracy is a sound and very lively form of democracy, it is important to bear in mind that democracy must never wither away. And since the date on which it was first introduced in Denmark, democracy has been undergoing a continuous process of development. Future challenges will, likewise, require changes if the living democra- cy is not to die. The Danish population as well as the Members of the Folketing need to make an active contribution to keep it this way. Parliament’s Interactive Visitors’ Centre entitled “Politician for one single day” has been set up in order to encourage young per- sons – throughout the year - to participate actively in promoting Danish democracy. The present edition of “The Parliamentary System of Denmark” gives an outline of how Danish democracy actually works. And the booklet also gives you an overview of the parliamentary Administration and of the tasks with which the civil servants and staff are dealing. Christian Mejdahl Speaker of the Folketing The Folketing, Copenhagen, November 2005 7 After 1814, the Danish political system was strongly influenced by developments in Europe. Liberal forces were heard speaking in favour of an increasing share in government on the part of the people. 8 History of the parliamentary system of Denmark Danish democracy is founded on the King signed a new democratic It was only after the year 1900 that the thoughts the seeds of which were Constitution. The Constitutional Act liberal farmers' party, entitled the sown in 18th century Europe as a reac- of 1849 was strongly influenced by the Liberal Party, came into power. But tion against royal absolutism which Belgian Constitutional Act of 1830 in the Party did not dominate legislation was introduced as the form of govern- its structure and mode of thought as for long due to internal cleavages and ment in Denmark in 1660. well as by the Norwegian Constitu- a permanent conflict with the Con- tional Act of 1814. These Consti- servative majority of the Landsting. In The transition from absolutism to re- tutions can again be said to build on 1915, an amendment was made to presentative government was on the 18th century ideas primarily formula- the Constitutional Act which meant whole a gradual process. There was no ted by Montesquieu and Rousseau. that the power of the Landsting was question of a revolution, for although The Danish Constitutional Act of 1849 limited, women got the right to vote, the ruling monarch had almost was extremely liberal and contained and a more just electoral system, absolute power, absolutism in provisions on i.a. universal suffrage, introducing the system of proportion- Denmark was to a large extent a colle- freedom of assembly, freedom of con- al representation came into use. giate form of government; at the end science and universal military service. of the 18th century it included the During the First World War, from 1914 foremost men of the Age of Enlighten- In the years succeeding the first to 1918, Denmark remained neutral ment. They carried through a social Constitutional Act, reactionary cur- vis-à-vis the combatants. And the and economic revolution that covered rents instigated by large estate own- Government succeeded in keeping agricultural reforms, abolition of ers and civil servants, supported by the country out of the War. adscription and school reforms for the the new King, as well as political pres- ordinary population. sure from foreign countries, led to cur- In the interwar period, Denmark like tailments in the liberal Constitution. many other European countries expe- At the beginning of the 19th century, Conservative forces made use of the rienced a heavy migration from coun- Denmark was involved in the wars continued confrontations with the try to town pari passu with the grow- between Germany, Britain and France. most southern pro-German duchies – ing industrialization. This meant a Admiral Nelson defeated the Danish which in 1864 led to a military defeat strengthening of the Social Demo- fleet in the Battle of Copenhagen in for Denmark and a victory for Prussia cratic Party, which took the place of 1801, the British bombarded Copen- and Austria – to make amendments to the Liberal Party as the dominating hagen and seized the Danish fleet in the Constitution. party in the Folketing. 1807, the State went bankrupt and subsequent to the peace negotiations The election rules applying to the During the Second World War, in Vienna in 1814, Denmark had to Upper Chamber, the Landsting, were Denmark again observed neutrality cede Norway and accept that the most amended in 1866, in a way that gave but irrespective of this fact, Nazi southern part of the Kingdom, the large estate-owners and men of busi- Germany occupied Denmark in 1940. Duchy of Holstein, was integrated in ness a permanent majority. As the The Occupation lasted until May 1945. the German federation. King chose his Ministers from the After the Liberation, the Danish same circles, the popularly elected Freedom Council, which was set up by After 1814, the Danish political sys- liberal Folketing was put out of the the Resistance Movement, together tem was strongly influenced by deve- running especially in the period from with the largest political parties from lopments in Europe. Liberal forces 1884 to 1894 when the Government the interwar period formed a coalition were heard speaking in favour of an issued the annual Finance Acts with- Government which was later to be increasing share in government on the out consulting Parliament. replaced by Social Democratic part of the people. And in 1849 the Governments. The latter dominated 9 Danish politics up to some time in the a division between the legislative, the goes against it. The Folketing’s 1960s apart from short intervals with executive and the judicial powers. In influence on the executive power is Liberal-Conservative Governments. accordance with the Constitutional limited to issuing general guidelines Act of the Kingdom of Denmark, via legislation and to controlling the In 1953, one of these Governments "Legislative authority shall be vested Government’s activities. If the execu- passed an amendment to the Consti- in the King and the Folketing conjoint- tive power acts contrary to the majo- tutional Act which finally settled the ly. Executive authority shall be vested rity of the Folketing, the latter can everlasting conflict with the reac- in the King. Judicial authority shall be overthrow the Government by moving tionary forces of the past by abolish- vested in the courts of justice". As one a vote of no confidence. On the other ing the Landsting and strengthening will realize the idea behind the triparti- hand, the Government can, at any the Folketing. tion of the powers is to balance them time, dissolve the Folketing and issue against one another. Section 15 in the writs for an election. From the end of the 1960s up to 1982, Constitutional Act, which deals with Denmark had alternating Social the parliamentary principle, lays down Democratic and Liberal minority that "A Minister shall not remain in Governments and from 1982 to 1993 office after the Folketing has passed a conservatively dominated minority vote of no confidence in him". Governments. In January 1993, the Social Democratic Party and the three An important feature of the Danish small liberal parties, the Centre system is that a Government need not Democrats, the Social Liberal Party be supported by a majority – as long and the Christian People's Party as it is not outvoted by a majority formed a coalition Government sup- (negative Cabinet responsibility). ported by the smallest possible majo- rity (90 seats out of 179). Subsequent Another important feature of the to the 1994 general election, the Danish parliamentary system is that Christian People’s Party was no longer the Constitutional Act lays down that represented in Parliament, and from "The Members of the Folketing shall be 1996 the Centre Democrats were no elected for a period of four years". Still longer part of the Government.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Parliamentary, Presidential and Semi-Presidential Democracies Democracies Are Often Classified According to the Form of Government That They Have
    Parliamentary, Presidential and Semi-Presidential Democracies Democracies are often classified according to the form of government that they have: • Parliamentary • Presidential • Semi-Presidential Legislative responsibility refers to a situation in which a legislative majority has the constitutional power to remove a government from office without cause. A vote of confidence is initiated by the government { the government must resign if it fails to obtain a legislative majority. A vote of no confidence is initiated by the legislature { the government must resign if it fails to obtain a legislative majority. A constructive vote of no confidence must indicate who will replace the government if the incumbent loses a vote of no confidence. A vote of no confidence is initiated by the legislature { the government must resign if it fails to obtain a legislative majority. A constructive vote of no confidence must indicate who will replace the government if the incumbent loses a vote of no confidence. A vote of confidence is initiated by the government { the government must resign if it fails to obtain a legislative majority. The defining feature of presidential democracies is that they do not have legislative responsibility. • US Government Shutdown, click here In contrast, parliamentary and semi-presidential democracies both have legislative responsibility. • PM Question Time (UK), click here In addition to legislative responsibility, semi-presidential democracies also have a head of state who is popularly elected for a fixed term. A head of state is popularly elected if she is elected through a process where voters either (i) cast a ballot directly for a candidate or (ii) they cast ballots to elect an electoral college, whose sole purpose is to elect the head of state.
    [Show full text]
  • Croatia's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments Through 2010
    PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:24 constituteproject.org Croatia's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2010 This complete constitution has been generated from excerpts of texts from the repository of the Comparative Constitutions Project, and distributed on constituteproject.org. constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:24 Table of contents I. Historical Foundations . 3 II. Basic Provisions . 4 III. Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms . 7 1. General Provisions . 7 2. Personal and Political Freedoms and Rights . 9 3. Economic, Social and Cultural Rights . 14 IV. Organization of Government . 18 1. The Croatian Parliament . 18 2. The President of the Republic of Croatia . 22 3. The Government of the Republic of Croatia . 26 4. Judicial Power . 28 5. The Office of the Public Prosecutions . 30 V. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia . 31 VI. Local and Regional Self-Government . 33 VII. International Relations . 35 1. International agreements . 35 2. Association and Succession . 35 VIII. European Union . 36 1. Legal Grounds for Membership and Transfer of Constitutional Powers . 36 2. Participation in European Union Institutions . 36 3. European Union Law . 37 4. Rights of European Union Citizens . 37 IX. Amending the Constitution . 37 IX. Concluding Provisions . 38 Croatia 1991 (rev. 2010) Page 2 constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:24 I. Historical Foundations • Reference to country's history The millenary identity of the Croatia nation and the continuity of its statehood,
    [Show full text]
  • President, Prime Minister, Or Constitutional Monarch?
    I McN A I R PAPERS NUMBER THREE PRESIDENT, PRIME MINISTER, OR CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH? By EUGENE V. ROSTOW THE INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL S~RATEGIC STUDIES I~j~l~ ~p~ 1~ ~ ~r~J~r~l~j~E~J~p~j~r~lI~1~1~L~J~~~I~I~r~ ~'l ' ~ • ~i~i ~ ,, ~ ~!~ ,,~ i~ ~ ~~ ~~ • ~ I~ ~ ~ ~i! ~H~I~II ~ ~i~ ,~ ~II~b ~ii~!i ~k~ili~Ii• i~i~II~! I ~I~I I• I~ii kl .i-I k~l ~I~ ~iI~~f ~ ~ i~I II ~ ~I ~ii~I~II ~!~•b ~ I~ ~i' iI kri ~! I ~ • r rl If r • ~I • ILL~ ~ r I ~ ~ ~Iirr~11 ¸I~' I • I i I ~ ~ ~,i~i~I•~ ~r~!i~il ~Ip ~! ~ili!~Ii!~ ~i ~I ~iI•• ~ ~ ~i ~I ~•i~,~I~I Ill~EI~ ~ • ~I ~I~ I¸ ~p ~~ ~I~i~ PRESIDENT, PRIME MINISTER, OR CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH.'? PRESIDENT, PRIME MINISTER, OR CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH? By EUGENE V. ROSTOW I Introduction N THE MAKING and conduct of foreign policy, ~ Congress and the President have been rivalrous part- ners for two hundred years. It is not hyperbole to call the current round of that relationship a crisis--the most serious constitutional crisis since President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937. Roosevelt's court-packing initiative was highly visible and the reaction to it violent and widespread. It came to an abrupt and dramatic end, some said as the result of Divine intervention, when Senator Joseph T. Robinson, the Senate Majority leader, dropped dead on the floor of the Senate while defending the President's bill.
    [Show full text]
  • Open-And-Shut: Senate Impeachment Deliberations Must Be Public Marjorie Cohn
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 51 | Issue 2 Article 3 1-2000 Open-and-Shut: Senate Impeachment Deliberations Must Be Public Marjorie Cohn Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Marjorie Cohn, Open-and-Shut: Senate Impeachment Deliberations Must Be Public, 51 Hastings L.J. 365 (2000). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol51/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Open-and-Shut: Senate Impeachment Deliberations Must Be Public by MARJORIE COHN* Table of Contents I. Impeachment Rules and Precedents ................................................ 368 A. Current Impeachment Rules ............................................... 368 B. A Tradition of Senate Secrecy ............................................ 370 (1) Congressional Rule-Making Authority ........................ 370 (2) The "Closed-Door Policy"............................................. 370 (3) The Twentieth Century: The Door Opens Wider ...... 374 (4) When the Doors Are Closed ......................................... 376 C. Historical Impeachment Rules ............................................ 377 D. Why Did the Presumption of Openness Change in .. 1868 with the Andrew Johnson Impeachment?
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic and Political Situation in Croatia
    DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT D: BUDGETARY AFFAIRS The Economic and Political Situation in Croatia NOTE 08/06/2010 PE 411.280 EN This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control. AUTHOR Ms Yana Mechkova RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Mr Christian EHLERS Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: poldep- [email protected] Manuscript completed in June 2010. Brussels, © European Parliament, 2010. This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. The Economic and Political Situation in Croatia ___________________________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 2 2. THE POLITICAL SITUATION............................................................................. 2 2.1. THE POLITICAL STRUCTURE...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • View / Open Reiblich.Pdf
    REIBLICH (DO NOT DELETE) 4/21/2017 3:27 PM JESSE REIBLICH* THOMAS ANKERSEN† Got Guts? The Iconic Streams of the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Law’s Ephemeral Edge Introduction ................................................................................ 72 I. Guts ................................................................................. 74 II. Legal Framework ............................................................ 83 A. Virgin Islands’ Legal History .................................. 83 B. How Virgin Islands Courts Decide Cases................ 89 C. Provisions Currently Addressing Guts .................... 93 III. Legal Status of Guts ........................................................ 94 A. Case Law.................................................................. 94 B. Three Scenarios........................................................ 99 1. Government Owns Guts in Fee Simple............ 100 2. The Government, or a Sub-set of the Public, Possesses Less than Fee Interests in, or Use Rights to, Guts.................................................. 101 a. Customary Use Law .................................. 102 b. The Public Trust Doctrine ......................... 104 3. The Government Has No Property Interest in Guts .................................................................. 108 IV. The Regulatory Lay of the Land ................................... 109 * Fellow, Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford University. Jesse served as Law Clerk to the Honorable Robert A. Molloy, Superior Court of the Virgin Islands,
    [Show full text]
  • Politician Overboard: Jumping the Party Ship
    INFORMATION, ANALYSIS AND ADVICE FOR THE PARLIAMENT INFORMATION AND RESEARCH SERVICES Research Paper No. 4 2002–03 Politician Overboard: Jumping the Party Ship DEPARTMENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY ISSN 1328-7478 Copyright Commonwealth of Australia 2003 Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means including information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior written consent of the Department of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official duties. This paper has been prepared for general distribution to Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the paper is written using information publicly available at the time of production. The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services (IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an official parliamentary or Australian government document. IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with Senators and Members and their staff but not with members of the public. Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library, 2003 I NFORMATION AND R ESEARCH S ERVICES Research Paper No. 4 2002–03 Politician Overboard: Jumping the Party Ship Sarah Miskin Politics and Public Administration Group 24 March 2003 Acknowledgments I would like to thank Martin Lumb and Janet Wilson for their help with the research into party defections in Australia and Cathy Madden, Scott Bennett, David Farrell and Ben Miskin for reading and commenting on early drafts.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Representatives Practice
    15 Questions One of the more important functions of the House is its critical review function. This includes scrutiny of the Executive Government, bringing to light issues and perceived deficiencies or problems, ventilating grievances, exposing, and thereby preventing the Government from exercising, arbitrary power, and pressing the Government to take remedial or other action. Questions are a vital element in this function. It is fundamental in the concept of responsible government that the Executive Government be accountable to the House. The capacity of the House of Representatives to call the Government to account depends, in large measure, on its knowledge and understanding of the Government’s policies and activities. Questions without notice and on notice (questions in writing) play an important part in this quest for information. QUESTION TIME The accountability of the Government is demonstrated most clearly and publicly at Question Time when, for a period (currently usually over an hour) on most sitting days, questions without notice are put to Ministers.1 The importance of Question Time is demonstrated by the fact that at no other time in a normal sitting day is the House so well attended. Question Time is usually an occasion of special interest not only to Members themselves but to the news media, the radio and television broadcast audience and visitors to the public galleries. It is also a time when the intensity of partisan politics can be clearly manifested. The purpose of questions is ostensibly to seek information or press for action.2 However, because public attention focuses so heavily on Question Time it is often a time for political opportunism.
    [Show full text]
  • The Westminster Model, Governance, and Judicial Reform
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Previously Published Works Title The Westminster Model, Governance, and Judicial Reform Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/82h2630k Journal Parliamentary Affairs, 61 Author Bevir, Mark Publication Date 2008 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California THE WESTMINSTER MODEL, GOVERNANCE, AND JUDICIAL REFORM By Mark Bevir Published in: Parliamentary Affairs 61 (2008), 559-577. I. CONTACT INFORMATION Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1950 Email: [email protected] II. BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE Mark Bevir is a Professor in the Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of The Logic of the History of Ideas (1999) and New Labour: A Critique (2005), and co-author, with R. A. W. Rhodes, of Interpreting British Governance (2003) and Governance Stories (2006). 1 Abstract How are we to interpret judicial reform under New Labour? What are its implications for democracy? This paper argues that the reforms are part of a broader process of juridification. The Westminster Model, as derived from Dicey, upheld a concept of parliamentary sovereignty that gives a misleading account of the role of the judiciary. Juridification has arisen along with new theories and new worlds of governance that both highlight and intensify the limitations of the Westminster Model so conceived. New Labour’s judicial reforms are attempts to address problems associated with the new governance. Ironically, however, the reforms are themselves constrained by a lingering commitment to an increasingly out-dated Westminster Model. 2 THE WESTMINSTER MODEL, GOVERNANCE, AND JUDICIAL REFORM Immediately following the 1997 general election in Britain, the New Labour government started to pursue a series of radical constitutional reforms with the overt intention of making British political institutions more effective and more accountable.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Process Lpbooklet 2016 15Th Edition.Qxp Booklet00-01 12Th Edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 1
    LPBkltCvr_2016_15th edition-1.qxp_BkltCvr00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 2:49 PM Page 1 South Carolina’s Legislative Process LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 1 THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 2 October 2016 15th Edition LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 3 THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS The contents of this pamphlet consist of South Carolina’s Legislative Process , pub - lished by Charles F. Reid, Clerk of the South Carolina House of Representatives. The material is reproduced with permission. LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 4 LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 5 South Carolina’s Legislative Process HISTORY o understand the legislative process, it is nec - Tessary to know a few facts about the lawmak - ing body. The South Carolina Legislature consists of two bodies—the Senate and the House of Rep - resentatives. There are 170 members—46 Sena - tors and 124 Representatives representing dis tricts based on population. When these two bodies are referred to collectively, the Senate and House are together called the General Assembly. To be eligible to be a Representative, a person must be at least 21 years old, and Senators must be at least 25 years old. Members of the House serve for two years; Senators serve for four years. The terms of office begin on the Monday following the General Election which is held in even num - bered years on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution of the United States [PDF]
    THE CONSTITUTION oftheUnitedStates NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER We the People of the United States, in Order to form a within three Years after the fi rst Meeting of the Congress more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Constitution for the United States of America. Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut fi ve, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland Article.I. six, Virginia ten, North Carolina fi ve, South Carolina fi ve, and Georgia three. SECTION. 1. When vacancies happen in the Representation from any All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Sen- Election to fi ll such Vacancies. ate and House of Representatives. The House of Representatives shall chuse their SECTION. 2. Speaker and other Offi cers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Mem- bers chosen every second Year by the People of the several SECTION.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Studies GA 3: Written Examination
    Political Studies GA 3: Written examination GENERAL COMMENTS In the 2001 Political Studies Examination the overall standard of answers was good. Responses to Section A the short-answer questions were generally of a higher standard than the essay responses in Section B. There was a significant number of students who clearly had a very good grasp of the subject matter covered in this course. However, many students wrote essays which were comparatively poor. Such essays were often too brief, failed to answer the question and did not present sufficiently detailed discussion of the major issues in the question. Students need more practice at analysing essay questions and writing essays within a timeframe similar to that in the November examination. Many students did not select four short-answer questions and answered parts of or all of five questions. Students were clearly instructed to answer four questions and only four questions in part A. Some of the responses in the short answer questions were too long and detailed. Students need to be reminded that exceeding the suggested length of an answer will not necessarily mean more marks are awarded. Exceeding the suggested length of a short answer usually wastes time. SPECIFIC INFORMATION Section A – Short-answer questions Question 1 – The Australian Constitution a. Identify two powers given to the High Court. High Court powers include: • hearing and determining appeals on cases determined in lower courts • interpreting the Constitution (including determining if legislation is constitutional) • trying treason cases • resolving legal disputes involving treaties or affecting representatives of other countries • resolving constitutional disputes • resolving disputes between states.
    [Show full text]