I wish you were my lecturer/tutor and I'm so happy I found this account. You're so gifted at knowing how to explain things so concisely. Watching this has made Constitutional Law make so much more sense to me. I feel like some lecturers struggle to break down the subject in a way that's easy to learn and struggle to be as straightforward as you. If you ever taught again, your students would be so blessed to have someone like you.
Doctor Marinac, your videos are brilliant. Just wondering if you have thought of making videos particularly explaining Equity and Commercial Transactions? Thanks, Jose
You sir are a legend!! I'm in my third year of a BA Law & Arts, & Consitutional Law is currently the bane of my existence. I'm typically a Distinction-average student with a GPA that sits around 6, & I'm worried that Cons will ruin my academic streak!! So, I'm watching this video in the 2nd last week of the semester just before we break off for exams & I'm hopeful that your excellent teaching style will give me the knowledge & confidence to do well in my Cons exam - wish me luck! 😄
Prudence May is there an Australian version of Marbury v. Madison (1803)?? In the US, it's the case that held the United States Constitution was the supreme law of the land, and any law passed in contrary to the constitution is null and void- from the very moment it was passed
Hi there FWJR88, Australia doesn't have an equivalent of Marbury v Madison, because the capacity of the High Court to determine the constitutionality of legislation is written directly into the constitution - our constitutional drafters were writing nearly 90 years after Marbury v Madison, and so M v M was quite influential on the shape of our constitution.
Thank you so much for being with me throughout my JD study journey at USQ for the past year. Your continuous support through the series of educational videos on your channel has been invaluable. You're truly an exceptional tutor and lecturer! Landing to year two and I have just kicked off the subject of Constitution Law.
Thank you Anthony, your two-hour youtube video has helped me understand this subject. It is very thorough and easy to understand (which is really important for a law student), the way you explain things are far more competent than my textbook and my lecture notes. You are a gem!
2nd year law student here.. I've been doing okay with my law units but as soon as I started constitutional law it just wasn't staying in my head. I have an essay due about altering the constitution in a couple days that I was really struggling with and this video has helped me so much. Thank you kindly :)
Thank you for a great series of videos. My last pass is a direct result of this video. Like most people who comment on your contributions to TH-cam, I am grateful and very appreciative to the effort and time you give up for us. Thank you.
Where have you been? You are the best, I have my final exam in constitutional law tomorrow and was blank today as my lecturer is not as clear as you and in your 2 hours I’m confident about my exam tomorrow! ThankYou!!
Thank you again for another great overview of my current law subject. Love the case note videos too. If you are still producing 2 hour courses, I would love to see a property series! Namely 1) real property/conveyancing and 2) personal property. I think the 2nd would be especially useful, given the global shift in focus from tangible to intangible assets.
Dear Anthony, Thank you and I love listening you as you are explaining everything very clear and appreciate your all wonderful work. THANK YOU and You are an excellent lecturer! You are very special:-) Your videos are extremely HELPFUL!!!!
I just got accepted into a JD course so I'm watching your videos to give me a head-up on what to expect in law school next semester. I'm so glad I found your channel. Guess who's going to ace his studies now :-) ... hopefully. Thank you, Anthony and may "The Force be with you"! (See, I did learn something).
@@AnthsLawSchool Thanks for the encouragement. Already ahead of you on that, I watched most of it last night. I must admit that you make it sound so easy. I know its isn't, but you have certainly paved my path. Kudos to you Dr M!
Hi Anthony! I just wanted to drop a comment here and thank you for taking the time to put this video together. I am currently a few days away from my Constitutional and Federation Law Exam and listening to your lecture here has made me feel a lot better about it. Really appreciate you uploading this and I look forward to watching more of your lectures!! Josie (SA)
I'm glad you think so, Ryan! I always appreciate signal boost though, so please do feel free to share on the student fb pages in your institution. And I always appreciate feedback! :)
Hello Mr. Marinac, I must say you are an awesome Tutor. Because of you I was able to get my head around Contract Law. If I had the opportunity, I would take the next flight to Australia, jump in to your class and stay untill I have graduated. Thanks for being on TH-cam!
That's my pleasure! I no longer teach in universities, but your flight wouldn't be wasted - you could watch TH-cam while sitting by a pristine beach :)
Thanks so much for your kind words, Mira. I miss teaching too! Who knows, some university might offer me a sessional gig at some point in time. Until then, I'm teaching right here :)
@@AnthsLawSchool Sorry I just saw the message, I've been busy with my exam and school stuff. Somehow you're still teaching through TH-cam, which is good. I will continue watching your videos and if I should have any questions I will certainly ask you 🙂
Thank you, for your knowledge and your content it has truly helped me understand more of my subjects. Your teaching style is so relaxed allowing your followers to grasp everything! I look forward to more and more of your video!!!!
I'm glad it's useful Maree! And I agree, the law should be something everyone has a chance to learn about, not just the select few who find themselves in law school. It's ALL of our constitution and ALL of our law. Enjoy!
@@AnthsLawSchool i have to ask.... isn't our current constitution illegal?? Never put to referendum or signed off by commonwealth?? The only REAL constitution we have is from 1901, is this correct??.
@@AnthsLawSchool As an individual that has been interested in how the legal system actually works in reality, listening to your video's has been a great learning experience, I have been wondering if someone who only finished year nine back in the late 70's has a chance to study law at university? Thank you.
I am just a normal citizen not studying law, and I watched this because I am concerned about the overzealousness of the Federal and State governments in a time of crisis, slowly eroding our civil liberties and accumulating more power to themselves in the name of public health. So I wanted to know the constitution for myself.
Wonderful resource. One suggestion: please change the chagrined female public servant being chastised by two men to a man, and at least one of the judges to a woman! I'm not being pedantic; this is practical and practicable. Thank you for a terrific overview. Surprisingly interesting!!!
Thanks very much. You can probably see that this video was posted almost five years ago, when I was still really working out what I was doing. Nowadays I am very careful about inclusivity: not all my folks are white, not all my couples are straight, not all my families are nuclear, not all my authority figures are men, and you will find people with disabilities who are not merely illustrated in the context of their disability. So I like to think I'm doing a lot better nowadays, but I take your point about this earlier video. Thanks for watching!
I paused it at 49:42 with a smile on my face and I think by now I am confident that my lecture slides are useless and I am beginning to understand in much broader detail about our Consti.
The real problem is that most university lecturers are paid to chase grant money for research; teaching is very much a second class enterprise for them. Me, I love teaching! I'm really glad you found this helpful!
@@AnthsLawSchool to be honest I love how you gave an example with football and simplified it so it could be fun and learning subject. Your examples put me in a right place 🙌🏼 our teacher just reads the slides and explains the cases. I don't need that because that's my job when I get home, they seem to be forgetting how to teach. Like she covered corporation power and all the other heads of powers but never went beyond her knowledge to explain things the way yo you did sir 🙌🏼🙏 thank you for that. Please come to Griffith university Nathan and teach us 😊👏🏼
Thank you very much for the information regarding the structure and design of the constitution. Now I must defend that although the US states it has rights to bare arms it's more implied that through a process that gets more difficult as time progresses to help protect the common citizen whilst not taking away their ability to defend themselves from say a an entire country filled with dangerous wild life or criminals who get guns anyways through organized crime
Re:2hr Constitutional Law. Loved your explanation on this subject. Clear, concise and easy to understand. Don't be afraid to mention the Liberal party (Howard gov) by name in relation to the work choices though, in order to provide balance. 👍😊
Thanks Nola. There's always a balance to be struck. I don't want to use the channel as my own personal political platform, but at the same time there's no point ignoring reality. You could be right, it might have been helpful for me to mention the Howard government by name, but hopefully that doesn't detract from the constitutional point :)
Your saying that the UK through its Westminster statutes Act gave up its power to rule over one of its territories so freely. Which effectively left the Australian Constitution to free ball in to the hands of the Australian Government. Making our Constitution null and void effectively, to be changed at Will mercilessly by a few in power to change laws at Will without referendum ??? Please explain??
No. The constitution is clearly not in the hands of the government, because it can only be changed by a referendum. There have never been any changes to the constitution without referendum.
Would you explain how a private company, owns, both the Liberal and Labor party names, so isn't the Australian corporate government a foreign entity in this country.
Thanks for taking the time to record and post the very important topic, particularly now that it is not taught at school. I am curious as to how the Federal Constitution works with State Constitutions. Also which versions are current?
📜🌏🕵🏻Sorry I will check it all out another day.🤗Thanks for this clip mate. As I am semi illiterate. I learn better with clips.✌️😇👍Will save it in one of my play list. I'm sure other people will find this interesting to
Anthony, I've just start watching your 2hr special. I'm curious to know how the power was gained, determined , authorised etc to enact the Australia Act in 86? There is alot of talk about the australia act withdrawing us from the 1901 constitution of which you are discussing.. and at the same time hoodwinking the Australian ppl to be governed under the corporate? Curious of your opinion on these issues especially during and after covid.. Cheers Will
Hello Anthony! thank you so much for this video! but just a little advice, could u record with a mic or headphone next time? the volume is too small that i can hardly focus on the content. love your lecture!
Hi there, Maybe try a different device? The volume plays fine on mine. You will be happy to know though that I have upgraded my equipment a lot since then! :)
Thank you so much you legend!! Would you be able to do a 2 hour class on equities and trusts please?! Preferably for Victoria but understandable if not as you're based in Qld! May the force be with you too!!!
Equity and Trusts is on the list ... I will get there eventually, although I have to say it's not a subject that interests me even slightly lol. Hopefully some time this year!
Great video. I've been researching how to challenge a State law under sections 76 & 109 of the Federal Constitution. I've found s 40 of Judiciary Act but can't find any examples of the application to the court. How about making a video on the "procedure" of "how to" challenge State law under Federal Constitution in Australia?
It's a pretty rare thing for an ordinary person to do, which is why there aren't many examples out there. I think the Federal Court has dome decent materials available on constitutional application though, and the Federal Court is likely where such a challenge would begin.
@@AnthsLawSchool Very interesting, so far only about 60 mins in. One question I do have is about the "Act to Constitute Australia" shown at 3.48. It says "... ,humbly relying on the blessing of almighty God,....". Could you explain as to why that is in there? It must have a very important meaning, as why else would they put it in there? Once again very interesting video so far and I am looking forward to finishing it. Cheers,
You have to see it in the context of the times, I guess. This was the 1890s, Christianity was almost universal among white Australians and the church was a much more important institution than it is now. The Christian God still has a reasonable presence in the law: oaths taken on the bible and ending in "So Help Me God", and "God Save the Queen" being stated at the operning of proceedings in some courts. The parliament starts proceedings each day with the Lord's Prayer. Nowadays it is mostly just hooey, because so few people are Christians, but it persists (rather like the barrister's wig) out of tradition rather than utility.
1:47:40, the states, strangely enough, didn't like to be blackmailed... Famous last words. Isn't the high court appointed by the commonwealth? Doesn't that make any challenge by the state biased?
Hi Anthony, you refer to "The Australia Act 1986". My research on this act shows NO Royal ascent .. Have I missed something here? Obviously its invalid without it. thx.
Hi Richard, Unfortunately there is a lot of disinformation out there about the process of Royal Assent. Lots of folks carrying on with nonsense about the need to affix Royal Seals etc etc. None of these have stacked up in court. The Governor General (Sir Ninian Stephen) assented to the Australia Act on 4 Devember 1985. He did so in accordance with s.58 of the Constitution, which empowers him to do so. It was then reported in the Commonwealth Gazette on 14 January 1986 (on page 216, to be precise). All perfectly in order.
20:17 I was thinking probably the most famous example of a Parliament sitting less than one per year was the German Reichstag during WWII (and it sat very seldom after the Enabling Act of 1933 was passed) which is certainly a precedent to avoid. Somewhat relevant to the constitutional discussion is that the last piece of legislation the Reichstag passed made the head of the legislature also the head of the judiciary, formally dissolving any semblance of separation of powers, handily illustrating why you'd want to keep powers separate.
Yes, there are many lessons from 1930s Germany about how even a modern constitution in a sophisticated nation can potentially get warped. The biggest lesson of all, of course, is that we must never assume that such things exist only in the past.
It became essentially two concurrent legislative regimes excercising the same power but deriving it from different sources. It's always fascinated me how through adherence with m&f requirements for amending the constitution they both drew their power from, and succeeded its limitations.
Hi Anthony, do you have any videos or links to videos that would helpful for an assignment on the Covid-19 outbreak and the constitutional issues that would prevent the Commonwealth executive from imposing lengthy detentions?
Not really ... the main thing would be to look at the restrictions on the Commonwealth authorising civil conscription (but the states still have this power), and possibly the consideration of habeas corpus. But emergency powers are pretty strong, and almost certainly include COVID-19 detention. And the Commonwealth has a clear s.51 power over quarantine. Cheers Anthony
A friend of mine took her infant child to hospital because she noticed a swelling on top of the childs head and a was told an immediate blood test was needed....while at the hospital a mandatory report to child safty sparked an immediate investigation...when the mother was questioned about the childs swelling the mother said she does not know what caused it....less then 30 minutes later the mother was told the department would be loseing guardian rights and was told to leave the hospital... for the next few months the department accused the mother of causing the childs condition/swelling.... ... ....the mother informed me that the medical records/blood test results would prove that she did nothing wrong but the department refused to let her access the childs medical records...... so i wont say how but i menaged to get a copy of the medical results from the blood test and they proved a blood imbalance caused the swelling.... ....however to this day child safty Refuse to discuss the results and case workers liturally just got up and walked of meetings and cut visitation when ever the mother mentioned it........ . .....My Question is - can the constitution be used to inforce child safty to acknowledge the medical test results.......... This has totally destroys her families life but nobody will listen...... ...any advice would be much appreciated...
This sounds like an awful situation, but I'm always really reluctant to comment on individual circumstances. I don't know, for instance, where all of this took place, so I don't know what the law is there. In Australia, any lawyer would be able to take steps in relation to a situation like this - there is a great deal of law around child protection and child removal. The bottom line is that your friend needs a lawyer.
@@AnthsLawSchool it all took place in QLD, the matters for placement went before Qcat and then court but i kid you not, the mother was basically denied her right to even address the childs medical test results that clearly show the blood imbalance was the cause of the swelling ( i didnt obtain a copy of the results untill after court has ended but in meetings the department refused to acknowledge the results as i mentioned they simply walked out of meetings ) Even when the mothers lawyer at the time of court tried to mention the hospitals test results the Department argued that the test results were not tended to the court and went on to say they will not be releasing such information...... but now time has passed and the mother has thd hospitals official test results the department still totally refuse to discuss it...
@@AnthsLawSchool was in Brisbane QLD Australia.... i know you will be thinking surly there is more to this and yes there is tho the main issue its the denial to address the hospitals test results. The mother is not a smoker or a drinker and definitely does not do drugs of any kind, she is a Trade Qualified Baker who has worked most of her adult life
Public, in this context, is governmental: within the three estates of power. Public power is therefore essentially governmental power. Private powet comes from a far broader range of sources, with money the most obvious: but private power is not subject to administrative law.
Dear Anthony, I am an avid video contracts a & b supporter in addition to the finding legislation special. Is there any chance that you could instruct a series on constitutional/corporations law? immense thank you best regards fans Marion from uni canberra
Thank you for your videos. I have found them so useful in helping me grasp the fundamental basics of these topics. I would like to ask a question if that's ok? Once the High Court has made a decision which creates a law, can that decision be overturned in future if the government passes a bill in parliament which conflicts with or contradicts the High Court decision?
Hi Vivian, I'm really glad the videos are helpful! The answer to your question is yes, absolutely. In fact sometimes the parliament will quite explicitly say in the legislation that a Bill is intended to overturn a specific High Court decision. Naturally though the new legislation will only be effective for disputes which occur AFTER the commencement date of the legislation. But parliamentary law is supreme over judge-made law, on the basis that the parliament is comprised of the elected representatives of the people, and the High Court is not :) Hope that answers your question! Cheers Anthony
robb is there no equivalent of Marbury v. Madison (1803) in Australia?? In the U.S., Supreme Court precedent is known as Case Law and legislative acts can not overturn
@robb...tin foil has come off your hat buddy...quick run.... the government will start reading your thoughts...probably already on their way to your cave.
Victoria Australia, I just got attacked by police on private property(Bunnings carpark exercising my rights as a traveller to travel the rds as living being a sovereign being in common law & International human rights law & Commonwealth law. that & in my car without plates. I refused ID confirmation as no crime had occurred & there was no victim. I was just leaving the store in my car & the police blocked the exit from Bunnings trade area smashed my car window dragged me out for breaking no laws. My knee was damaged & car was impounded. I was not even driving on a Rd. Anyone got any ideas?
Yep. Obey the law. The sovereign citizen concept that a "driver" is a legal fiction and a "traveler" is a sovereign being exempt from the law is nothing but pure, unadulterated, idiotic nonsense sprouted by the ignorant (or by those cynically trying to rack up Facebook views). If you want to drive a car, register it. If the police ask you for ID, hand it over. You're not a "traveler", you're not a "sovereign citizen", you're subject to the law like the rest of us.
@@AnthsLawSchool l did, my car was impounded. Unlawfully. I was driving on private property. There is no law that I have signed up for that I am to be a muppet played by UNapt VERMIN UNLITERATES. It's only due to the majority that follow blindly laws manufactured by an UNJUST government. I don't vote never signed up for this CESSPIT of UNapts. I follow The 10 commandments & there's a couple of them I'm not sure we're translated properly. I don't vote for RETARDS. It's because of ppl like you the world is so FUKD! God created the UNIVERSE man created PETROL! I've been dead many a time are you ready Mr do as you told by UNapts. Are you ready to meet your maker? I asked for advice not an unread UNliterate compliant muppet of the system. We see how far that gets you on the other side. Much easier to suck dick instead of think about anything the man says. I mean the muppet. Is that good Law?
Most groundwater resources come under state jurisdiction, so it would depend on your state, I guess. In most places, as far as I'm aware, entitlement to put down a bore is regulated by the local councils.
Isn't the only legal constitution the one from 1901?? The one we have now has never been signed off by the commonwealth and not put to the people, therefor illegal??? Can you answer
No. That is complete and utter nonsense. I used to be a parliamantary officer. I have personally seen the very first constitution Act, signed by Queen Victoria in her own hand. I have seen her original signature on the document. It's the same constitution we have now, other than the amendments. The self-described "constitutional experts" who sprout this nonsense don't understand even the most fundamental and basis understanding of constitutional law.
@@burfollydurmak4826 look I am sorry if I am rude, but I get these messages about once a week and usually just delete them. For some reason this topic attracts self-appointed experts who are genuinely just tin-foil-hat-wearing morons. It gets wearing. If I have unfairly included you those, I apologise.
@@AnthsLawSchool i'm no expert, i'm 52 and not allowed to vote, so i really couldn't give #@×%. Hence i never follow politics. My brother is a crown court prosecuter, he's always dealing with this topic.. I have no interest at all in any of this rubbish.. i'm so sorry to have bothered you.. cheers
Every Australian should listen to this so they understand how things should work in theory.
Thanks very much mate - spread the word 😊
I wish you were my lecturer/tutor and I'm so happy I found this account. You're so gifted at knowing how to explain things so concisely. Watching this has made Constitutional Law make so much more sense to me.
I feel like some lecturers struggle to break down the subject in a way that's easy to learn and struggle to be as straightforward as you. If you ever taught again, your students would be so blessed to have someone like you.
Hi Chloe, happily I'm back teaching! Glad to be on the team at James Cook University :)
Thanks so much for your very kind words!
Cheers
Anthony
This isn't the 1st time I tried to study law... but christ I'm glad Ur youtube channel exists this time! Thank you sooooooooooooooooo much!
💞💖😍😘🥰💖💞
I think I really should be paying you $5000 instead of wasting it on my lecturer. Thank heaps, SIR MARINAC!!
No worries mate! :)
Doctor Marinac, your videos are brilliant. Just wondering if you have thought of making videos particularly explaining Equity and Commercial Transactions?
Thanks,
Jose
I'll take it if you don't want it.
@robb....I'm guessing you're an active member of the Flat Earth Society!
You sir are a legend!! I'm in my third year of a BA Law & Arts, & Consitutional Law is currently the bane of my existence. I'm typically a Distinction-average student with a GPA that sits around 6, & I'm worried that Cons will ruin my academic streak!! So, I'm watching this video in the 2nd last week of the semester just before we break off for exams & I'm hopeful that your excellent teaching style will give me the knowledge & confidence to do well in my Cons exam - wish me luck! 😄
How'd you go?
@@Asme1111-t8h I got 83% on my final exam & 85% overall 🥹🥹
Thank you so so much for this! You’ve given me back my confidence in this subject and subsequently my degree. You truly have a gift for teaching!
Prudence May is there an Australian version of Marbury v. Madison (1803)?? In the US, it's the case that held the United States Constitution was the supreme law of the land, and any law passed in contrary to the constitution is null and void- from the very moment it was passed
Thanks so much Prudence! I hope your studies are going great!
Hi there FWJR88, Australia doesn't have an equivalent of Marbury v Madison, because the capacity of the High Court to determine the constitutionality of legislation is written directly into the constitution - our constitutional drafters were writing nearly 90 years after Marbury v Madison, and so M v M was quite influential on the shape of our constitution.
Thankyou for your time putting this together. You are a great teacher. Your students are lucky to have you
My lecturer started talking about soccer and tried to use it as an examples 🤦♀️ this is so much better thanks
This is helping me kcik start my exam review. Thank you. Very summarised and helpful.
You don't know how helpful this video has been to us. Thanks Anthony!
That's my pleasure Abdul. Good luck with your studies!
You are wonderful dear Dr. Marinac!
Thanks so much for this video Anthony! You certainly have a talent for explaining things, appreciate you taking the time to make this :)
My pleasure Rebecca! Good luck with your studies!
Thank you so much for being with me throughout my JD study journey at USQ for the past year. Your continuous support through the series of educational videos on your channel has been invaluable. You're truly an exceptional tutor and lecturer! Landing to year two and I have just kicked off the subject of Constitution Law.
Watched this the day of my exam - beautiful overview to ready me for a big big subject. Thankyou!
Outstanding! Good luck with your results, I'd love to hear how you go :)
I scored 73 for the unit. I was delighted, given I had floundered in the assignment so I must have nailed the exam!
You little ripper! Only a couple of marks shy of a distinction. Well done you!!!
Thank you Anthony, your two-hour youtube video has helped me understand this subject. It is very thorough and easy to understand (which is really important for a law student), the way you explain things are far more competent than my textbook and my lecture notes. You are a gem!
I'm really glad you found it helpful Anny :)
2nd year law student here.. I've been doing okay with my law units but as soon as I started constitutional law it just wasn't staying in my head. I have an essay due about altering the constitution in a couple days that I was really struggling with and this video has helped me so much. Thank you kindly :)
You're very welcome! I hope you nailed the essay :-)
Thank you for a great series of videos.
My last pass is a direct result of this video. Like most people who comment on your contributions to TH-cam, I am grateful and very appreciative to the effort and time you give up for us.
Thank you.
So glad to help KD. Well done on getting through Constitutional :)
Where have you been? You are the best, I have my final exam in constitutional law tomorrow and was blank today as my lecturer is not as clear as you and in your 2 hours I’m confident about my exam tomorrow! ThankYou!!
Thank you again for another great overview of my current law subject. Love the case note videos too. If you are still producing 2 hour courses, I would love to see a property series! Namely 1) real property/conveyancing and 2) personal property. I think the 2nd would be especially useful, given the global shift in focus from tangible to intangible assets.
Listened to every word of these 2 hours. thank you VM
You're very welcome!
Thank you so much! This has been so helpful :)
Dear Anthony, Thank you and I love listening you as you are explaining everything very clear and appreciate your all wonderful work. THANK YOU and You are an excellent lecturer! You are very special:-) Your videos are extremely HELPFUL!!!!
Thanks so much Meryem! :)
I just got accepted into a JD course so I'm watching your videos to give me a head-up on what to expect in law school next semester. I'm so glad I found your channel. Guess who's going to ace his studies now :-) ... hopefully. Thank you, Anthony and may "The Force be with you"! (See, I did learn something).
That's great Sam! You may also want to check out my "Law School Prep" video ... chock full of useful tips! All the best for your study!
@@AnthsLawSchool Thanks for the encouragement. Already ahead of you on that, I watched most of it last night. I must admit that you make it sound so easy. I know its isn't, but you have certainly paved my path.
Kudos to you Dr M!
Mr Marinac thank you for taking the time to make these videos. They are very informative and made easy to digest. I’m glad I found this channel.
Thanks so much, Jim. I'm glad the material has been helpful!
Hi Anthony!
I just wanted to drop a comment here and thank you for taking the time to put this video together. I am currently a few days away from my Constitutional and Federation Law Exam and listening to your lecture here has made me feel a lot better about it. Really appreciate you uploading this and I look forward to watching more of your lectures!!
Josie (SA)
Hi Josie, thanks so much for your comment! Good luck in your exam ... and I will definitely keep them coming :-)
Make sure you study section 53
This is incredible and couldn't thank you enough for creating these
Thanks so much for your kind words - and you're welcome!
Thanks so much Anthony. Have not watched but saved for later in the week. Your work is priceless.
I'm glad you think so, Ryan! I always appreciate signal boost though, so please do feel free to share on the student fb pages in your institution. And I always appreciate feedback! :)
Anthony Marinac consider it done. 👍👍
Finally! Our own version of BILL NYE the science guy for the school of law recognised as MARINAC, the law guy! Many Thanks
LOL high praise indeed! Thanks Sarah!
I love you! Thank you! I’m thinking of studying law and you are helping me get ready.
Thanks Alaina! There's also a two hour law school prep course video on my channel that might help you too 😊
Hello Mr. Marinac,
I must say you are an awesome Tutor. Because of you I was able to get my head around Contract Law. If I had the opportunity, I would take the next flight to Australia, jump in to your class and stay untill I have graduated.
Thanks for being on TH-cam!
That's my pleasure! I no longer teach in universities, but your flight wouldn't be wasted - you could watch TH-cam while sitting by a pristine beach :)
@@AnthsLawSchool
It's a shame you don't teach any longer, but I will still be your great follower on TH-cam and take you as a mentor 🙂
Thanks so much for your kind words, Mira. I miss teaching too! Who knows, some university might offer me a sessional gig at some point in time. Until then, I'm teaching right here :)
@@AnthsLawSchool Sorry I just saw the message, I've been busy with my exam and school stuff. Somehow you're still teaching through TH-cam, which is good. I will continue watching your videos and if I should have any questions I will certainly ask you 🙂
By all means! Always glad to help :)
Thank you, for your knowledge and your content it has truly helped me understand more of my subjects. Your teaching style is so relaxed allowing your followers to grasp everything! I look forward to more and more of your video!!!!
That's wonderful feedback, thanks Alan!
Thank you so much for this video! You are such an engaging tutor, breaking things down simple and understandable. HUGE help for pre-exam study :)
My pleasure Courtney! Very best of luck with your exam :)
Interesting and informative. Thank you very much!
My pleasure!
Thank you so much! This really did help and gave me a good base to get started with my revision. You are a true legend!
You're very welcome Charlie!
Thank you for taking time and doing this video; love your teaching. God bless 🙏
You are so welcome :)
Thank you for taking time to produce these videos much appreciated keep up the great work!
the most important document on our land ,with some serious backing..... Cheers for this..
You're very welcome Naomi :)
Thank you and I will keep watching this. It’s good to know our rights and so important to learn it.
I'm glad it's useful Maree! And I agree, the law should be something everyone has a chance to learn about, not just the select few who find themselves in law school. It's ALL of our constitution and ALL of our law. Enjoy!
@@AnthsLawSchool i have to ask.... isn't our current constitution illegal??
Never put to referendum or signed off by commonwealth??
The only REAL constitution we have is from 1901, is this correct??.
@@AnthsLawSchool As an individual that has been interested in how the legal system actually works in reality, listening to your video's has been a great learning experience, I have been wondering if someone who only finished year nine back in the late 70's has a chance to study law at university?
Thank you.
Thanks so much! Great succinct refresh the day of my exam!
Glad it was helpful!
Anthony Thank you Sir I've a better understanding of the constitution.
Can you please make a video of Property Law in 2 hours ? Would be very helpful as you explain concepts so well!
I'll put it on the list!
I agree, I'm studying property law and struggling!!
Amazing Information
Glad you think so!
Thank you for your time.
My pleasure!
... it's just the vibe ...
It's mabo, it's the vibe ...
very much appreciate your help.
My pleasure Ryan, glad you found it useful!
Thank you Anthony! Really useful stuff.
Cheers
You're very welcome!
Such a fantastic video and a difficult topic, thank you
Glad it was helpful!
I am just a normal citizen not studying law, and I watched this because I am concerned about the overzealousness of the Federal and State governments in a time of crisis, slowly eroding our civil liberties and accumulating more power to themselves in the name of public health. So I wanted to know the constitution for myself.
I hope this helped. The real challenge will be as the crisis ends, to ensure that all civil liberties are properly returned.
@@AnthsLawSchool you know that's not going to happen.
Wonderful resource. One suggestion: please change the chagrined female public servant being chastised by two men to a man, and at least one of the judges to a woman! I'm not being pedantic; this is practical and practicable. Thank you for a terrific overview. Surprisingly interesting!!!
Thanks very much. You can probably see that this video was posted almost five years ago, when I was still really working out what I was doing. Nowadays I am very careful about inclusivity: not all my folks are white, not all my couples are straight, not all my families are nuclear, not all my authority figures are men, and you will find people with disabilities who are not merely illustrated in the context of their disability. So I like to think I'm doing a lot better nowadays, but I take your point about this earlier video.
Thanks for watching!
Thank you so much!
You are most welcome!
absolutely awesome thank you, love ya guts mate, Aussie law student Tessxxx
You are a legend. Thank you so so much for making this video!
You're very welcome, Emmaline!
I paused it at 49:42 with a smile on my face and I think by now I am confident that my lecture slides are useless and I am beginning to understand in much broader detail about our Consti.
The real problem is that most university lecturers are paid to chase grant money for research; teaching is very much a second class enterprise for them. Me, I love teaching! I'm really glad you found this helpful!
@@AnthsLawSchool to be honest I love how you gave an example with football and simplified it so it could be fun and learning subject. Your examples put me in a right place 🙌🏼 our teacher just reads the slides and explains the cases. I don't need that because that's my job when I get home, they seem to be forgetting how to teach. Like she covered corporation power and all the other heads of powers but never went beyond her knowledge to explain things the way yo you did sir 🙌🏼🙏 thank you for that. Please come to Griffith university Nathan and teach us 😊👏🏼
Thanks a lot you enlighten us, my ALLAH blessed you
You're very welcome, and I'm glad you found these materials helpful.
Thank you very much for the information regarding the structure and design of the constitution. Now I must defend that although the US states it has rights to bare arms it's more implied that through a process that gets more difficult as time progresses to help protect the common citizen whilst not taking away their ability to defend themselves from say a an entire country filled with dangerous wild life or criminals who get guns anyways through organized crime
Thank you so much again. By the way you last 2 videos on tort law and contract law had helped me alot in exam. Thank you again
My pleasure, well done!
Re:2hr Constitutional Law.
Loved your explanation on this subject. Clear, concise and easy to understand. Don't be afraid to mention the Liberal party (Howard gov) by name in relation to the work choices though, in order to provide balance. 👍😊
Thanks Nola. There's always a balance to be struck. I don't want to use the channel as my own personal political platform, but at the same time there's no point ignoring reality. You could be right, it might have been helpful for me to mention the Howard government by name, but hopefully that doesn't detract from the constitutional point :)
This was really helpful - thanks!
Glad it was helpful!
You are an amazing lecturer. Tnx a lot
My pleasure! :-)
What a great video, very helpful!
Glad it was helpful!
This all seems civil and peaceful. How it was made and obtained is a different story
Well, if you are talking about Indigenous Australians, that is true, and there are other videos on my channel specifically dealing with this issue.
The planting of the seeds Shelby as military and by the generation of regrowth towards the point of target for the generator battery
Your saying that the UK through its Westminster statutes Act gave up its power to rule over one of its territories so freely. Which effectively left the Australian Constitution to free ball in to the hands of the Australian Government. Making our Constitution null and void effectively, to be changed at Will mercilessly by a few in power to change laws at Will without referendum ???
Please explain??
No. The constitution is clearly not in the hands of the government, because it can only be changed by a referendum. There have never been any changes to the constitution without referendum.
Thanks so much mate bloody awesome
Reallt glad you thought so :)
A Trust law in 2 hours would be great too!
Would you explain how a private company, owns, both the Liberal and Labor party names, so isn't the Australian corporate government a foreign entity in this country.
Thanks for taking the time to record and post the very important topic, particularly now that it is not taught at school.
I am curious as to how the Federal Constitution works with State Constitutions.
Also which versions are current?
I live in the northern Territory! So could u please touch the subject of the differences between state & Territory laws & powers?
📜🌏🕵🏻Sorry I will check it all out another day.🤗Thanks for this clip mate. As I am semi illiterate. I learn better with clips.✌️😇👍Will save it in one of my play list. I'm sure other people will find this interesting to
Anthony, I've just start watching your 2hr special. I'm curious to know how the power was gained, determined , authorised etc to enact the Australia Act in 86? There is alot of talk about the australia act withdrawing us from the 1901 constitution of which you are discussing.. and at the same time hoodwinking the Australian ppl to be governed under the corporate? Curious of your opinion on these issues especially during and after covid.. Cheers Will
Hello Anthony! thank you so much for this video! but just a little advice, could u record with a mic or headphone next time? the volume is too small that i can hardly focus on the content. love your lecture!
Hi there,
Maybe try a different device? The volume plays fine on mine. You will be happy to know though that I have upgraded my equipment a lot since then! :)
@@AnthsLawSchool thank you Anthony!
@@chonglouis3615 the adds blasted out loud just fine tho.. 🤣🤣
Australian constitution 121, 122-123
I apologise for my familiar arty.
.
Thank you Dr Anthony Marinac
🙂🙂
1.2
1:42:00, that is interesting, regarding preferential treatment. How about distributing GST? WA gets a 0.70 on the dollar.
Thank you so much you legend!! Would you be able to do a 2 hour class on equities and trusts please?! Preferably for Victoria but understandable if not as you're based in Qld! May the force be with you too!!!
Equity and Trusts is on the list ... I will get there eventually, although I have to say it's not a subject that interests me even slightly lol. Hopefully some time this year!
@@AnthsLawSchool thank you!! Completely understandable I don't think the topic will interest me either but I gotta do what I gotta do 🤣
love ur work! thanku!
My pleasure! Thanks for your enthusiasm!
Note final layer of negative battery is the implanting of q seeds tomato and banana seeds
super stuff as usual
Thanks Nick!
As always Professor qudos
1:55:30, the design of the constitution is actually pretty good. Why have a constitution that is easy to change...?
Great video. I've been researching how to challenge a State law under sections 76 & 109 of the Federal Constitution. I've found s 40 of Judiciary Act but can't find any examples of the application to the court.
How about making a video on the "procedure" of "how to" challenge State law under Federal Constitution in Australia?
It's a pretty rare thing for an ordinary person to do, which is why there aren't many examples out there. I think the Federal Court has dome decent materials available on constitutional application though, and the Federal Court is likely where such a challenge would begin.
Thanks a lot!!
You're welcome!
Can you please posted a lecture about Equity?
It's on the list ... eventually 😁
Than you so much.
You're very welcome Wayne!
Thanks mate
My pleasure, Ben! Let me know what you think :)
@@AnthsLawSchool Very interesting, so far only about 60 mins in. One question I do have is about the "Act to Constitute Australia" shown at 3.48. It says "... ,humbly relying on the blessing of almighty God,....". Could you explain as to why that is in there? It must have a very important meaning, as why else would they put it in there?
Once again very interesting video so far and I am looking forward to finishing it.
Cheers,
You have to see it in the context of the times, I guess. This was the 1890s, Christianity was almost universal among white Australians and the church was a much more important institution than it is now.
The Christian God still has a reasonable presence in the law: oaths taken on the bible and ending in "So Help Me God", and "God Save the Queen" being stated at the operning of proceedings in some courts. The parliament starts proceedings each day with the Lord's Prayer.
Nowadays it is mostly just hooey, because so few people are Christians, but it persists (rather like the barrister's wig) out of tradition rather than utility.
1:47:40, the states, strangely enough, didn't like to be blackmailed... Famous last words. Isn't the high court appointed by the commonwealth? Doesn't that make any challenge by the state biased?
Love it 💕❣️
Thanks Shirley!
Hi Anthony, you refer to "The Australia Act 1986". My research on this act shows NO Royal ascent .. Have I missed something here? Obviously its invalid without it. thx.
Hi Richard,
Unfortunately there is a lot of disinformation out there about the process of Royal Assent. Lots of folks carrying on with nonsense about the need to affix Royal Seals etc etc. None of these have stacked up in court.
The Governor General (Sir Ninian Stephen) assented to the Australia Act on 4 Devember 1985. He did so in accordance with s.58 of the Constitution, which empowers him to do so. It was then reported in the Commonwealth Gazette on 14 January 1986 (on page 216, to be precise).
All perfectly in order.
@@AnthsLawSchool thx looks like I have some reading to do.
20:17 I was thinking probably the most famous example of a Parliament sitting less than one per year was the German Reichstag during WWII (and it sat very seldom after the Enabling Act of 1933 was passed) which is certainly a precedent to avoid. Somewhat relevant to the constitutional discussion is that the last piece of legislation the Reichstag passed made the head of the legislature also the head of the judiciary, formally dissolving any semblance of separation of powers, handily illustrating why you'd want to keep powers separate.
Yes, there are many lessons from 1930s Germany about how even a modern constitution in a sophisticated nation can potentially get warped. The biggest lesson of all, of course, is that we must never assume that such things exist only in the past.
It became essentially two concurrent legislative regimes excercising the same power but deriving it from different sources. It's always fascinated me how through adherence with m&f requirements for amending the constitution they both drew their power from, and succeeded its limitations.
Hi Anthony, do you have any videos or links to videos that would helpful for an assignment on the Covid-19 outbreak and the constitutional issues that would prevent the Commonwealth executive from imposing lengthy detentions?
Not really ... the main thing would be to look at the restrictions on the Commonwealth authorising civil conscription (but the states still have this power), and possibly the consideration of habeas corpus. But emergency powers are pretty strong, and almost certainly include COVID-19 detention. And the Commonwealth has a clear s.51 power over quarantine.
Cheers
Anthony
Assignment .. yer ok...🤣
His answer lost respect and interest.
Good question.
Terrible answer by the “lecturer”
Going to come down to the legislation they're acting under, what head under 51 act was enacted, sort of turns on what detention means
A friend of mine took her infant child to hospital because she noticed a swelling on top of the childs head and a was told an immediate blood test was needed....while at the hospital a mandatory report to child safty sparked an immediate investigation...when the mother was questioned about the childs swelling the mother said she does not know what caused it....less then 30 minutes later the mother was told the department would be loseing guardian rights and was told to leave the hospital... for the next few months the department accused the mother of causing the childs condition/swelling....
... ....the mother informed me that the medical records/blood test results would prove that she did nothing wrong but the department refused to let her access the childs medical records...... so i wont say how but i menaged to get a copy of the medical results from the blood test and they proved a blood imbalance caused the swelling....
....however to this day child safty Refuse to discuss the results and case workers liturally just got up and walked of meetings and cut visitation when ever the mother mentioned it........ .
.....My Question is - can the constitution be used to inforce child safty to acknowledge the medical test results..........
This has totally destroys her families life but nobody will listen......
...any advice would be much appreciated...
This sounds like an awful situation, but I'm always really reluctant to comment on individual circumstances. I don't know, for instance, where all of this took place, so I don't know what the law is there. In Australia, any lawyer would be able to take steps in relation to a situation like this - there is a great deal of law around child protection and child removal. The bottom line is that your friend needs a lawyer.
@@AnthsLawSchool it all took place in QLD, the matters for placement went before Qcat and then court but i kid you not, the mother was basically denied her right to even address the childs medical test results that clearly show the blood imbalance was the cause of the swelling ( i didnt obtain a copy of the results untill after court has ended but in meetings the department refused to acknowledge the results as i mentioned they simply walked out of meetings ) Even when the mothers lawyer at the time of court tried to mention the hospitals test results the Department argued that the test results were not tended to the court and went on to say they will not be releasing such information...... but now time has passed and the mother has thd hospitals official test results the department still totally refuse to discuss it...
@@AnthsLawSchool was in Brisbane QLD Australia.... i know you will be thinking surly there is more to this and yes there is tho the main issue its the denial to address the hospitals test results. The mother is not a smoker or a drinker and definitely does not do drugs of any kind, she is a Trade Qualified Baker who has worked most of her adult life
What is Public? What is Public Power? What about Private Power?
Public, in this context, is governmental: within the three estates of power. Public power is therefore essentially governmental power.
Private powet comes from a far broader range of sources, with money the most obvious: but private power is not subject to administrative law.
Dear Anthony, I am an avid video contracts a & b supporter in addition to the finding legislation special. Is there any chance that you could instruct a series on constitutional/corporations law? immense thank you
best regards
fans Marion from uni canberra
Hi Imani, I will definitely get to Corporations eventually - for now though there are some great corporations case notes on my channel :)
Thank you for your videos. I have found them so useful in helping me grasp the fundamental basics of these topics. I would like to ask a question if that's ok? Once the High Court has made a decision which creates a law, can that decision be overturned in future if the government passes a bill in parliament which conflicts with or contradicts the High Court decision?
Hi Vivian, I'm really glad the videos are helpful!
The answer to your question is yes, absolutely. In fact sometimes the parliament will quite explicitly say in the legislation that a Bill is intended to overturn a specific High Court decision.
Naturally though the new legislation will only be effective for disputes which occur AFTER the commencement date of the legislation. But parliamentary law is supreme over judge-made law, on the basis that the parliament is comprised of the elected representatives of the people, and the High Court is not :) Hope that answers your question!
Cheers
Anthony
@robb Bob Hawk etal removed the appeal process to the Privvy council in the 80's I think. . .so High Court of Australia is it.
robb is there no equivalent of Marbury v. Madison (1803) in Australia?? In the U.S., Supreme Court precedent is known as Case Law and legislative acts can not overturn
@robb...tin foil has come off your hat buddy...quick run.... the government will start reading your thoughts...probably already on their way to your cave.
Victoria Australia, I just got attacked by police on private property(Bunnings carpark exercising my rights as a traveller to travel the rds as living being a sovereign being in common law & International human rights law & Commonwealth law. that & in my car without plates. I refused ID confirmation as no crime had occurred & there was no victim. I was just leaving the store in my car & the police blocked the exit from Bunnings trade area smashed my car window dragged me out for breaking no laws. My knee was damaged & car was impounded. I was not even driving on a Rd. Anyone got any ideas?
Yep. Obey the law. The sovereign citizen concept that a "driver" is a legal fiction and a "traveler" is a sovereign being exempt from the law is nothing but pure, unadulterated, idiotic nonsense sprouted by the ignorant (or by those cynically trying to rack up Facebook views).
If you want to drive a car, register it. If the police ask you for ID, hand it over. You're not a "traveler", you're not a "sovereign citizen", you're subject to the law like the rest of us.
@@AnthsLawSchool l did, my car was impounded. Unlawfully. I was driving on private property. There is no law that I have signed up for that I am to be a muppet played by UNapt VERMIN UNLITERATES. It's only due to the majority that follow blindly laws manufactured by an UNJUST government. I don't vote never signed up for this CESSPIT of UNapts. I follow The 10 commandments & there's a couple of them I'm not sure we're translated properly. I don't vote for RETARDS. It's because of ppl like you the world is so FUKD! God created the UNIVERSE man created PETROL!
I've been dead many a time are you ready Mr do as you told by UNapts. Are you ready to meet your maker? I asked for advice not an unread UNliterate compliant muppet of the system. We see how far that gets you on the other side. Much easier to suck dick instead of think about anything the man says. I mean the muppet. Is that good Law?
*☼ Au has a constitution? huh.* can i dig for water in my state?
Most groundwater resources come under state jurisdiction, so it would depend on your state, I guess. In most places, as far as I'm aware, entitlement to put down a bore is regulated by the local councils.
@@AnthsLawSchool isnt anything found past 6 foot governments ? i know we never really own land .
Modified seeds can't been used if Santo pursues designing a seed that sucks
Can you please do a video on the Migration Act 1958 and Australian Immigration rules
Isn't the only legal constitution the one from 1901??
The one we have now has never been signed off by the commonwealth and not put to the people, therefor illegal??? Can you answer
No. That is complete and utter nonsense. I used to be a parliamantary officer. I have personally seen the very first constitution Act, signed by Queen Victoria in her own hand. I have seen her original signature on the document. It's the same constitution we have now, other than the amendments.
The self-described "constitutional experts" who sprout this nonsense don't understand even the most fundamental and basis understanding of constitutional law.
@@AnthsLawSchool wow sorry to ask...
Read YOUR own answer.....
Wow, how rude.
@@burfollydurmak4826 look I am sorry if I am rude, but I get these messages about once a week and usually just delete them. For some reason this topic attracts self-appointed experts who are genuinely just tin-foil-hat-wearing morons. It gets wearing. If I have unfairly included you those, I apologise.
@@AnthsLawSchool i'm no expert, i'm 52 and not allowed to vote, so i really couldn't give #@×%.
Hence i never follow politics.
My brother is a crown court prosecuter, he's always dealing with this topic..
I have no interest at all in any of this rubbish.. i'm so sorry to have bothered you.. cheers
administrating law?
Legend.
Thanks Jason!