Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
essay on australias constitution
essay about aus constitution
essay about aus constitution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: essay on australias constitution
Constitution Comparison
By AntiYuke
I compared the U.S.A. constitution and the Australian constitution. Their differences are as abundant as their similarities. The Australian constitution is extremely long and drawn out, where as the United States constitution sticks right to the point. All in all, the two constitutions have the same goal in that they wish to bestow the same basic rights to each person.
The two constitutions both have a preamble, however the Australian constitution is many more times greater in length. They both state how the power is bestowed on the federal government, but the power from each comes from different places. Australian takes it from the Queen, where USA takes it from the people, displaying how the separation from the British Empire by the Australians was more peace oriented than the rebellion of the United States. The Australian preamble doesn’t deal with legitimacy to USA standards because it doesn’t state the reasons for its creation where USA simply states, “in order to form a more perfect union.” The Australian preamble sis redundant in that it states things in it that are restated later in the body of the constitution.
Both constitutions are segmented into powers bestowed upon branches or states and o...
The decision for Australia to adopt the Federal system was on the principle of which the State’s governments wanted to keep their power. For this reason there was the separation of powers between the newly formed Commonwealth government and the existing State governments. At a constitutional level, there are rulings in which the powers are separated, these rulings due to disputes have slightly changed since 1901. These changes all fell towards the one government, the Commonwealth (Federal) government. However this was not just a landslide event, the Constitution of Australia set up this imbalance of powers between the Commonwealth and State governments. We will explore this further in the points discussed later in this essay.
In 1918, while the rest of Europe was still engaged in World War I, a newly formed communist government was developing in Russia. Much like 18th century Americans, they had just managed to overthrow what was viewed as a tyrannical government and hoped to form a new nation free of the injustices of the previous rule. Both countries wrote a new constitution as well as a declaration of rights to facilitate this, but their respective documents had vast differences. These disparities stemmed from differences in the ideologies of the new governments. The primary objectives of the Russian Declaration of Rights of the Working and Exploited People and the later constitution were the “abolition of all exploitation of man by man, complete elimination of the division of society into classes, merciless suppression of the exploiters, socialist organization of society, and victory of socialism in all countries.” Americans wanted equality of opportunity and personal freedom instead of the social equality desired by the Russians. The American constitution and Bill of Rights were created to protect personal liberties and individual freedom while the Russians were more concerned with the welfare and equality of the population as a whole. This difference is partially due to the differences in the conditions leading to revolution in each country. The American Revolution was initiated by the wealthy in response to what they considered unfair treatment by a foreign ruler while the Russian revolution was instigated by the poor in reaction to centuries of oppression and exploitation by the wealthy within their own country.
In conclusion, both of the constitutions are similar but they have their differences. One focuses on our individual rights while the other on the state. The states have reserved powers and their own governments. In the end, the governments are made to separate power and protect our rights and freedoms. What more could we ask
The United States Constitution and the Articles have several ever present difference that some considered to be too radical. In terms of levying taxes, the Articles Congress could request states to pay taxes while with the Constitution; the Congress has the right to levy taxes on individuals. The Articles government had no court system while the Constitution created a court system to deal with issues between citizens and states. The lack of provisions to regulate interstate trade the Articles possessed created large economic problems, leading into a depression in the mid 1780's. The Constitutional Congress has the right to regulate trade between states. The Constitution has a strong executive branch headed by our president who chooses cabinet and has checks on power of the other two branches; the Articles had no executive with power. The president merely presided over Congress. The Articles took almost 5 years to ratify due to the fact that 13/13 colonies needed to amend the Articles before it could go into affect, with the Constitution, 2/3 of both houses of Congress plus ¾ of the states legislatures or national convention had to approve. During the years under the Articles, foreign soldiers occupied US forts during our early years, we were unable to force them out due to the fact that Congress could not draft troops, and they depended on the states to contribute to the forces. Under the Constitution we have the ability to raise an army to deal with any sort of military situations. In terms of passing laws, under the Articles 9/13 states needed to approve legislation while under the Constitution, 50% plus 1 of both houses plus the signature of the president is needed to pass a law. The Articles had a huge problem when it came to state representation. Under the Articles every state only received one vote, regardless of its size, this hindered the power of the larger states. With the Constitution, the upper house (Senate) has 2 votes and the lower house (House of Representatives) is based on population. When two states had disputes the Articles had a complicated system of arbitration to go through before any resolution was reached, under the Constitution, the federal Court system handles disputes between states.
In comparing the Articles of Confederation with the U.S constitution that was produced by the federal convention in 1787, it is important to note that the U.S operated under both documents. During March 1, 1781, the Articles of Confederation went into effect when it was ratified by Maryland. However, the U.S constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation as soon as it was ratified on June 21, 1788 by New Hampshire. The main difference between the Articles of Confederations and the U.S Constitution is that the constitution didn’t force the laws, but established the why of the constitution. In establishing the why, it warranted the farmers to work on the government being better than the Articles of Confederations. They wanted the government
Australia became an independent nation on January 1, 1901 when the British Parliament passed certain legislation allowing the six Australian colonies to regulate their own authority as part of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Commonwealth of Australia was established, and remains as, a constitutional monarchy, meaning that it was founded with a written constitution, and that the Australian head of state is also head of the Commonwealth (Queen Elizabeth II.) The Australian Constitution was initially drafted by several men in the 1890’s though it wasn't passed by the British Parliament until 1900 as part of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. By definition the Australian Constitution is a composition
The United States declared independence from England, July 4, 1776, because the king was abusing his power like a tyrant. An example of his tyranny is when he taxed without representation. A tyrant is created when absolute power is in the hands of an individual. The U.S. created the articles of confederation, a document stating the frame for a new government, making the national government weak and giving most of the power to the states. The 13 states needed a strong central government that will unite the states, while not giving too much power to congress or the president. So the founding fathers created a new frame of government called the Constitution in Philadelphia, on the May of 1787. The constitution, then guarded against tyranny through federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and the Great Compromise.
The Bill of Rights was first originated from England, where it asserts for constitutional protection for individuals, and lists different types of prohibitions on government power (Bill of rights institute, 2016). The action of how Australia became a Federation, it involved complicated constitutional conventions, and how the constitutional founders addressed the complications of enacting a Bill of Rights, they decided not to enact it. McClelland (2002, pg. 138) describes how there were proposals that were rejected to incorporate fundamental rights in Australia’s constitution. Australians basic right were protected by common law, however instead, it was a mixture of
The United States is known as the land of freedom, which permits, everyone to have their own opinions, and allows everyone to be able to convey them to others, this is permitted by the Constitution. The founding fathers had many contrasting point of views, regarding the formation of the Constitution. Patrick Henry, and James Madison had very diverse point of view, with regards to the government of the recently independent colonies.
The United States Constitution and Texas Constitution are similar, but not indistinguishable. One can see that the constitution was made to prevent tyranny in the states from the idea of the federalists who wanted to build a strong form of government that gave people rights without giving their representatives too much power. In the U.S. Constitution, the elites made the decision that they would form a representative government with a Bill of Rights in order for the anti-federalists to agree to sign. The constitution established a stronger form of government, which helped the economic and social tensions. The constitution consists of: the preamble, which states the general principles for a government, the Bill
The difference in the lengths of the two constitutions is apparent. The former is merely 7,000 words long, while t...
The United States' Constitution is one the most heralded documents in our nation's history. It is also the most copied Constitution in the world. Many nations have taken the ideals and values from our Constitution and instilled them in their own. It is amazing to think that after 200 years, it still holds relevance to our nation's politics and procedures. However, regardless of how important this document is to our government, the operation remains time consuming and ineffective. The U.S. Constitution established an inefficient system that encourages careful deliberation between government factions representing different and sometimes competing interests.
The U.S. Constitution and the Texas Constitution have similarities and differences. First, both constitutions consist of a Bill of Rights. This is a formal summary of the rights and liberties considered essential to a people or group of people. The individual rights provide a variety of restraints on political power to protect people against unwarranted intrusions and abuses. Also, in both constitutions it outlines and talks about the powers of government in each separate department. Both talk about suffrage, taxation and revenue, along with general provisions, and modes of amending the c...
Many would state that the constitution is not a living document and therefore, it does not change to meet the needs of the nation. One purpose behind this contention would be the constitution comprising no Bill of Rights. A Bill of rights is the arrangement of the most essential rights to the natives of a nation. Australia is the main Western popularity based nation with not a protected or elected administrative bill of rights to ensure its natives (Mchugh 2007). According to Lowitja O'donoghue, previous ATSIC Chair It says very little about what it is to be Australian. It says practically nothing about how we find ourselves here - save being an amalgamation of former colonies. It says nothing of how we should behave towards each other as human beings and as Australians. This in itself obviously depicts the incapacity of the constitution as a political rule of the country. A sample would be the situation law of Gradidge v Grace Bros Pty Limited (1988). There, a hard of hearing quiet in the Compensation Court of New South Wales obliged manual/visual dialect translation. The translator kept on translaing trades between the judge and the advodates throughout lawful submissions. She persevered in doing so notwithstanding the direction of the judge that the trades did not have to be deciphered. Her emphasis after deciphering everything that happened in the general population ...
The case against a Bill of Rights as shown above includes the fact that it is foreign to our traditions and Australia has survived to date through its existing protection of basic rights. It is argued that a Bill of Right may provide too much power to the judges.