ON THIS DAY in 1948, the US Supreme Court delivered McCollum v Board of Education 333 US 203 (1948).
Category Archives: Constitutional law
Melbourne v Commonwealth (“Melbourne Corporation case”) or (“State Banking Case”) [1947] HCA 26
ON 13 AUGUST 1947, the High Court of Australia delivered Melbourne v Commonwealth (“State Banking case”) [1947] HCA 26; (1947) 74 CLR 31 (13 August 1947), also known as the Melbourne Corporation case.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1947/26.html
The Commonwealth attempted to nationalise Australian banks through the enactment of legislation including s48 of the Banking Act 1945 (Cth). The legislation was enacted under the Commonwealth Parliament’s banking powers under s51 (xxxi) of the Commonwealth Constitution.
The High Court declared s48 to be constitutionally invalid. The court implied, from the federal nature of the Constitution, limitations on the Commonwealth’s express powers. Those limitations were (1) prohibition of discriminatory burdens or disabilities on the States and (2) prohibition of making laws of general application which operate to destroy or curtail the continued existence of the States or their ability to govern.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
1947 | Constitution of Japan
ON THIS DAY in 1947, the Constitution of Japan was enacted.
South Australia v Commonwealth (“First Uniform Tax case”) [1942] HCA 14
ON 23 JULY 1942, the High Court of Australia delivered South Australia v Commonwealth (“First Uniform Tax case”) [1942] HCA 14; (1942) 65 CLR 373 (23 July 1942).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1942/14.html
The Commonwealth passed four Acts
- Income Tax Act 1942, which imposed income tax as high as 90 percent, leaving no room for additional state income tax.
- States Grants Act 1942, allowing grants to states who did not impose income tax.
- Section 221 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1942, requiring Commonwealth taxes to be paid before state taxes.
- the Income Tax (Wartime Arrangements) Act 1942, requiring the states to transfer to the Commonwealth all tax collection officers, offices, equipment and records.
The effect of the four acts was to put an end to the end of state income taxes.
The Act was challenged in the High Court by South Australia, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. The Court dismissed the actions, holding that the four pieces of legislation were valid.
The solicitor for the Commonwealth was Fred Whitlam, the father of the Honourable Edward Gough Whitlam AC QC, Prime Minister of Australia from 1972 to 1975.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
US Prohibition abolished in 1933
ON 5 DECEMBER 1933, Prohibition on alcohol was abolished by the passing into law of the 21st amendment to the US Constitution which repealed the 18th amendment.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Enabling Act 1933
ON THIS DAY in 1933, the democratically elected German Reichstag and Reichsrat passed the Enabling Act which effectively handed all power over to Hitler’s executive arm of government.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK)
ON 11 DECEMBER 1931, the Parliament of the United Kingdom enacted the Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/22-23/4/introduction
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/poteoa1997455
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Attorney-General (NSW) v Trethowan [1931] HCA 3
ON 16 MARCH 1931 the High Court of Australia delivered Attorney-General (NSW) v Trethowan [1931] HCA 3; (1931) 44 CLR 394 ( 16 March 1931).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1931/3.htm
In 1929, the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) was amended with the enactment of s7A, which contained a manner and form provision that a bill for the abolition of the NSW upper house (Legislative Council) could not be presented to the Governor for Royal Assent unless the bill was passed by both houses of the state parliament and then approved by a popular referendum.
In 1931, both houses passed a bill for the abolition of s7A and a bill for the abolition of the Legislative Council. The bill for the abolition of the Legislative Council was not approved by popular referendum.
Before the bills could be presented to the Governor for Royal Assent, Trethowan and another councillor obtained a decree from the NSW Supreme Court which in effect restrained the Government from presenting the bills to the Governor. The persons restrained (the defendants) included the NSW Attorney-General, the President of the Legislative Council, the Premier and the other Ministers of the Crown for NSW.
The High Court of Australia dismissed an appeal by the defendants, upholding the validity and binding effect of s7A.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
1927 | Buck v Bell
ON THIS DAY in 1927, the US Supreme Court delivered Buck v Bell 274 US 200 (1927).
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality a law of the State of Virginia which allowed the sterilisation of “feeble minded” inmates of institutions with “hereditary insanity or imbecility”.
Click to access Buck%20v.%20Bell_%20Supreme%20Court%20Opinion.pdf
Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (“Engineers’ case”) [1920] HCA 54
ON 31 AUGUST 1920, the High Court of Australia delivered Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (“Engineers’ case”) [1920] HCA 54; (1920) 28 CLR 129 (31 August 1920).
Prior to the Engineers’ case, the High Court had held that the States had reserved powers and their instrumentalities were immune from Commonwealth interference. In the Engineers Case, the High Court held that, through a literal interpretation of the Constitution, the Commonwealth Parliament has the power to make laws with respect to conciliation and arbitration, allowing the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to regulate the wages and conditions of employees of the State of Western Australia.
The case is significant because of the High Court’s adoption of a literal approach to constitutional interpretation. Per Higgins at 161-2:
“The fundamental rule of interpretation, to which all others are subordinate, is that a statute is to be expounded according to the intent of the Parliament that made it; and that intention has to be found by an examination of the language used in the statute as a whole. The question is, what does the language mean; and when we find what the language means, in its ordinary and natural sense, it is our duty to obey that meaning, even if we consider the result to be inconvenient or impolitic or improbable.”
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 