This semester I'm studying Constitutional law.
Which actually is not as boring or dry as you think - or as I thought it was going to be.
I'm only in my third week of class, but I am so far loving it! Last week we were looking at what principles the High Court Justices follow when deciding whether a piece of legislation is constitutional or not - for e.g. do they interpret it based on what the individuals of 1900 originally intended? OR do they consider that since then, society has changed immensely, and words have new meanings e.t.c.
As a lover of language and words, it's fascinating being able to study it like this. Does 'jury' for example, have the same dictionary definition today that it did 111 years ago?
Today, the Honourable ex-Justice of the High Court Michael Kirby was a guest lecture at my University, to discuss the Constitution and the High Court. It is amazing having someone as prolific and extraordinary come speak to us.
Mr. Kirby was incredibly well-spoken, and captivated the entire audience with every word that he spoke.
He discussed what I mentioned earlier, about how difficult it is to set a principle to follow when interpreting the Constitution.
Like he stated, for e.g. There has been plenty of discussion in the media lately as to gay marriage. One MP stated that it must go before the people in a referendum before Australia can legalise it.
Another MP thought this was ridiculous - that the Constitution gives the federal government the power to legislate in regards to marriage.
But - when the Constitution was written, and assented in July 1900, marriage obviously meant purely between a man and a woman - and probably in a Catholic Church.
Since then, we have changed our views on the subject. So - do we use the 1900 definition of marriage? If so, then this requires a referendum to amend the relevant section to include the union in matrimony between people of any gender. If we use today's definition then this is unnecessary and the federal government is free to legislate.
Interesting stuff.
Anyway, so whilst I was waiting outside the lecture hall, (a good hour or so, before it started), Kirby walks in with the Dean of our Law Faculty and the co-ordinator for the subject. Amazing!!
He went to go have coffee with the co-ordinator, and I timidly approached him.
I apologised for interrupting his morning tea and asked if he could possibly sign my biography, and if I could possibly get a photo.
Gosh, I was so embarrasing.
BUT!
Reads: To Michaela
With best wishes for your life in law. Make a difference - and always remember the vulnerable.
Michael Kirby.
He was so gracious, and so willing to sign my book for me - even stating it "was the least he could do".
I almost cried at one point, I was so overwhelmed with the whole situation!
Mr. Kirby was an amazing speaker, and is a more amazing person.
I think now I'm going to be able to read his judgements in a whole new light!
