What's The Difference Between Connotation And Denotation

Even though this model was favoured during the Federation, it is a technique where its practical utility and philosophical underpinnings was rejected by Justice Kirby. It is claimed that interpreting the constitutional terms by applying this technique may defeat the purpose for which they were incorporated in the Constitution. The drafters were said to be closely acquainted with common law’s evolutionary nature and it would be odd if they intended for the essential connotation of the constitutional words be frozen in 1900 for all time. Though, the actual application of this model seems to do exactly that, as it relies on the identification of ‘the set of attributes to which a word referred in 1900, when the Constitution was enacted’.

Besides that, it was contended that the distinctions between connotation and denotation do not settle but simply restating the issue with regards to the definition of a term, and that the response provided ‘sometimes descend to mere dogmatism’. This was also supported by Professor Goldsworthy, suggesting that in the use of connotation/denotation approach, the Courts’ actions were often contradictory. They often claimed that the constitutional terms have fixed meaning while conflicting their actions by giving a term meaning that it did not originally contain when it seemed appropriate to do so. It induces confusion because an unchanging concept should not denote different meanings. This negative stand towards the connotation/denotation distinction can be seen in the

Throughout this essay, Commonwealth’s power to create laws for same-sex marriages under s51(xxi) is explored by determining if the word ‘marriage’ includes the union of same-sex couples. However, this proposes a question of the whether the Commonwealth can forbid same-sex marriage by simply defining the scope of marriage power in s52(xxi), even though it cannot create laws to legislate for same-sex