Something to Ponder

[Lady's Human]

BTW, it was a JOKE!

Humor! (though the stats are straight from the FBI............)

[Bonny]

Might as well bring in the lawyer he can stick up for he doctor & help him bury his mistakes.

[wombat2u2004]

The bill of rights doesn't empower individuals, rather it limits the power of government.

Key difference? You trust your legislature.

We don't.

Fair enough.
Everything here has worked fine so far, so we are ok with what we have.

[wombat2u2004]

Might as well bring in the lawyer he can stick up for he doctor & help him bury his mistakes.

Never seen a lawyer with a shovel

[Lady's Human]

Never seen a lawyer with a shovel

I have.....a JAG officer attempting to dig a foxhole in the field......

Not a pretty sight.

[wombat2u2004]

I have.....a JAG officer attempting to dig a foxhole in the field......

Not a pretty sight.

Pity he never buried himself...hee hee

[Bonny]

I know a couple of lawyers that can handle a shovel pretty good but mostly golf clubs.

[Puckstop31]

First, thank you for the honest responce Wom.

There has to be a limit to "freedoms". Duties of people are just as important as their rights.
I'm very happy to live under a system which doesn't have a Bill of Rights. I can't speak for Europeans, but I can certainly speak on behalf of Australians.
I believe that the majority of Aussies would prefer that to. Freedoms here are assumed, they have no need to be stated in some document, and we don't have the problems that such a document brings. There have been a number of times here that proponents of a Bill of Rights have tried to introduce that document, but it has failed every time.

It is very interesting that you (and obviously other Australians) are OK with the simple 'assumption' of rights. Granted, Natural law already grants the certain rights to mankind, it need not be written down. But, sadly, mankind is sinful. (Or, if you prefer, hasa tendancy to selfishness or evil.) So all it would take to deny you your natural rights is the political will to make it so and a population willing to let it happen.

That is a LOT of trust to put in people who have power over you.

http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/pubs/r...-02/02rn42.htm

Also, are you saying you would rather be 'safe' than free? No, I'm not saying that, in my opinion I'd rather have both, and I already do.....again without the problems of a Bill of Rights.

In Australia, where parliamentary democracy usually works reasonably well, we can trust the legislators. If they do not act justly, particularly if they act oppressively, they will be dismissed from office at the next election. This is how our democracy works.

A Bill of Rights here would, as in the United States, politicize the Courts. It would amount to, or produce, a form of judicial imperialism. It would transfer great power from the elected representatives of the people in all their variety, to the judges. But the judges are unelected.

A Bill of Rights entrenches attitudes to rights which become out of date with changing times. I have stated that in all threads on this subject that I have posted on. Any Bill of Rights drawn today would soon be out of date.

Freedom of Speech could become outdated? Right to face your accuser? Right to self defence?

What society thinks is important certainly does change. Natural LAW does not. That's why it is LAW.

"See, who gets to define "abuse"? You? The government? Society?"
We all do.
Isn't that exactly where your Madison was coming from ??? He was reluctant to draft a Bill of rights in the first place.........who defines the rights of the people ??? Him ???

"We all do". So, if society suddenly decides its OK to discriminate against, say the Aboriginals, good? The tyranny of the masses is still tryanny. Ask Ancient Greece.

That is my biggest beef with NOT having a written BOR. It makes everything relative in a black and white world. The 'progressive' types can try to (and often succeed) in convincing society that up is down. Just because the masses say something or believe something does not make it so. Thats the cool thing about the truth... Its the TRUTH. Why not write it down?

Also, no, Madison was quite in favor of a Bill of Rights. He fought for it agsint those who did not want a written BOR.

http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html

[Puckstop31]

I have.....a JAG officer attempting to dig a foxhole in the field......

Not a pretty sight.

LOL. Or any Air Force officer. We had this intel guy traveling with us last trip to Bosnia. He killed the clearing barrell, THREE TIMES.

"Sir, do us a favor will ya? Do NOT put a round in the chamber next time we go out, ok? We got your back."

[wombat2u2004]

James Madison, who wrote the US Bill of Rights, had earlier been opposed to the inclusion of any Bill of Rights in the Constitution. His reasons for not wanting it are also the reasons usually given by opponents of the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Australian Constitution.

One of the chief arguments against a constitutional Bill of Rights is that it gives judges too much power. The courts interpret the constitution, and from the highest court there is no appeal (though the Constitution can be amended -- a difficult process). As Americans sometimes say, "The US Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is". In many cases the Supreme Court has interpreted the Bill of Rights by means of wire-drawn reasoning, reflecting the judges' political and social views.

The Supreme Court's power to interpret the constitution has made the appointment of judges a political issue, and in 1937 President Roosevelt sought to appoint additional judges (to "pack" the Court) so as to change the court's attitude (the US Constitution does not fix the number of judges). A President is expected to nominate judges ideologically acceptable to his supporters, and the Congress scrutinises these nominations in a partisan way. Since judges hold office for life, a President's nominations may make a long-term difference to the interpretation of the constitution.

To many it seems better to keep the courts free of politics and leave rights issues to the ordinary political process, in which politicians can be held responsible by the electorate -- on this view the best safeguard of basic rights is the political culture of a democratic country. However, this does not protect very well the interests of any group or groups who are regularly in a minority (e.g. racial or religious groups). The main argument in favour of a constitutional Bill of Rights is that it will protect the rights of minorities more effectively than the democratic process will. On the other hand (and this was one of Madison's original objections), people hostile to some minority will try to restrict and narrow the definition of rights when the Bill of Rights is being drawn up -- and the more explicit the definitions the narrower they are likely to be.

[Puckstop31]

James Madison, who wrote the US Bill of Rights, had earlier been opposed to the inclusion of any Bill of Rights in the Constitution. His reasons for not wanting it are also the reasons usually given by opponents of the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Australian Constitution.

One of the chief arguments against a constitutional Bill of Rights is that it gives judges too much power. The courts interpret the constitution, and from the highest court there is no appeal (though the Constitution can be amended -- a difficult process). As Americans sometimes say, "The US Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is". In many cases the Supreme Court has interpreted the Bill of Rights by means of wire-drawn reasoning, reflecting the judges' political and social views.

The Supreme Court's power to interpret the constitution has made the appointment of judges a political issue, and in 1937 President Roosevelt sought to appoint additional judges (to "pack" the Court) so as to change the court's attitude (the US Constitution does not fix the number of judges). A President is expected to nominate judges ideologically acceptable to his supporters, and the Congress scrutinises these nominations in a partisan way. Since judges hold office for life, a President's nominations may make a long-term difference to the interpretation of the constitution.

To many it seems better to keep the courts free of politics and leave rights issues to the ordinary political process, in which politicians can be held responsible by the electorate -- on this view the best safeguard of basic rights is the political culture of a democratic country. However, this does not protect very well the interests of any group or groups who are regularly in a minority (e.g. racial or religious groups). The main argument in favour of a constitutional Bill of Rights is that it will protect the rights of minorities more effectively than the democratic process will. On the other hand (and this was one of Madison's original objections), people hostile to some minority will try to restrict and narrow the definition of rights when the Bill of Rights is being drawn up -- and the more explicit the definitions the narrower they are likely to be.

A good arguement. And indeed Madison was originall opposed to a BOR.

I am grateful he changed his mind and had the first 10 Amendments added.

It is a shame that what we have for government today barely pays the Constitution any mind anymore.

[wombat2u2004]

A good arguement. And indeed Madison was originall opposed to a BOR.

I am grateful he changed his mind and had the first 10 Amendments added.

It is a shame that what we have for government today barely pays the Constitution any mind anymore.

Are your pollies so out of touch with the ordinary man ???
If that is so, can't something be done about that ???

[wombat2u2004]

I know a couple of lawyers that can handle a shovel pretty good but mostly golf clubs.

I had a laugh about a statement made by my daughters boyfriends father....(a future in law ??? I hope not, he's a lawyer).......the statement..........
"Everyone who ever was in the military forces gets some form of PTSD"
That coming from someone who has never held anything in his hands but a pen.
I held my tongue on that one.

[blue]

It may have been a joke, but it isnt wrong.

[Grace]

You can thank the State of Rhode Island, home of "the otherwise-minded, for the Bill of Rights. Rhode Island refused to ratify the Constitution - demanding that the Bill of Rights, which guarantees individual liberties, be added. Even with that, they were the last of the 13 to sign on.