Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights helped convince the Anti-Federalists to support the new Constitution, by ensuring that the federal government would not be able to abrogate the rights of citizens.

Affect? It formed American civilization as one of the cornerstones of it's foundation, along with the rest of the constitution.

Seriously! The constitution is VERY important to this country without it we would be LOST! The rules set by the Constitution set the USA's government up. The people who wrote it were GENIUS they made America what it is today.....People should know whats allowed and whats not in America , without it this country would be complete chaos!! :]

The Constitution of the Philippines is the supreme law of the Philippines. The Constitution currently in effect was enacted in 1987, during the administration of President Corazon Aquino, and is popularly known as the ""1987 Constitution"". Philippine constitutional law experts recognize three other previous constitutions as having effectively governed the country ??? the 1935 Commonwealth Constitution, the 1973 Constitution, and the 1986 Freedom Constitution. Constitutions for the Philippines were also drafted and adopted during the short-lived governments of Presidents Emilio Aguinaldo and Jose P. Laurel.

freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of petition, right to peacefully assemble, right to bare arms, right of no unseen seizure, etc.

The 2nd amendment, which provides the right to bear arms, was written to protect the people against their own government. As all governments move towards complete control, our fore fathers want us to be able to rebel, and over throw a tyrannical government when it grew to large and controlling. The only way it could do this, is if the general public was armed.

Does Kuwait's constitution have a Bill of Rights?

if some one asked you a question you did not want to answer all you have to say is i plea the 5th and you would not have to answer that question

Anybody is permitted to know their exact rights and the rights of others because of the Bill of Rights. It is for the United States, the Bill of Rights; and if you ever wondered why cops always say "you have the right to remain silent, anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law", it's because they are required by law to say that because the suspect must know his or her rights. I hope I helped

Well there are several actually. The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment. The right to a speedy trial, an impartial jury, legal counsel, and the gathering of witnesses for the defense are afforded to those accused of a crime and granted in the 6th Amendment. The 7th Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by jury for serious offenses.

Strictly speaking though, I believe the answer you are looking for is the right to bear arms.

The Ninth Amendment became part of the Constitution on December 15, 1791 upon ratification by three-fourths of the states.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution enforces federal law, including the Bill of Rights, on the state governments.

However, before the 14th Amendment, states did have the ability to "violate" the rights of their citizens.

enlightenment ideas greatly influenced the bill of rights, dec. of independence constitution and most of our other important documents. without the enlightenment ideas, our country would not be the same as it is now, if it existed at all. some ideas that were influential in our country are:
-the rights to life and liberty
-freedom of speech
-freedom of religion
-freedom of thought
-democracy
-"we the people"
and many others. our country has been influenced by the enlightenment and it's ideas greatly.

Voters, not a panel of unelected judges, should define human freedoms, writes James Allan.

Compare the constitutional structures of Canada and Australia. Both are federal systems. Both share the English common law tradition, the Westminster parliamentary form of elected government, and a great deal of history. Yet there is a significant constitutional difference: in 1982 Canada opted for a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Australia, pretty much uniquely in the Western world, doesn't have a constitutional or statutory bill of rights.

But to my mind, one of the many attractions of Australia is that it does not have a bill of rights. These instruments are far from obviously desirable. I've had first-hand experience with the bills of rights in Canada, the United States and New Zealand, and I think all three jurisdictions are the worse for having them. Britain is, too, for that matter, with its Human Rights Act of 1998.

The case against bills of rights in a successful liberal democracy comes on many fronts but at core it is that these instruments undercut citizens' participation in social decision-making. They transfer too much power to unelected judges.

The rights set out in these bills - the right to freedom of expression or of religion or to equality - enunciate very general standards about the place of the individual in society. Bills of rights offer us all an emotionally attractive statement of entitlements and protections in vague, very broad terms. Up in the Olympian heights of abstract rights guarantees, nearly all of us can and do support them. Who, after all, would say he or she is against free speech?

The problem, however, is that the effects of bills of rights are not felt up in these Olympian heights. They are felt down in the quagmire of detail, of where to draw the line when it comes to hate speech or campaign finance rules or defamation. Repeating the mantra that we have a right to free speech doesn't change the fact that down in the quagmire of drawing these lines there is no unanimity. Tough calls have to be made about where to draw lines.

Enshrining some right to free speech in a bill of rights nowhere in the world means one can say anything he or she wants any time he or she wants. No, there is always disagreement and dispute about how this and other rights should play out.

And those who happen to disagree with you cannot be easily dismissed as unreasonable, morally blind, evil or in need of re-education. Despite the sanctimonious sermonising of some bill of rights proponents, it is simply a fact that how rights should play out is highly debatable, and not self-evident.

So adopt a bill of rights, as Canada, the US, Britain and New Zealand have done, and you transfer a chunk of power to unelected judges to draw some of these contentious lines, under the cover provided by the amorphous, appealing language of rights.

Without a bill of rights in place, these difficult, debatable social policy lines are drawn on the basis of elections, voting and letting the numbers count. With a bill of rights in place the unelected judges decide - though ironically they, too, decide by voting; four justices' votes beat three. Victory does not go to the judge writing the most moving judgment or the one with the most references to moral philosophy.

What makes a bill of rights, and its transfer of power to judges, appear attractive is the unspoken assumption that the moral lines drawn by judges are somehow always the right lines, that a committee of ex-lawyers somehow has a pipeline to godly wisdom and greater moral perspicacity than secretaries, plumbers and regular voters. A good many judges, human rights lawyers and legal academics may happen to think this. I do not. Most Australians so far do not.

Australians should be very glad that they have resisted the siren call of a bill of rights. They should be wary of those who advocate the need for one, , pretending that judicial power can be easily contained. It cannot. Thus far in Australia, we have decided not to throw in our lot with an aristocratic judiciary. I hope this continues to be the case. It is one of the great attractions of this country.

freedom of speech ,freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly,the right to petition the government

No, the final copies are written on parchment paper (animal skin).

It was rumored to be drafted on Dutch hemp paper, however, according to Monticello.org, it was more likely to have been made from flax or linen.

Eleven "Articles" were originally proposed and submitted to "Amend" the Constitution of the United States. Ten were ratified on December 15, 1791 as the first Ten Amendments and they are called The Bill of Rights. The rejected "Article II" was later ratified as the 27th Amendment in 1998, but it is not part of the Bill of Rights. There are at least 34 specific rights within the text of these first 10 Amendments and many generalized rights.

Alot

There are no disadvantages of human rights. Human rights only have advantages. Human rights are a standard of principles for all people to not be restrained from what is justified as essential for quality living by virtue of being human.

They feared governmental abuses of power that might restrict their freedoms.

they were nervous because they didnt get any info

Rights of the States under Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.