Bill of Rights

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.

James Madison was key figure at the Constitutional Convention. He was a strong Federalist and was in favor of a strong central government. In order to calm down the anti-Federalists, Madison took on the assignment of creating the Bill of Rights that were the first ten amendments to the proposed US Constitution.

India is the only country in the world with a Cows Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is a group of 10 amendments, nine of which listed individual rights of citizens.

Twelve "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 in 1998 as the 27th Amendment, 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 as well--here is the breakdown: THE FIRST AMENDMENT has 6 basic rights.�· The right to be free from an established government religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religionâ�¦" �· The right to freely exercise your religious freedoms: "â�¦or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" �· The right to speak freely: "or abridging the freedom of speech,â�¦" �· The right of a free press to freely speak: "â�¦or of the press;" �· The right to peaceably assemble in public: "â�¦or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,â�¦" �· The right to petition the government with grievances: "â�¦and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." THE SECOND AMENDMENT has 3 rights. �· The right to belong to a well equipped and organized Militia in defense of our nation's security is statement of fact that is assumed: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,â�¦" �· The right of the people to own arms weaponry: "the right of the people to keepâ�¦" �· The right of the people to bear arms publically: "â�¦and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." THE THIRD AMENDMENT probably has 2 rights. �· The right to live without fearing soldiers forcibly rooming in your home: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." �· The right to privacy has also been drawn from this Amendment; so this is probably a second right from this amendment. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT has 2 rights. �· The right to live in your home without fear of unreasonable searches without probable cause: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searchesâ�¦" �· The right to live in your home without fear of unreasonable seizure of personal items or property without probable cause: "â�¦and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." THE FIFTH AMENDMENT has 5 rights. �· The right to a Grand Jury for non-militant capital crimes: "No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;" �· The right to be free from double jeopardy of the same crime: "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;" �· The right to live free from self-incrimination: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,â�¦" �· The right to due process: "â�¦nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" �· The right to be fairly compensated if eminent domain is exercised: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." THE SIXTH AMENDMENT has 9 rights. �· The right to a speedy trial: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy [trial]â�¦" �· The right to a public trial: "â�¦and public trial," �· The right to be judged by an impartial jury: "â�¦by an impartial juryâ�¦" �· The right of the people to judge criminals who committed crimes in their State and districts: "â�¦of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law,â�¦" �· The right to be informed of your criminal charge: "â�¦and to be informed of the natureâ�¦" �· The right to know the cause and details of the criminal accusation: "â�¦and cause of the accusation;" �· The right to be confronted with the opposing witnesses: "â�¦to be confronted with the witnesses against him;" �· The right to obtain defensible witnesses: to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,â�¦" �· The right to have an attorney: "â�¦and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT has 1 right. �· The right to have Civil trial by jury for important matters: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT has 4 rights. �· The right to have fair and reasonable bail amounts: "Excessive bail shall not be required,â�¦" �· The right to have fair and reasonable fines: "â�¦nor excessive fines imposed," �· The right to live free from cruel punishments: "â�¦nor cruelâ�¦" �· The right to live free of unusual or excessive punishments: "â�¦and unusual punishments inflicted." THE NINTH AMENDMENT has 1 big umbrella of human rights. �· The right to have all other human rights even though they are not addressed in the bill of rights and limited government interference with those rights: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." THE TENTH AMENDMENT has 1 big right to Federalism powers of the People and the States. �· The rights of the people and the States to own all rights not addressed in the Constitution or Amendments (i.e. Federalism): "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."

"Quartering troops" is a term that was used in the Eighteenth Century meaning providing adequate housing for British soldiers. This was used in a series of Acts by Parliament to attempt to retain control over the American colonies. While it was a requirement for some time to provide shelter and provisions to British soldiers, the laws were often disregarded.

common law

This amendment was created to clarify citizen's rights in court. It starts off saying that no person can be sent to court for a serious issue without prior approval from the Grand Jury. The only exception is with military and armed force cases. It then says that no man can be tried for the same conviction twice, except if the case is being brought to a different jurisdictional level, if the previous trial closed with mistrial or hung jury, or if evidence suggests fraud in the original trail. The famous saying "I plead the fifth" takes root in the Fifth Amendment, because it gives citizens the right to remain silent. This amendment goes on to state the Miranda Rule. Even though every citizen has rights, they may not always know them. In the past, citizens' lack of knowledge has been used against them, as police and other investigators pick out bits of information that suspects believe must be given. This rule states that the citizens' rights must be read to them before a case begins.

The Bill or Rights is an amendment to the Constitution. It was not passed by congress. It was ratified by the states. Amendments are not ever passed by congress, and there is no veto option for the president.

The 8th admendment was drafeted as an admendment to the Constitution in 1791...leave it as it stands...death to killers...

At CPAC 2011, Donald Trump stated that he supports the Second Amendment's protections for gun owners. However that is not the whole story. In this book "The America We Deserve" p.102 he says:

"I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."

Although there is no generally accepted definition of an "Assault Weapon" (can't all weapons be used for assault?) previous law has attempted to define and differentiate an "assault weapon" from popular sporting rifles by cosmetic features or those deemed to make the rifle appear aggressive or militaristic, and not any feature that improves the functionality or makes the rifle any more dangerous. These laws tend to even ban features that add to comfort or even safety of a rifle design.

Because there are little real differences between todays popular self loading sporting rifles and those that were banned by "Assault Weapons" laws and the fact that the second Amendment is not about sporting or hunting uses of rifles, one can only conclude that any attempt to ban "Assault Weapons" is an attempt to infringe upon the Second Amendment itself.

In my opinion, Donald Trumps support for the 2nd Amendment is similar to saying you support your favorite football team and want them to win, but you also support a limit of one touchdown per game, and limit how many defensive players your team can have.

To search your home or effects, the government agent needs a valid search warrant, probable cause to assume a serious crime is being committed at that very moment (such as a gun shot), probable cause that someone needs to be rescued, probable cause while being in pursuit that a fugitive ran into the house, or your permission.

Also, when law enforcement enters your residence legally, they are bound to search for what is listed on the search warrabt, but if illegal or evidentiary items are in plain sight, they may seize them.

Various new access clauses that have not been interpreted or tested that may or may not allow searchs in the interest of national security appear in the Patriot Act.

A thing that holds our citys and states together to be one native government and rely on all beliefs..

Yes. Copies of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were sent to each of the 13 original States, so that their respective legislatures could debate and hopefully ratify it. The original of the Constitution is at the National Archives; sometimes one of the state copies go on tour.

a little something i wrote up today. This is a suitable answer from a non-technical perspective. If you are researching this for legal/criminal justice/etc reasons, you'll need something more in depth.

Should the US government be allowed to monitor domestic electronic communications of American citizens, without judicial oversight? Under current law (USA PATRIOT Act), federal law enforcement agencies are allowed to monitor telephone and email records, and to access public library records. In this paper, I will argue that the federal government should not be allowed to wiretap phones, monitor email, or check public library records without a search warrant.

1 The Fourth amendment to the US Constitution provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" (US Const., amend. IV.)

2 The Fourth amendment further provides that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (US Const., amend. IV.)

3 Federal law enforcement agencies use "National Security Letters" to gain access to records of electronic communications, and public library records; neither with issuance of a warrant by, nor subject to review of, the judicial branch.

4 The federal government's accesses of communication records are in direct opposition to the rights guaranteed by the fourth amendment.

5 The federal government should not be allowed to take actions which violate the rights laid out in the constitution, including its amendments.

∴ The federal government should not be allowed to spy on American citizens by monitoring their email, wiretapping their phones, or checking records from public libraries - without warrants.

The Fourth Amendment "provides the primary defense against government invasions of privacy" (Garlinger). A plain language reading of the text of the Fourth Amendment reveals that people have a right to be secure from unreasonable searches. That revelation leads to the question, what searches are reasonable or unreasonable? "The Fourth Amendment currently does not extend to information voluntarily given to third parties such as ISPs. The government, therefore, can access private information held by ISPs with little oversight or accountability" (Garlinger). This view is used to justify the government's review of data that the average citizen might consider private. To consider the content of an email anything other than the analog of the content of a letter written on paper and sent via postal mail, is an untenable position. Indeed the content of a letter is voluntarily handed over to the US Postal service, but sealed in an envelope. The content of an email is handed over to an ISP, but because of the nature of how data transfer works, email is transferred letter-by-letter, in a plain text format (Klensin); not inside a sealed envelope, as with postal mail.

Federal law enforcement agencies, in particular the Federal Bureau of Investigation, use National Security Letters to initiate a search of personal records from telephone and Internet service providers and public libraries. "Without any judicial review, the FBI issues NSLs to telecommunications providers to obtain customer subscriber information" (Garlinger). If the FBI were conducting searches which they believed an average citizen, or even judge, would consider reasonable, they could use the judicially reviewed search warrant process to gain access to records.

Contrasting the actions of the FBI - in using National Security Letters to acquire U.S. citizens' personal records - with the rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment; the two are diametrically opposed. It is particularly disturbing to see the government act contrary to the U.S. Constitution. The use of National Security Letters in the gathering of data related to U.S. citizens should be halted immediately. The federal government should instead use the already available judicial warrant application process, thereby allowing the Judiciary to maintain control, require probable cause, and ensure that due process is afforded the citizens.

In summary, the federal government should not be allowed to spy on U.S. citizens. American jurisprudence has a long history of allowable methods, which are not constitutionally tenuous, for the government to obtain information. By insisting on the issuance of warrants by judges, the United States government would better serve the interests of the citizens.

Works Cited

Garlinger, Patrick P. "PRIVACY, FREE SPEECH, AND THE PATRIOT ACT: FIRST AND FOURTH AMENDMENT LIMITS ON NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS." New York University Law Review 84.4 (2009): 1105-1147. Academic Search Elite. EBSCO. Web. 24 Feb. 2011.

Klensin, John C. "RFC 5321 - Simple Mail Transfer Protocol." IETF Tools. Internet Engineering Task Force, Oct. 2008. Web. 24 Feb. 2011.

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act) of 2001, Title II, § 211, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001).

US Const., amend. IV. Print