Bill of Right s

[Pegasus AdministratorPE Gym EditorPEGym Hero ☺ Admin of the Month Mar 2015 Find all posts View Profile Close Pegasus]

Starting to think Australia has it wrong by not having a bill of rights .

Most democracies have one .
What are your thoughts on the positives and negatives ?
What do you think should be in it ?

[Cavalier Retired Super Moderator Member of the Month Feb 2015PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close Cavalier]

Having a bill of rights is fine until those in the government and others decide that they want to change or take some of the rights from you.

Case in point.

Second Amendment in the US bill of rights:

The Right to Bear Arms

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I know you are anti-gun as wells as some of our government officials and others that are actively trying to take this right from us. I'm not going to turn this into a gun debate. I'm just pointing out that there will be some who oppose a right(s) and will use everything within their power to try and change it. Once a right is taken from us the rest are fare game and the bill becomes a useless piece of paper in my mind. Should a bill of rights evolve and change over time? If so why bother with one in the first place. Our bill of rights has already been written and it doesn't matter at this point what I think should be in it. If there's parts of it that I don't like then I just have to live with it as well as those who may not like parts of it that I do. A bill of rights can be a positive thing but once a right has been taken it turns negative.

For anyone reading this please do not turn it into a gun debate, keep it on topic.

[Pegasus AdministratorPE Gym EditorPEGym Hero ☺ Admin of the Month Mar 2015 Find all posts View Profile Close Pegasus]

Having a bill of rights is fine until those in the government and others decide that they want to change or take some of the rights from you.

Case in point.

Second Amendment in the US bill of rights:

The Right to Bear Arms

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I know you are anti-gun as wells as some of our government officials and others that are actively trying to take this right from us. I'm not going to turn this into a gun debate. I'm just pointing out that there will be some who oppose a right(s) and will use everything within their power to try and change it. Once a right is taken from us the rest are fare game and the bill becomes a useless piece of paper in my mind. Should a bill of rights evolve and change over time? If so why bother with one in the first place. Our bill of rights has already been written and it doesn't matter at this point what I think should be in it. If there's parts of it that I don't like then I just have to live with it as well as those who may not like parts of it that I do. A bill of rights can be a positive thing but once a right has been taken it turns negative.

For anyone reading this please do not turn it into a gun debate, keep it on topic.

The constitution is changeable ,thus leaving room for a bill of rights or to change a bill of rights . I would venture to think right to bear arms is not the most popular addition to the constitution of most democracies.

[Johnny D ModeratorPEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close Johnny D]

My understanding is that the Constitution provides certain rights such as voting, jury trial, religious freedom, etc... Those explicit rights would essentially be the formation of a Bill of Rights, wouldn't they? The challenge beyond that, once a system of government has been formed, would be to expand on those rights (similar to the challenge of reducing them) and becoming very divisive. As long as fundamental rights are explicitly provided for in the Constitution, what's the benefit of having a separate Bill of Rights?

[Cavalier Retired Super Moderator Member of the Month Feb 2015PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close Cavalier]

The constitution is changeable ,thus leaving room for a bill of rights or to change a bill of rights . I would venture to think right to bear arms is not the most popular addition to the constitution of most democracies.

Never mind the whole gun debate, there is an amendment in our bill of rights that's under attack and a possibility that it could be taken from us. That opens it up to all our rights being taken from us if our government officials should decide it would be in their best interest. Then why bother with writing a bill of rights? Wouldn't it be much easier to just write or change a law? When a government gives you your rights they should not changed. Our bill of rights has been steadfast for over 200 years. If a government thinks that for now you have the right to something in particular but it could change in the future then write a law. Do you think if an Australian bill of rights it should be able evolve or change as needed? If so then why not just write a law, not a bill.

[Cavalier Retired Super Moderator Member of the Month Feb 2015PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close Cavalier]

My understanding is that the Constitution provides certain rights such as voting, jury trial, religious freedom, etc... Those explicit rights would essentially be the formation of a Bill of Rights, wouldn't they? The challenge beyond that, once a system of government has been formed, would be to expand on those rights (similar to the challenge of reducing them) and becoming very divisive. As long as fundamental rights are explicitly provided for in the Constitution, what's the benefit of having a separate Bill of Rights?

https://constitutingamerica.org/bill...e-id-11-closed

As I said, write a law if there is a possibility that a a right may be altered or taken if need be in the future.

[not2big Senior Super ModeratorPEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close not2big]

As far as I know, the US Bill of Rights can not be changed without appropriate Congresional action. However, it can be Limited by a law, but such law can be challenged through the Judicial system to ensure compliance with the Constitution.

[Party Senior Member Member of the Month August 2016 Find all posts View Profile Close Party]

As far as I know, the US Bill of Rights can not be changed without appropriate Congresional action. However, it can be Limited by a law, but such law can be challenged through the Judicial system to ensure compliance with the Constitution.

I also believe it requires a 2 thirds ratification of the states, on a state level, not in Washington.

[Cavalier Retired Super Moderator Member of the Month Feb 2015PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close Cavalier]

So Peg why are you starting to think Australia has it wrong? What are your thoughts on what should be in it?

[Dangler Senior Administrator☼ Wizard ☼ White Tiger Award 2015 Find all posts View Profile Close Dangler]

Can you imagine trying to write such a Bill of Rights, with elected politicians trying to preserve their powers ?

[Physdoc Retired Moderator Member of the Month July 2019 Find all posts View Profile Close Physdoc]

I have to admit I know very little about the Australian government and issues around trying to protect citizen’s rights. But, as an American, I can say the US Bill of Rights (first 10 rights) and the additional rights amended to the constitution guarantee a base set of rights that are very hard to change or add to even when one party in power has a majority. This allows for a multi-party system without undue threat that one party temporarily in power can take away these basic rights from the minority. This has served to be a very good thing in the US. If Australians are losing or not allowed basic rights, like those in a Bill of Rights, because of the whim of the party in the majority, a Bill of Rights might help protect the minority.

[tank0909 Senior Member Member of the Month Jan. 2019 Find all posts View Profile Close tank0909]

A Bill of Rights, or laws, should be in place to limit a government's power over its citizens. If not, then it can easily become a dictatorship (whether it be one leader or a group of elected officials). It's a double-edged sword... What the government decides to allow its citizens to have vs. what it wants to keep in their back pocket against its citizens. Granted, it's a crappy way to think about it all but that's how I personally see it in the grand scheme of things. That being said, I think they did a good job when they wrote the US's Bill of Rights.

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/fo...ill-of-rights/

[not2big Senior Super ModeratorPEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close not2big]

The Colonies had just emerged from a war to free themselves from the repressive laws imposed by an overpowering King. Accordingly, the Bill of Rights were a reaction to being subjected to these laws and the founding fathers wanted to prevent the President and Congress from imposing similar repressive laws going forward.

[Pegasus AdministratorPE Gym EditorPEGym Hero ☺ Admin of the Month Mar 2015 Find all posts View Profile Close Pegasus]

My understanding is that the Constitution provides certain rights such as voting, jury trial, religious freedom, etc... Those explicit rights would essentially be the formation of a Bill of Rights, wouldn't they? The challenge beyond that, once a system of government has been formed, would be to expand on those rights (similar to the challenge of reducing them) and becoming very divisive. As long as fundamental rights are explicitly provided for in the Constitution, what's the benefit of having a separate Bill of Rights?

As others have suggested a Bill of rights is part of the Constitution and so difficult to change .
The advantage as others have suggested is this protect citizens against theirown government .
In general I believe the courts and the free press have done their job within our democracy however I have increasing concern re government . There seem to be issues of concern throughout the free world and a bill of rights is extra protection .

My current concern in aussie is freedom of the press some stuff around the net is also problematic .

I remember the debate on Aussie becoming a Republic rather than a constitutional Monarchy . Within the Republican movement were people who wanted to replace the Governer General with a president with the same powers and appointed by parliment . So basically a powerless figurehead . The other faction wanted instead an elected president with powers to protect the people against misuse of power . Then Pm Howard was an avowed Monarchist and used this split to cause the defeat of the Republican movement .

[Physdoc Retired Moderator Member of the Month July 2019 Find all posts View Profile Close Physdoc]

As others have suggested a Bill of rights is part of the Constitution and so difficult to change .
The advantage as others have suggested is this protect citizens against theirown government .
In general I believe the courts and the free press have done their job within our democracy however I have increasing concern re government . There seem to be issues of concern throughout the free world and a bill of rights is extra protection .

My current concern in aussie is freedom of the press some stuff around the net is also problematic .

I remember the debate on Aussie becoming a Republic rather than a constitutional Monarchy . Within the Republican movement were people who wanted to replace the Governer General with a president with the same powers and appointed by parliment . So basically a powerless figurehead . The other faction wanted instead an elected president with powers to protect the people against misuse of power . Then Pm Howard was an avowed Monarchist and used this split to cause the defeat of the Republican movement .

The first amendment made to the US Constitution was to provide freedom of speech, press and other related rights. They figured out this was a need right away, as the amendment was made in 1791. The 1st amendment has turned out to be a very empowering right and is vehemently supported by just about every political faction. The only glitch is that if some powerful smaller group can control a majority of the press, they have broad capabilities to influence the masses.

The US is more like a democratic republic than a pure republic. It actually works pretty well, providing for central governance and state rights at the same time. That’s why one state can have quite different laws than other states. The presidential election is a good example of the democratic republic mechanism. States choose by a democratic process (the most votes win), but each state only has a limited number of electoral votes. This provides for a more republic-like process by not allowing very populous states to completely control elections because votes of the less populous states carry weight. Similar deal in Congress - each state, regardless of population, gets two senators in the Senate. So, no state has a voting advantage. This is balanced by the House of Representatives being made up more in line with population by state. Every law has to pass both the House and Senate, thus combining a democratic and republic representation scheme.

The US structure is not perfect by any means, but is has worked pretty well for us.