I would like to think that the Bill of Rights, at the time, was more a political stab at England (Look what we let our citizens do!) than it was us securing our 'god given rights'. Now, I do believe that the Bill of Rights is a very important document, in that it does help secure many freedoms, per se; I just do not think that this was the only motive, however.
the bill of rights is suppose to limit the goverment on individuals rights...but obviously people can throw them away if they want with democratic interpretations...sad...for example, we are guarrenteed the right to have guns as individuals, yet the democrats have twisted it around so that only the militias have the right to bear arms...we have the right to freedom of speech....UNLESS we dont want you talking that way, see?
US Bill of Rights is the constitution but these first ten or the most important giving all the stated freedoms and tho the these rights some what changed during war time like now for "SUPPOSEDLY ARE SAFETY" But to simplify these rights, especially the first one,they are our "God Given Rights" as in everyone should have these rights.
I suppose that you could start your own Bill of Rights. The American Bill of Rights, the first ten, along w/ other amendments to the American Constitution basically are amendments to the already prevailing U.S. Constitution. I should read up on Australian history. It's not exactly a course that you will find in a history or political science class at a U.S. university. I remember the traditional, archetype take of how Australia was formed: i.e. England sent all there prisoners to Australia!
We don't have a legally protected right to free speech, or anything like that. It makes me wonder if all of the individual liberties are protected, within the Constitution of Australia.
We do. The High Court has recognised freedom of political speech in several cases, most recently in Coleman v Power (2004) and APLA v Legal Services Comm of NSW (1995). This cannot be overruled unless there was a referendum to amend the constitution to say otherwise.
Voted 5! I don't think a constitutional bill of rights per se is as such necessary in Australia. There are rights which are already protected - for example freedom of religion, and the High Court has recognised various implications like freedom of political speech. The immigration issue is a curly one though...
Shared this vid Mitch.This is something that has long troubled me!We do not have a bill of rights as such because we are not a republic,but still ultimately under colonial rule....I believe it's long past time all that changed! Much love to ya <3
I am glad that someone else is thinking about this. I've often wondered what the state of play was, when it comes to this issue. Thank you, by the way.
I really don't know anything about Australia. But in the US the Bill of Rights was necessary to get teh Constitution passed. If it weren't for the protections guaranteed in the B.O.R., the Consititution would never have been ratified. Since then, they serve as the guage against which many bills, laws, and court decisions are measured.
In Australia? Geeze, I don't know... perhaps to keep Great Britain from claiming Australia as their own? To keep the US or the UN from eventually seizing control. It'll come from the UN, not the US though. A Bill of Rights guarantees the rights of the citizens and provinces against the Nation. No further laws, court decisions, etc may infringe on the rights guaranteed in the Bill.
The US had a problem with the idea of a Nation vs individual states. Some wanted a STRONG central government. Others wanted strong individual states. Is Australia having an issue with provincial rights being taken away? Are individuals being oppressed?
As far as individuals being oppressed, I cannot speak for everyone; although, Australia has a pretty good history of maintaining individual freedom (most of the time). Immigration, and immigration detention centres, is another issue though. People are well and truly divided about that. As for strong individual states, I don't think so. That was an issue a long time ago.
I don't really think that a Bill of Rights entrenched in the Australian constitution would actually make a difference in that kind of situation. If we're talking about usurpation of Australia's sovereignity by Great Britain or the UN, the entire constitution would be invalid anyway.
good info on USconstitution do.t n)et . many of the states balked at ratifying the constitution; it lacked a bill of rights. several states included language asking for a bill of rights.
the first congress debated, added the bill of rights - 1 through 10 to confirm the new central government was one of limited powers.
in a nutshell the states did not think the constitution itself had enough protections for the individual and the states. so these were added asap, and fully ratified by 1791.
I would like to think that the Bill of Rights, at the time, was more a political stab at England (Look what we let our citizens do!) than it was us securing our 'god given rights'. Now, I do believe that the Bill of Rights is a very important document, in that it does help secure many freedoms, per se; I just do not think that this was the only motive, however.
stanthegarbageman 1 year ago
the bill of rights is suppose to limit the goverment on individuals rights...but obviously people can throw them away if they want with democratic interpretations...sad...for example, we are guarrenteed the right to have guns as individuals, yet the democrats have twisted it around so that only the militias have the right to bear arms...we have the right to freedom of speech....UNLESS we dont want you talking that way, see?
longfootbuddy 2 years ago
Why are people talking about Britain claiming Australia. Its not the 1700s anymore.
sendtothefunnyfarm 3 years ago
I suppose that fact alone is of interest, to people who don't know very much about life here... now. Don't know.
Ledvolta 3 years ago
Fair enough.
sendtothefunnyfarm 3 years ago
US Bill of Rights is the constitution but these first ten or the most important giving all the stated freedoms and tho the these rights some what changed during war time like now for "SUPPOSEDLY ARE SAFETY" But to simplify these rights, especially the first one,they are our "God Given Rights" as in everyone should have these rights.
rabbitsib 3 years ago
I suppose that you could start your own Bill of Rights. The American Bill of Rights, the first ten, along w/ other amendments to the American Constitution basically are amendments to the already prevailing U.S. Constitution. I should read up on Australian history. It's not exactly a course that you will find in a history or political science class at a U.S. university. I remember the traditional, archetype take of how Australia was formed: i.e. England sent all there prisoners to Australia!
cvjucla3 3 years ago
We don't have a legally protected right to free speech, or anything like that. It makes me wonder if all of the individual liberties are protected, within the Constitution of Australia.
Ledvolta 3 years ago
We do. The High Court has recognised freedom of political speech in several cases, most recently in Coleman v Power (2004) and APLA v Legal Services Comm of NSW (1995). This cannot be overruled unless there was a referendum to amend the constitution to say otherwise.
reimeo 3 years ago
I stand corrected. Thanks for your input.
Ledvolta 3 years ago
Voted 5! I don't think a constitutional bill of rights per se is as such necessary in Australia. There are rights which are already protected - for example freedom of religion, and the High Court has recognised various implications like freedom of political speech. The immigration issue is a curly one though...
reimeo 3 years ago
Shared this vid Mitch.This is something that has long troubled me!We do not have a bill of rights as such because we are not a republic,but still ultimately under colonial rule....I believe it's long past time all that changed! Much love to ya <3
gleegirloz 3 years ago
I am glad that someone else is thinking about this. I've often wondered what the state of play was, when it comes to this issue. Thank you, by the way.
Ledvolta 3 years ago
I really don't know anything about Australia. But in the US the Bill of Rights was necessary to get teh Constitution passed. If it weren't for the protections guaranteed in the B.O.R., the Consititution would never have been ratified. Since then, they serve as the guage against which many bills, laws, and court decisions are measured.
HoldinCoffee 3 years ago
What would be the advantage of having a Bill of rights here?
Ledvolta 3 years ago
In Australia? Geeze, I don't know... perhaps to keep Great Britain from claiming Australia as their own? To keep the US or the UN from eventually seizing control. It'll come from the UN, not the US though. A Bill of Rights guarantees the rights of the citizens and provinces against the Nation. No further laws, court decisions, etc may infringe on the rights guaranteed in the Bill.
HoldinCoffee 3 years ago
The US had a problem with the idea of a Nation vs individual states. Some wanted a STRONG central government. Others wanted strong individual states. Is Australia having an issue with provincial rights being taken away? Are individuals being oppressed?
HoldinCoffee 3 years ago
As far as individuals being oppressed, I cannot speak for everyone; although, Australia has a pretty good history of maintaining individual freedom (most of the time). Immigration, and immigration detention centres, is another issue though. People are well and truly divided about that. As for strong individual states, I don't think so. That was an issue a long time ago.
Ledvolta 3 years ago
I don't really think that a Bill of Rights entrenched in the Australian constitution would actually make a difference in that kind of situation. If we're talking about usurpation of Australia's sovereignity by Great Britain or the UN, the entire constitution would be invalid anyway.
reimeo 3 years ago
good info on USconstitution do.t n)et . many of the states balked at ratifying the constitution; it lacked a bill of rights. several states included language asking for a bill of rights.
the first congress debated, added the bill of rights - 1 through 10 to confirm the new central government was one of limited powers.
in a nutshell the states did not think the constitution itself had enough protections for the individual and the states. so these were added asap, and fully ratified by 1791.
windham666 3 years ago