Tell me that after the shitstorm ensues.
EhFlaming_Maniac wrote:
Tell me that after the shitstorm ensues.
“A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences”- Thomas Jefferson
Your first post reminded me of this...note how many pages haha.
I picked the most topical quote, not the most important.
I picked the most topical quote, not the most important.
If you want a (rather original) main idea.The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law.
I hope she means the ability for society to do it and not the actual act of doing it. If that makes sense.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law.
The ability for society to do what? Be subordinated?
The ability for society to be subordinated under moral law and not the actual subordination of the U.S. under moral law.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The ability for society to do what? Be subordinated?
Finding the ability to do it is impressive, how it turned out in the U.S. isn't.
I think you should really read the whole thing.
Politics should be morally motivated. Not in a conservative christian sense though, according to the ideals of individual rights.
She also mentions that it almost worked for 150 years in the U.S., then fell flat because we wrote down individualism while we preached and practiced collectivism.
Politics should be morally motivated. Not in a conservative christian sense though, according to the ideals of individual rights.
She also mentions that it almost worked for 150 years in the U.S., then fell flat because we wrote down individualism while we preached and practiced collectivism.
I am aware of amendments, thank you.Cybargs wrote:
They are called amendments.BN wrote:
No thanks. They are very quickly outdated and too hard to change once outdated.
Bill of Rights is one of the most important cornerstones of a democracy... I'm saddened by the fact that Australia does not have one. Even fucking Taiwan has a Bill of Rights. It just leads up to abuse by our Government imo...
But how can something that was written in 1789, with ye olde language, still be relevant?
Third Amendment - relevance?
Canst thou not comprehend ye old language?
It's not about whether I can understand it, it's how it can be interpreted and whether that word has the same meaning 100, 300, or 500, years later.Stingray24 wrote:
Canst thou not comprehend ye old language?
A BoR or similar formalises human rights and interactions between a government and it's citizens, among other things. Without them its easier for governments to treat citizens like shit and get away with it - but as many have said, if both citizens and government act with some level of decency, then it isn't needed.
Given the censorship/internet filtering tendencies of your government, yeah... you definitely need one.Burwhale wrote:
Well we dont have one in Australia. The US Bill of Rights is famous, and I think most countries around the world have it , including New Zealand, and even China ( although its probably pertty small).
Our Ex Prime Minister John Howard has recently come out and said a Bill of Rights would be a mistake for Oz.I dont think I agree with this. The current Govt is looking at brining in one which may be a good thing.John Howard wrote:
''A bill of rights would further diminish the prestige of Parliament, it would politicise the appointment of judges, it would increase the volume of litigation and it would not increase the rights and protections now available to Australian citizens,'' Mr Howard said.
''A charter or bill of rights would represent the final triumph of elitism in Australian politics - the notion that typical citizens, elected by ordinary Australians, cannot be trusted to resolve great issues of public policy.''
My question is: What does a "Bill of Rights" mean to you, and is it worth having.
We need a Bill of Rights to prevent Internet censorship? That's why we have elections. To voice our disapproval of such things.Turquoise wrote:
Given the censorship/internet filtering tendencies of your government, yeah... you definitely need one.
I doubt the sitting government is going to allow a Bill of Rights that would contravene one of it newer laws.
Who would write it? Who can be trusted? Who doesn't have an agenda?
The purpose of interpretation should be to determine what the words meant to the people who wrote them. The same as if one had to interpret the meaning of some sort of contract from that time, because that is essentially what the Constitution is, a contract between the state, the federal government they created, and the people from which the government derives its authority.BN wrote:
It's not about whether I can understand it, it's how it can be interpreted and whether that word has the same meaning 100, 300, or 500, years later.Stingray24 wrote:
Canst thou not comprehend ye old language?
It wouldn't be such a bad thing to cut and paste ours. A large portion of our Bill of Rights functions well across cultural lines.BN wrote:
We need a Bill of Rights to prevent Internet censorship? That's why we have elections. To voice our disapproval of such things.Turquoise wrote:
Given the censorship/internet filtering tendencies of your government, yeah... you definitely need one.
I doubt the sitting government is going to allow a Bill of Rights that would contravene one of it newer laws.
Who would write it? Who can be trusted? Who doesn't have an agenda?
You can probably keep the second amendment though.Turq wrote:
It wouldn't be such a bad thing to cut and paste ours. A large portion of our Bill of Rights functions well across cultural lines.
Frankly, if you leave that part out don't even bother. It is the only part that makes it more than words on paper.
You guys stole that from the war mongering SwissFlaming_Maniac wrote:
Frankly, if you leave that part out don't even bother. It is the only part that makes it more than words on paper.
ok.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
don't bother. It is only words on paper.
Yep, the last thing we need is guns.Burwhale wrote:
You can probably keep the second amendment though.Turq wrote:
It wouldn't be such a bad thing to cut and paste ours. A large portion of our Bill of Rights functions well across cultural lines.
We have laws to protect against unnecessary searches
We have freedom of religeon & free speech
We have trials by jury
Not sure about the 5th.
I really don't see any need for it, nor do I trust anyone to draw one up.
Of course the second amendment does more than protect the other amendments as well.DrunkFace wrote:
ok.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
don't bother. It is only words on paper.
It does jack shit.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Of course the second amendment does more than protect the other amendments as well.DrunkFace wrote:
ok.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
don't bother. It is only words on paper.
The army will always defeat an armed populous. And if the army changes sides and helps the people then being armed is near on pointless.
All that happens now is small groups of militants who don't like what the majority voted for think they have the right to go shoot some people for disagreeing with them.
Last edited by DrunkFace (2009-08-29 01:16:48)
Have you never thought the army may be part of the populous? That's why Russian and French and the American revolution was so succesful.DrunkFace wrote:
It does jack shit.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Of course the second amendment does more than protect the other amendments as well.DrunkFace wrote:
ok.
The army will always defeat an armed populous. And if the army changes sides and helps the people then being armed is near on pointless.
All that happens now is small groups of militants who don't like what the majority voted for think they have the right to go shoot some people for disagreeing with them.
Yeh that may (or may not) have slipped my mind... But at least I read your whole damn post and can comprehend English, unlike you.Cybargs wrote:
Have you never thought the army may be part of the populous? That's why Russian and French and the American revolution was so succesful.DrunkFace wrote:
It does jack shit.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Of course the second amendment does more than protect the other amendments as well.
The army will always defeat an armed populous. And if the army changes sides and helps the people then being armed is near on pointless.
All that happens now is small groups of militants who don't like what the majority voted for think they have the right to go shoot some people for disagreeing with them.
Fair enough.Burwhale wrote:
You can probably keep the second amendment though.Turq wrote:
It wouldn't be such a bad thing to cut and paste ours. A large portion of our Bill of Rights functions well across cultural lines.
I am an adamant supporter of gun rights in America, but if I lived in Australia, I probably wouldn't mind your gun control -- because it can actually work there.
Gun control only works to a certain extent here, so a gun ban would be ridiculously ineffective. In Australia, I guess the proof of your gun laws' effectiveness is your much lower crime rates.