United States Bill of Rights Amendments 1-10
#1
Posted 19 August 2008 - 01:23 AM
As I'm sure you remember from 8th grade history, there was some resistance to passing the Bill of Rights at first. It was worried that the act of going to the trouble to list specific rights would imply that citizens don't have the rights listed. This worry gave birth (not literally) (okay, literally) to the 9th amendment, which basically states that just because the Constitution doesn't say we have a right doesn't mean we don't have that right. (This amendment has never been used to decide a court case, so it's safe to say that it doesn't matter a bit.)
What if the Bill of Rights was never ratified? Do you think America would be any different? It's easy to say no because it's all ignored anyway, but surely it wasn't always that way, right? Right?
#2
Posted 19 August 2008 - 06:35 PM
However, as time went on, it seems the Bill of Rights wasn't needed anymore, and instead, everyone just uses previous court cases to argue new court cases.
I think America would be different without the Bill of Rights, because there have been so many people willing to take advantage of other people, and taking advantage of not-laws, etc. Segregation would have certainly lasted much longer, as one big point for the BoR...
#3
Posted 20 August 2008 - 08:47 AM
#4
Posted 20 August 2008 - 12:46 PM
As I'm sure you remember from 8th grade history, there was some resistance to passing the Bill of Rights at first. It was worried that the act of going to the trouble to list specific rights would imply that citizens don't have the rights listed. This worry gave birth (not literally) (okay, literally) to the 9th amendment, which basically states that just because the Constitution doesn't say we have a right doesn't mean we don't have that right. (This amendment has never been used to decide a court case, so it's safe to say that it doesn't matter a bit.)
What if the Bill of Rights was never ratified? Do you think America would be any different? It's easy to say no because it's all ignored anyway, but surely it wasn't always that way, right? Right?
How do law makers determine what is a right and what isn't?
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#5
Posted 20 August 2008 - 08:20 PM
Quote
#6
Posted 23 August 2008 - 11:15 AM
I'm being srsly.
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#7
Posted 24 August 2008 - 12:52 AM
#9
Posted 24 August 2008 - 02:20 AM
So in America, the determining of what classifies as a right comes down to the judicial system. Seems like a horrible wast of time and money.
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#10
Posted 24 August 2008 - 01:15 PM
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#11
Posted 24 August 2008 - 02:06 PM
By and large the ammendments that affect the people were created to overturn or limit decisions made by the Supreme Court. So no, rights are not determined by the Supreme Court. It is imaginable that an ammendment to the US Constitution could focus on the use of drugs, but I doubt that will happen. I suspect that will always remain an article of state law.
What determines rights in Australia? Is it Thunderdome?
This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 25 August 2008 - 02:22 AM
#12
Posted 24 August 2008 - 05:36 PM
Deucaon: I misread you; I thought you were asking why some things are considered right (as opposed to wrong) when you meant how people determine what is a right (I missed the a). In that case, you need to look into over two thousand years of social and political philosophy for other people's thoughts, posit an ideal for whoever you're governing based on whatever you decide, and determine how to enact that. I still think it's a rather silly question, but I have answered you srsly now that I think I understand your question better. I also need to point out that I distinctly said the legislative branch of government, NOT the judicial system. The courts administer justice, and at times do indeed determine the unfairness of a law after a lengthy appeals process, but the laws don't usually start there, and if the government is functioning correctly, the judicial system does not and can not legislate from the bench.
#14
Posted 24 August 2008 - 11:05 PM
And yes, it was Deuacon who first confused legislative with judicial. How those two can be switched I don't know. What determines what is a right in modern society largely goes back to social contract theory and Hobbes and Voltaire and Locke, and of course the Magna Carta, and from there to the greek states. So to find out you'll have to go all the way back to ancient Sparta. and hang around a lot of open pits.*
*Emphasis on this part. For learning.
This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 24 August 2008 - 11:15 PM
Quote