[Ninja Duck]

Guess what, guys! We have rights.

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?

[Spoon Poetic]

The Bill of Rights is used in a billion Supreme Court cases to overturn laws that had already been passed, but were then deemed unconstitutional, thanks to the Bill of Rights.

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...

[reiner]

Precedence does hold a lot of sway in a court of law. Without records of previous rulings, new rulings would be under constant fire for being unjust or heavy/light handed in verdicts. Of course, I think you may be right in a number of cases where the initial thought process behind the preceding cases may have been forgotten in lieu of what others had decided just to move things along or pass the buck to a higher court of law. Not every Judge may want the responsibility of making groundbreaking and new decisions.

[Deucaon]

Guess what, guys! We have rights.

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?

[J m HofMarN]

A twenty sided die and their three point five edition core rule book. You have the right to a high THACO.

[Deucaon]

A twenty sided die and their three point five edition core rule book. You have the right to a high THACO.

I'm being srsly.

[Slade]

Then I recommend you write to your local congressmen or whatever passes for the legislative branch of government in Deucaon World and personally ask the official how he/she comes to legal decisions when examining laws. Srsly, write a nice letter.

[J m HofMarN]

God damn it I don't want to handle this one. CIIIV!

[Deucaon]

Then I recommend you write to your local congressmen or whatever passes for the legislative branch of government in Deucaon World and personally ask the official how he/she comes to legal decisions when examining laws. Srsly, write a nice letter.

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.

[Deucaon]

^ Assuming that rights are determined in the supreme court. If not then does the determination of a right in one state overrule other states or (for example) can taking drugs be a right in one state and not a right (i.e. illegal) in another?

[civilian_number_two]

Drug legality is a question of law, and yes it is handled at the state level. Rights as in those discussed in the Constitution and its ammendments are created at a government level: some by Presidents; others by Congress; still others by the Senate. They are ratified by a majority vote of the Federal Courts.

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.

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.

What determines rights in Australia? Is it Thunderdome?

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 25 August 2008 - 02:22 AM

[Slade]

Civ, you know you're not supposed to say Thunderdome! Though I guess you could have said Biodome, and that would be even worse...

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.

[Spoon Poetic]

Too bad it does all the time these days anyway.

[J m HofMarN]

For my part I understood your question, it just didnt deserve a real answer. I do however still say that my idea about the D&D core rulebook is far better than Thunderdome. Australia should adopt the D&D system of fundamental rights.

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

[floppydisk]

Just a note: Skipping to the end of this thread and seeing JM talking about D&D and Thunderdome was hilarious.