Democracy INSTEAD OF the Bill of Rights.

[eclipsenow]

That said it is broken regularly from TSA pat downs to a healthcare mandate. There are those of us fighting to put the federal govt back in its box.
So to answer your question; Democracy or Bill of Rights? I choose the Bill of rights.

Why do you think the Bill of Rights is broken just because the Feds want to mandate healthcare? It's a great idea that Mitt Romney first demonstrated as saving money and lives in his state. How ironic that the TEA party started up waves of panic about 'socialist' Obamacare when Obama was initially reluctant to take up a Romney idea!

Seriously? You see this as not just bad policy (from your point of view, I think it's a good start, but isn't Socialist enough! But that's my Australian Medicare experience leaking out there!) but as breaking the Bill of Rights?

Wow: Americans are more right-wing than I ever imagined.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Why do you think the Bill of Rights is broken just because the Feds want to mandate healthcare? It's a great idea that Mitt Romney first demonstrated as saving money and lives in his state. How ironic that the TEA party started up waves of panic about 'socialist' Obamacare when Obama was initially reluctant to take up a Romney idea!

What Obama wanted was Government controlled healthcare, using the argument of healthcare costs, the Government can effectively dictate about every aspect of our lives, all in the name of "healthcare."

He got the next best thing for his goal, Romneycare on steroids; Obamacare was never about people's healthcare, it was about grabbing more power....

Seriously? You see this as not just bad policy (from your point of view, I think it's a good start, but isn't Socialist enough! But that's my Australian Medicare experience leaking out there!) but as breaking the Bill of Rights?

Wow: Americans are more right-wing than I ever imagined.

The issue is you Australians ultimately see yourselves as "subjects," while Americans see themselves as citizens where our Government is supposed to work FOR the people, not the other way around...

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Now, imagine if someone who decides you are an undeserving bourgeois Kulak decides you don't have any rights...

 

[wmpratt]

Why do you think the Bill of Rights is broken just because the Feds want to mandate healthcare? It's a great idea that Mitt Romney first demonstrated as saving money and lives in his state. How ironic that the TEA party started up waves of panic about 'socialist' Obamacare when Obama was initially reluctant to take up a Romney idea!

Seriously? You see this as not just bad policy (from your point of view, I think it's a good start, but isn't Socialist enough! But that's my Australian Medicare experience leaking out there!) but as breaking the Bill of Rights?

Wow: Americans are more right-wing than I ever imagined.

It violates the 10th amendment.

Rather or not it’s a good idea is irrelevant, the fact is its illegal. If you want something that the Constitution forbids, use the amendment process.

Simple.

 

[eclipsenow]

What Obama wanted was Government controlled healthcare, using the argument of healthcare costs, the Government can effectively dictate about every aspect of our lives, all in the name of "healthcare."

He got the next best thing for his goal, Romneycare on steroids; Obamacare was never about people's healthcare, it was about grabbing more power....

Do you have anything to justify such wild claims?

The issue is you Australians ultimately see yourselves as "subjects," while Americans see themselves as citizens where our Government is supposed to work FOR the people, not the other way around...

You're really rude, you know that? You don't have a clue!

You know nothing about how we see ourselves. Our 'Public Servants' are meant to SERVE the population and work FOR the people. Our healthcare demonstrates far better results far cheaper. Your healthcare is something like 5 times as expensive and yet delivers far shorter lifespans. I take it that means all your silly private health funds are paying Administrators and Legislators rather than actually delivering medical services just run by government hospitals. Figures.

 

[eclipsenow]

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']It violates the 10th amendment. [/font]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Rather or not it’s a good idea is irrelevant, the fact is its illegal. If you want something that the Constitution forbids, use the amendment process. [/font]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Simple.[/font]

Yeah, like I'm going to waste my time trying to read this! What's wrong with your posts dude?

 

[GarfieldJL]

Do you have anything to justify such wild claims?

The situation that Hobby Lobby is now sueing over...

The fact that the Government can use the fact they are "paying for something" in this case healthcare to regulate everything that may affect health care costs...

You're really rude, you know that? You don't have a clue!

I'm well aware of the fact I'm not a diplomat, and I call things as I see them. As for your insinuation that I don't have a clue, that's funny coming from someone that understands very little about American History...

You know nothing about how we see ourselves. Our 'Public Servants' are meant to SERVE the population and work FOR the people. Our healthcare demonstrates far better results far cheaper. Your healthcare is something like 5 times as expensive and yet delivers far shorter lifespans. I take it that means all your silly private health funds are paying Administrators and Legislators rather than actually delivering medical services just run by government hospitals. Figures.

Actually I kinda do understand how you see yourselves, if you still didn't have allegience to the UK, you wouldn't recognize Queen Elizabeth II as your queen...

Second, a lot of the problem with healthcare costs have to do with junk lawsuits and the insurance premiums that doctors have to pay due to those lawsuits.

Third, there are some things that we report as far as health related deaths that many other countries (possibly including yours) often leave out, which make your population health look far better than it really is.

Then there is the fact that many Americans are under a lot of stress cause we don't have all kinds of cushy vacations like Europeans do (which is partially why Europe is in their fiscal mess)...

High amounts of stress cause health problems and yes stress can in fact kill. The stress is probably partially related to trying to compete against other countries whom are subsidizing their companies in order to undercut American products in the market (example China).

 

[eclipsenow]

I'm well aware of the fact I'm not a diplomat, and I call things as I see them. As for your insinuation that I don't have a clue, that's funny coming from someone that understands very little about American History...

And, pray tell, exactly what has that got to do with the price of fish in China on a Thursday afternoon? I mean, talk about off topic. Here we are discussing real world examples where Australian legislation and government policy can respond to real-world 'rights' issues like my right to life over your right to drink drive and get away with it, and how superior it is to leave Rights to a Parliamentary Policy framework, and you reply with.... "Well your part of the commonwealth, and have a Queen, so there!"

You really have a knack for completely missing the point don't you? The rest of your post was so much verbal dribble that I'm simply not going to bother. You're a troll, and don't have a CLUE, you have a grudge instead. I'm not going to feed the troll. You're now on my IGNORE list. Goodbye.

 

[IanCG]

What about real-world rights issues such as your right to life vs my right
to due process?

I mean, so what if you have to lock me up for a few months and impound all my property, I looked at you funny and now you fear for your life. Even if there's no evidence or reasonable suspicion beyond your fear, you need to feel safe, so there go my rights.

(before you go ranting about "off topic", I'm drawing your comparison about how apparently Australian police can pull people over and administer a test for no reason other than to make you feel safe).

 

[eclipsenow]

What about real-world rights issues such as your right to life vs my right to due process?

I mean, so what if you have to lock me up for a few months and impound all my property, I looked at you funny and now you fear for your life. Even if there's no evidence or reasonable suspicion beyond your fear, you need to feel safe, so there go my rights.

Off topic! Do you really think our Parliaments will pass laws for the paranoid? Do you think the public would put up with a 'Bad Look' random investigation policy?

(before you go ranting about "off topic", I'm drawing your comparison about how apparently Australian police can pull people over and administer a test for no reason other than to make you feel safe).

Now this is on topic. And it doesn't just make me feel safe, it helps statistically reduce the number of drunk drivers on our roads.

Sorry, what was your point again? My right to life IS enhanced by RBT.

 

[IanCG]

So where do you draw the line between personal autonomy and public safety? If it was shown that random unannounced house searches reduced domestic crime, would you be for it? In America, the line is drawn with the 5th Amendment and reinforced in the 14th. I am willing to sacrifice some security for freedom.

And I don't know what your parliament will pass. I don't presume to know what works and doesn't work in Australia.

 

[eclipsenow]

So where do you draw the line between personal autonomy and public safety?

It's not my line to draw: it's a community discussion, the wisdom of the crowd (not the 2 wolves, nor just the sheep).

If it was shown that random unannounced house searches reduced domestic crime, would you be for it? In America, the line is drawn with the 5th Amendment and reinforced in the 14th. I am willing to sacrifice some security for freedom.

Such an action is completely unappealing to the vast majority of Australians so it probably will not come up. A man's home is his castle. But a car is a public activity that involves public co-operation and is an even greater source of death and injury than intentional homicides.

And I don't know what your parliament will pass. I don't presume to know what works and doesn't work in Australia.

Thank you. That is a vast improvement over a certain previous poster.

 

[IanCG]

It would be kind if you returned the favor.

 

[eclipsenow]

It would be kind if you returned the favor.

I think you misunderstood: I'm after information as to why Americans think a Bill of Rights is the best way to ensure Human Rights when they remain abstract, give a lot of power to unelected lawyers, etc etc etc. I'm not presuming to know the in's and out's of your legal system. That's why I'm asking.

There was a day when I would have said, unquestionably, that I supported a BILL of rights. But then I heard some talks about the sheer vagueness of such laws and how utterly poor they were, once codified, at actually dealing with concrete policy matters. There's a difference between supporting human rights and a Bill of rights as the best way to ensure them.

So that's why I'm hear. I'm wondering why Americans are so adamant that a Bill is the best way forward? I'm hear to learn, but keep getting trolls going on about the Queen of England and attacking who knows what else. And I keep hearing about 2 wolves and a sheep, when we're talking about State or National level votes in the tens of millions. I think that wolves & sheep thing needs a rewrite.

 

[IanCG]

Just curious, you specify the Bill of Rights, how do you feel about having a constitution at all?

 

[eclipsenow]

Great. It's the basis of the rule of law and the freedoms we enjoy in a Western Liberal Democracy. I just don't want to give up my right to VOTE on my rights. That's what a Bill of Rights does: moves it from the sphere of expert policy makers and the hurly burly of political discussion, and places it up high off the street in an ivory tower run by Judges who know nothing about policy.

 

[wmpratt]

Yeah, like I'm going to waste my time trying to read this! What's wrong with your posts dude?

It violates the 10th amendment.

Rather or not it’s a good idea is irrelevant, the fact is its illegal. If you want something that the Constitution forbids, use the amendment process.

Simple.

 

[wmpratt]

Great. It's the basis of the rule of law and the freedoms we enjoy in a Western Liberal Democracy. I just don't want to give up my right to VOTE on my rights. That's what a Bill of Rights does: moves it from the sphere of expert policy makers and the hurly burly of political discussion, and places it up high off the street in an ivory tower run by Judges who know nothing about policy.

Law by default will be interpreted by judges. Not sure about where you're at but in the US politicians are just as bad as you say judges can be. Politicians are some of the largest abusers of personal rights in America today. The problem we have here is a uniformed electorate that is easily fooled and manipulated.

 

[eclipsenow]

It violates the 10th amendment.

Rather or not it’s a good idea is irrelevant, the fact is its illegal. If you want something that the Constitution forbids, use the amendment process.

Simple.

Whether it is a good idea or not is actually entirely relevant in my country, as we are debating whether or not to introduce a Bill. Many of us are saying no. I wanted to test my ideas against some Americans loyal to the Bill.

Law by default will be interpreted by judges. Not sure about where you're at but in the US politicians are just as bad as you say judges can be. Politicians are some of the largest abusers of personal rights in America today. The problem we have here is a uniformed electorate that is easily fooled and manipulated.

Agreed on both counts, but I still think that when it comes to drawing up the very system by which rights issues will be decided, the system needs to be flexible enough to accommodate various experiments in social policy. We just don't have the wisdom to codify a document for all time. Things change, and a Bill of Rights is far harder to modify than a policy. So you're stuck with privacy trumping driver security. (For just one example). Your privacy is more important than having demonstrably safer roads through RBT. This is just one area I can think of.

 

[IanCG]

Great. It's the basis of the rule of law and the freedoms we enjoy in a Western Liberal Democracy. I just don't want to give up my right to VOTE on my rights. That's what a Bill of Rights does: moves it from the sphere of expert policy makers and the hurly burly of political discussion, and places it up high off the street in an ivory tower run by Judges who know nothing about policy.

The Bill of Rights is in effect just part of our constitution.