Democracy INSTEAD OF the Bill of Rights.

[Darkhorse]

Also, there's that famous quote about democracy, "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner."

Yes, that was Ben Franklin:

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner;
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote"

Replacing the Bill of Rights with democracy is a BAAAAAAAAD idea...

 

[eclipsenow]

OH My Goodness!
Democracy instead of the Bill of Rights!
Yes, there's just too darn much freedom going on in America! Why, we who are adamantly opposed to that should be able to vote and impose inequality, discrimination and bigotry! This way we can impose the fact contrary to history that this is a Christian nation. Because God knows we have every right to elect who is free and who is not!
Amen!

Once again we see the ivory tower nature of the debate. Pass the champagne, for the Bill lovers have won! Hurrah!

But take it out on the streets and what does America actually look like in the real world? How are her citizens doing? Is inequality growing faster than in other countries? Are her native citizens doing better? What about homicide rates per 100,000 citizens? Hmmm? Americans are 4 times more likely to be murdered because, within that statistic, they are 9 times more likely to be shot, than the average Australian. How's your 'right to life' going in that regard? Oh, that's right, some dusty old lawyer thinks all Americans deserve the right to own high powered weapons that, in a fit of despair or rage or passion, enable Americans to shoot each other. What a sensible Bill! All praise the Bill! It's guaranteeing your freeeeeeeeedooooooommmm!

Or maybe not. You are more likely to be killed by a drink driver or murdered by gunshot than Australians because of your 'rights'. I prefer voting on my rights, than just handing them over to a dusty old lawyer to interpret. I'm all for keeping my right to vote on how my rights are protected. You've lessened your rights by handing that right over to the high priests of law.

What real world success does this Bill have, anyway, preventing real world abuses of rights? This Bill hasn't prevented an atrocious abuse of rights like the Japanese internment I mentioned in posts above. How many was it again? 110,000 Japanese interned for ... being of Japanese decent? Go that Bill of rights!

 

[Caesars Ghost]

Slavery is illegal in the United States due to a Constitutional Amendment, additionally the Constitution ensures equal protection under the law...

So I'm not sure where your argument is coming from.

My argument was actually afforded as sarcasm due to the implication implied by the OP.

 

[GarfieldJL]

My argument was actually afforded as sarcasm due to the implication implied by the OP.

Didn't translate well, I suspected it as a possibility, but the OP clearly didn't catch the fact it was sarcasm.

 

[eclipsenow]

Yes, that was Ben Franklin:

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner;
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote"

Replacing the Bill of Rights with democracy is a BAAAAAAAAD idea...

Please spell out for me why it's such a bad idea with concrete examples of why life in Australia is SO much worse without a Bill of Rights. Otherwise, you're just back in the ivory tower of abstract words, wolves and sheep and Cinderella dust.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Please spell out for me why it's such a bad idea with concrete examples of why life in Australia is SO much worse without a Bill of Rights. Otherwise, you're just back in the ivory tower of abstract words, wolves and sheep and Cinderella dust.

Considering in reality you guy are still subjects of the United Kingdom...

Australia is a constitutional monarchy with a federal division of powers. It uses a parliamentary system of government with Queen Elizabeth II at its apex as the Queen of Australia, a role that is distinct from her position as monarch of the other Commonwealth realms. The Queen resides in the United Kingdom, and she is represented by her viceroys in Australia (the Governor-General at the federal level and by the Governors at the state level), who by convention act on the advice of her ministers. Supreme executive authority is vested by the Constitution of Australia in the sovereign, but the power to exercise it is conferred by the Constitution specifically to the Governor-General.[83][84] The most notable exercise of the Governor-General's reserve powers outside a Prime Minister's request was the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in the constitutional crisis of 1975.[85]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia

Unlike Australia, the United States is its own sovereign nation... Your "government" is answerable to Queen Elizabeth II.

 

[IanCG]

Please spell out for me why it's such a bad idea with concrete examples of why life in Australia is SO much worse without a Bill of Rights. Otherwise, you're just back in the ivory tower of abstract words, wolves and sheep and Cinderella dust.

Spell out for me why it's such a bad idea to have a bill of rights and why America is so much worse with it.

Hold yourself up to your own standard. All you say is "well, Australia is fine without one!"

 

[eclipsenow]

Spell out for me why it's such a bad idea to have a bill of rights and why America is so much worse with it.

Hold yourself up to your own standard. All you say is "well, Australia is fine without one!"

I already did in the OP which I have also documented here
Human Rights | Eclipse Now

 

[IanCG]

Ok, and it was answered with the majority should not dictate the rights of the minority. You seem to dislike that answer, but that's the only one we need.

 

[eclipsenow]

Ok, and it was answered with the majority should not dictate the rights of the minority. You seem to dislike that answer, but that's the only one we need.

Hmm, I agree with the principle. Agreeing with lofty sounding principles is easy to do. Who wants a poor minority stomped on?

But, really, that's what society is: a majority interpreting a certain social contract with their government, and then imposing that understanding on everyone in the society through force or legal definition.

For an instance of bad suppression of minorities: how did your Bill of Rights help those poor, innocent citizens of America who were unlawfully detained in WW2? You know, whose only crime was being Japanese? Where was your wonderfully superior Bill of Rights then?

But now for an instance of good suppression of 'minorities'. Over in the gun-lovers threads I kept hearing about Mexican drug lords importing drugs and guns into America. If gun running became such an outrageously dangerous and profitable business model for criminal gangs in Australia, I could imagine us setting up Random Gun Testing points to suppress these 'minorities'. Drivers would pull over and allow a cop to have a quick scan of their vehicle for weapons. We already have RBT (Random Breath Testing) which most Australians are grateful for. A quick search of the car might be a bit more controversial, but if the need were there, I can imagine it getting passed in Australia.

Not so in America (where guns murder 9 times the number of people they do in Australia!) It is inconceivable to just routinely and randomly pull over a number of cars on a highway to 'check' them: whether for RBT or RGT. It's impossible. Your lawyers have said so! Not only that, but your old, outdated, and dusty bit of paper has also created a strong culture of your individual 'rights', which places the individual above the community: even when that 'right' comes at the expense of the community. For some of the 'Rights' to privacy could easily be interpreted as enabling drink drivers that will one day wipe out a family, or gun running drug smuggling criminals that will one day wipe out a whole ghetto of kids.

Protect the minorities? Tell that to the Japanese internment victims and victims of gun crime and drink driving accidents.

In our country we allocate the defining of 'rights' (such wonderful, fine sounding things in the abstract) within the legal framework of a government policy. If the citizens don't like that policy, they express their discontent and the politicians respond or feel it at the next ballot. Politicians are made up of members of society from a broad cross section, and both have to play the political games but also become quick studies in policy frameworks and their ramifications. This is such a broad area it covers sociology, psychology, economics, religion, sports, cultural movements... and sometimes 'common sense'.

Politicians have to have access to the society they create through their laws. Politicians, with all their corruption, have to interpret the needs of the nation, and compromise is the rule of the day.

So basically we have various checks and balances in our society, but without a politicised judiciary. Politics is left in the political sphere, where it is meant to be. Where there are rules that govern how politics is carried out: where there is accountability before the nation. Not only that, our social contract is not bound by one generation's rusty and dusty old conventions, but can be improved and updated as technology and circumstances change.

In other words, we still believe in human rights, but that a vigorous democratic debate about the PARTICULARS is the best way to guarantee those rights. In that way, one's right to LIFE can take precedence over one's right to PRIVACY in certain circumstances that call for it.

For instance, should PRIVACY trump national security? Always? Should ALL wire taps be banned under PRIVACY legislation? Who says? Your 9 Supreme Court Judges? If not, who? I'm genuinely asking about who authorises your wire-tap system as I don't know and don't have time to look it up. You might already know. But if it's someone other than the Supreme Court, WHY is it someone else on wire-taps for national security and not the same someone making rules about privacy in that absolutely deadly activity of driving. I'm under the impression that RBT is not used in America because the Supreme Court said no. It's an invasion of privacy.

You can see that once we get into the PARTICULARS of these questions, it's not so easy to draw up a list of "Thou shalt not's" for all time. Nor is America very consistent in even applying her rights to all citizens. For wire-tapping occurs and violates PRIVACY, and interment occurs and violates FREE-MOVEMENT. If we found a statistical way to compare the various crimes of government against her peoples, I'd wonder whether Australia or America came out ahead? For I'm really not convinced that Americans really DO have more 'rights'. Do you have a right to life statistically improved on your roads by RBT's? I think not.

 

[eclipsenow]

there's just too much total ignorance to deal with here, so I'll deal with this nonsense.

lawyers aren't "elected", the job isn't an office or appointment. its a business.

Oh really? Thanks for the heads up. Boy, thanks for educating me, for a minute there I thought all lawyers were elected. How off topic can you get?

judges in the US are, if federal, life appointments under Article 3 of the constitution subject to congressional approval (advise and consent). they're life appointments because that way they can't be influenced or bought by elected politicians. they're not part of the spoils system. on the other hand, state judges are usually elected by the voters. so your whiny argument is completely wrong either way.

Hint: using terms like 'whiny' and the ridiculous paragraph above about lawyers not being 'elected' does not help your case come across as objective, nor very smart. Try to use good grammar. Also, actually reading an argument in context might help your powers of comprehension. If you had bothered to read my whole article you would have seen that I am all for human rights, but just have a different means of guaranteeing them: a strong and vigorous democratic debate about what those rights mean in practice and in particular will always be more useful and helpful than an abstract parchment stuck being glass in an ivory tower surrounded by dusty old Judges.

I contrasted the fact that, from one perspective, Australians have the right to vote on our rights because our laws can be changed by the parliament of the day. While we have an overall constitution that guarantees certain political procedures must be followed, how rights are eventually interpreted emerges out of a lengthy public debate sometimes involving elections. Australian rights are debated in parliament and voted on. With me so far? Keeping up? Excellent.

Your rights are not discussed and debated in parliament, and you do NOT have the right to vote on your rights. Can ya dig it?

The fact that you thought I thought lawyers should be elected says nothing about me, but far more about your powers of comprehension of the elements of this debate. So slow down, have a glass of warm milk and an early night tonight, and the world might not look as bad in the morning.

 

[spiritualwarrior77]

Oh really? Thanks for the heads up. Boy, thanks for educating me, for a minute there I thought all lawyers were elected. How off topic can you get?

This guy spends most of his time of topic.

Word of advice... don't feed the troll.

Also, don't send him polite PM's asking him to stop.
He'll hurl a torrent of abuse back at you.

Roy Bland's an unpleasant character to say the least.

 

[Eric Hibbert]

Now you need protecting from Democracy?

Yes.

In the words of Ben Franklin, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for supper".

Populations are robbed of the power to vote on a real issue, like gun control or random breath testing or some new technology.

To clarify, "testing on some new technology" is done in the private sector and, thus, is not subject to a vote.

But make it specific, and then you're in a whole world of pain. Tell me, does your "right to privacy" prevent police officers from randomly ordering your car to the side of the road and asking you to blow into a breathaliser?

Yes. The 4th Amendment says I have the right to refuse a random search.

For an instance of bad suppression of minorities: how did your Bill of Rights help those poor, innocent citizens of America who were unlawfully detained in WW2? You know, whose only crime was being Japanese? Where was your wonderfully superior Bill of Rights then?

Ironic, given that the ones who were interning the Japanese (interesting that you don't feel the same outrage at the interning of Italians and Germans) were closer to your political ideology than anyone here.

 

[eclipsenow]

In the words of Ben Franklin, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for supper".

Wow, the wolf and the sheep again. Have you read any of this thread? Do you want to provide any real world examples? Seriously... anyone quoting the wolf and sheep thing from here on in is neither wolf nor sheep but a troll.

To clarify, "testing on some new technology" is done in the private sector and, thus, is not subject to a vote.

To clarify, when I wrote that populations are robbed of the power to vote on a real issue, like gun control or random breath testing or some new technology, I meant some new threat to society that requires a political and societal response.

Want to try addressing the substance of the debate again? That is, how many self-loading rifles had been invented back when your Bill of Rights was codified, and how many Ford motor cars were tearing down the highways and smashing into families driving home from church because the driver was drunk out of his mind? Would motor cars be a 'new technology' that might involve rights issues, like whether or not to practice RBT? Just whisper it in my ear... how many cars were there when the Bill of Rights was signed? Whooops, there's that 'new technology' thing. Bills of Rights written to day would become largely irrelevant within 20 years with the way technology is evolving now.

Yes. The 4th Amendment says I have the right to refuse a random search.

No, my right to life says *I* as a voter in Australia have the right to DEMAND that you pull over and blow into a little tube, because I'm not convinced you're a law abiding citizen. You might drink and drive. So to protect my family from you, I vote yes to RBT. That is my right, in this country. And then the governments we elect enforce sensible social policy that protects our rights, or they lose the next election.

I'm sorry you don't have the same right to vote on your rights, which to me is quite an inferior arrangement. Other than silly fairy tales about wolves and sheep voting, you don't seem to have anything adult to say on the matter. This 'rights' thing gets a little complicated when we're living in the real world and discussing real issues and not telling fairy tales.

Ironic, given that the ones who were interning the Japanese (interesting that you don't feel the same outrage at the interning of Italians and Germans) were closer to your political ideology than anyone here.

I'm sad for your powers of comprehension, because the discussion at this point was about how your Bill of Rights actually worked in this particular instance. Like, what on earth went wrong? You have that most Holy and Spiritual and Enlightened of documents, that wonderful BILL OF RIGHTS that protects the sheep from the 2 wolves, remember? Unless that sheep is Japanese. Or Italian. Or German.

What happened? People like ME somehow over-rode your Bill of Rights? Then what good is it? (Besides, unless you can rattle off how I voted over the last decade I doubt you really know what my politics really is).

So again, your BILL OF RIGHTS protects the sheep from the 2 wolves, unless that sheep is Japanese, or Italian, or German?????

 

[IanCG]

Again, you bring up examples of people ignoring the bill of rights to do something heinous as evidence we should ignore the bill of rights. It doesn't follow.

 

[Eric Hibbert]

anyone quoting the wolf and sheep thing from here on in is neither wolf nor sheep but a troll...Want to try addressing the substance of the debate again?...you don't seem to have anything adult to say on the matter...I'm sad for your powers of comprehension

Your post reminds me of a line I heard on a TV show the other night:

Man #1: "You know, you get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar."

Man #2: "Yes, but you would attract even more flies with manure."

Looks like you've chosen to go the manure route.

Unfortunately,I tend to lose interest in talking to people when they're rude.

Now, if you'll excuse me, we have a couple of new calves and I'm going to go check on them.

 

[eclipsenow]

Again, you bring up examples of people ignoring the bill of rights to do something heinous as evidence we should ignore the bill of rights. It doesn't follow.

I'm explaining that Human Rights are extremely important, and just having a Bill of Rights does not guarantee that Human Rights will be protected. Many Americans don't seem to be able to distinguish between the goal of protecting Human Rights and the different means of protecting them. I listed the Japanese interment to show that your Bill of Rights actually meant diddly-squat when push came to shove.

I mentioned RBT to show that your Bill of Rights can be interpreted stupidly by a bunch of upper-class toffee nosed Judges removed from the coalface of real life and public policy: that forbidding RBT is a bad idea, not a good idea. You understood that didn't you? That I was actually saying RBT is a great idea prohibited by a ridiculous understanding of the Bill of Rights?

 

[eclipsenow]

Your post reminds me of a line I heard on a TV show the other night:

Man #1: "You know, you get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar."

Man #2: "Yes, but you would attract even more flies with manure."

Looks like you've chosen to go the manure route.

Unfortunately,I tend to lose interest in talking to people when they're rude.

Now, if you'll excuse me, we have a couple of new calves and I'm going to go check on them.

Your post was so off-topic that I thought you were the sock-puppet of a notorious internet troll. If you were posting sincerely, then I apologise for my tone and would ask you to have another go... but just try to be a bit more on topic please. Cheers!

 

[wmpratt]

I'm explaining that Human Rights are extremely important, and just having a Bill of Rights does not guarantee that Human Rights will be protected. Many Americans don't seem to be able to distinguish between the goal of protecting Human Rights and the different means of protecting them. I listed the Japanese interment to show that your Bill of Rights actually meant diddly-squat when push came to shove.

I mentioned RBT to show that your Bill of Rights can be interpreted stupidly by a bunch of upper-class toffee nosed Judges removed from the coalface of real life and public policy: that forbidding RBT is a bad idea, not a good idea. You understood that didn't you? That I was actually saying RBT is a great idea prohibited by a ridiculous understanding of the Bill of Rights?

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Just because something isn't followed isn't a reason to judge it faulty. The US Constitution along with the Bill of Rights is the single greatest document ever conceived by man. But I think you have some misconceptions. First the Bill of Rights is not there to protect anyone but to control the federal govt. to spell out what it can and more importantly what it cannot do. It is not about nor was it ever intended to protect or promote this false notion of "human rights". [/FONT]

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.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Wow, the wolf and the sheep again. Have you read any of this thread? Do you want to provide any real world examples? Seriously... anyone quoting the wolf and sheep thing from here on in is neither wolf nor sheep but a troll.

The mob rule of the French Revolution comes to mind...