Last edited by benchmark00; 17-01-2013 at 04:58 AM.
Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | Big Bash League tipping champion of the universeCome and Paint Turtle
Compulsory voting changes things a bit too, pollies have to appeal to more slices of the population.
It's still a democracy but I'd want my rights guaranteed by a higher than 50.1% threshold of a current congress.
I was commenting more on the 'security blanket' approach most Americans seem to take to the Bill of Rights, as if it prevents your elected officials from taking advantage of things as it is. Sure, you can't meddle with the 2nd Amendment, but set up an election result as you please.
R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best
R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi
Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath
"How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.
"There's more chance of SoC making a good post than Smith averaging 99.95." - Furball
"**** you're such a **** poster." - Furball
Well it doesn't protect everything (it was never designed to be an enumeration of ALL rights), and IMO passing an amendment is a little harder than it should be, but overall I think the benefits of having them far outweigh the downsides.
The bill of rights acts as nothing but a straitjacket for necessary change. There are plenty of better ways to protect rights without crippling the system.
Bill of rights are basically Constitutional amendments put into place back then. It can be repealed if there is enough consensus. You can question the Wisdom of having guns there but don't see what's wrong with the concept.
Australian constitution has no fundamental rights ?
It does certainly act as a straightjacket. It was designed explicitly for that reason. But I guess I just disagree on the "necessary change" part. Maybe a couple here and there.
What other ways do you think could be used to protect rights?
You say that you don't trust the legislature to legislate what is rights, but you're more than happy for an unelected judge to have influence on how the rights evolve.
Anyway, it doesn't bother me because there are many ways in which the US' democratic system needs changing. The whole system is poor. It's just a shame that it's too late to wipe it and start again.
Love how the test for 'not poor' is 'hasn't collapsed'.
In India we have Fundamental rights built into the constitution, which can be modified only by a 2/3rds majority of both houses.
And even if they are by those numbers a constitutional bench of the Supreme court can strike it down, if it violates the directive principles and "basic structure" of the constitution.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)