The Bill of Rights. Many individuals are aware of its existence, but should such a bill be passed forward and implemented in the Australian legal system, precisely resembling the United States? In this essay, I will present the optimistic and undesirable aspects against people and the legal system, if we implement a bill of rights. After America had gained independence for the mighty Great Britain, they required a constitution. Held at Philadelphia, Statesmen (who were individuals with supreme power), met in an attempt to frame that constitution. However, many concerns were brought to attention, such as that it will give absolute power to the central government, which would result in a state of oppression in the country. The English constitutional settlement of 1689, confirmed the testimony of James Madison (an immensely powerful being, who would soon become the Fourth President) and the concurrence of William and Mary, guaranteeing the Protestant succession, and laying down the principles of parliamentary supremacy, hence creating the bill of rights with 33 constitutional amendments approved by US Congress and sent to the states for ratification since 1789.
Against the bill Australia, much like the US, it has a Constitution that is very difficult to amend. If we tend to incorporate a bill of rights within the Constitution, it could prove hard to update, as has been the case in the US. It can be problematic and time-consuming to go through the process and alter the Constitution. The North American country demonstrate that the choices we incline to create a few bill of rights may last for several decades, if not centuries. Increasingly Draconian federal ‘security’ legislation, being passed in response to fears of coercion, have additionally prompted involves human rights protections as civil liberties typically conflict with such legislation. Having a Bill of Rights would undoubtedly increase mass shootings, and other gun handling laws, leading to unnecessary slaughter. We require the ability to adapt to any situation and implement another law if necessary. Having that bill will take that ability away.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
For the bill extensive research states, that the dispute in favour of a bill of rights is meaningfully more substantial. Australia is currently the only western society without such a powerful document, in order to re-establish its standing as a country which defends the liberties of people, a bill of rights is vital. Much of the civic is under the imprint that Australia already has a charter of rights. The parliament cannot be trusted to protect human rights and that a bill of rights is required to reinforce and unite human rights protections and guarantee that legislation passed imitates to human rights principles. It will ensure that legislation passed conforms to human rights principles. The ideology of the Bill of Rights is to give equal rights to every single individual and to lessen the power given to the governments to levy their bias, prejudices and even morals within laws. It would certainly create better accountability to warrant fairness for all.
My opinion I conclude, that as a country, Australia should not implement a Bill of Rights in the legislation. Executing such a reinforcing bill would cause Australia to develop some very worrying complications. Implicating this bill would cause be unnecessary, since section 166 of the constitution states: “precludes the Commonwealth of Australia from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion”. Amendment one on the Bill, conditions a similar statement, therefore there's no purpose on longing such an in depth method. Too much effort will be required to commemorate the bill. We would require a plebiscite or a referendum to occur, which can outweigh over 5 years to pass, since we are a democracy, people must be entitled to vote yes to having the bill. Much more shootings will occur, just like in the infamous United States. We need to have the ability to adapt to the world around us. The Bill of Rights cannot be altered, so if we require the change to a law urgently, we possess no capability to retract it or avert it. For example, if we require to enter another individual’s property to retract a ball, Amendment 2 says otherwise, “the right to keep and bear arms”. We need to be able to adapt to what democracy has to put forward, such as the right to gay marriage has been legalised in the 9th of December, 2017. The superior beings minds are being unexploited. We should provide emphasis on more drastic matters such as: reducing our fossil fuel emissions, fixing homelessness and unemployment, providing quality social services for our expanding urban areas, working on ending aboriginal disadvantage and providing economic stability for our agricultural workers. We don’t require a Bill of Rights, but a Bill of Responsibility is our necessity.
Stuck on your essay?
