The genesis of this discussion started in another thread in SICE. Pursuing it would be off-topic in that thread but it interested me, so……
Modern democracies recognize rights that society considers fundamental. The precise enumeration of those rights may vary from nation to nation, but many of the specific rights seemed to be relatively universal. Freedom of religion, universal suffrage, right to trial, equal treatment under the law, etc. Coming from the USA, I assumed that these rights are enshrined in a founding document. It turns out this assumption may not be universally accurate.
In the US, we learn that our ‘rights’ are enumerated in our Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to our constitution. They describe some freedoms that future governments can never legislate away. Subsequent amendments further narrow both the federal and states ability to abridge these specific rights. It is this approach that makes it so maddeningly difficult to control the proliferation of guns in our society, but it also protects us from a trump figure outlawing speaking ill of the government.
In the US, with very narrowly defined exceptions, the police may search no person or place unless they can articulate to an independent judiciary a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed. This can’t be legislated away at either the state or national level.
Australia has a different approach. Australian police may search anything, anywhere, for any reason (or no reason) unless legislation creates laws limiting their ability to do so, and those laws may be changed at the local or national level. To be clear, Australia does have laws limiting the authority to search.
From an American perspective, it is frightening that such ‘rights’ are not actually protected from being legislated away. I would imagine that from an Australian perspective, there is relief that ‘rights’ aren’t so sacred that gun control (for example) can’t be solved with reasonable, timely legislation.
So, what’s your opinion? Should rights be enshrined in nearly sacred documents, or should such things be more nimble, allowing for relatively easily adaptions via legislation?
Modern democracies recognize rights that society considers fundamental. The precise enumeration of those rights may vary from nation to nation, but many of the specific rights seemed to be relatively universal. Freedom of religion, universal suffrage, right to trial, equal treatment under the law, etc. Coming from the USA, I assumed that these rights are enshrined in a founding document. It turns out this assumption may not be universally accurate.
In the US, we learn that our ‘rights’ are enumerated in our Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to our constitution. They describe some freedoms that future governments can never legislate away. Subsequent amendments further narrow both the federal and states ability to abridge these specific rights. It is this approach that makes it so maddeningly difficult to control the proliferation of guns in our society, but it also protects us from a trump figure outlawing speaking ill of the government.
In the US, with very narrowly defined exceptions, the police may search no person or place unless they can articulate to an independent judiciary a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed. This can’t be legislated away at either the state or national level.
Australia has a different approach. Australian police may search anything, anywhere, for any reason (or no reason) unless legislation creates laws limiting their ability to do so, and those laws may be changed at the local or national level. To be clear, Australia does have laws limiting the authority to search.
From an American perspective, it is frightening that such ‘rights’ are not actually protected from being legislated away. I would imagine that from an Australian perspective, there is relief that ‘rights’ aren’t so sacred that gun control (for example) can’t be solved with reasonable, timely legislation.
So, what’s your opinion? Should rights be enshrined in nearly sacred documents, or should such things be more nimble, allowing for relatively easily adaptions via legislation?
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/kbdaS9O
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire