For Pericles,

"The Bill of Rights has gone from a constitutional afterthought, added to placate the objections of Anti-Federalists and of the ratifying states, to the best-known and most widely invoked portion of the Constitution. Taken together with the Fourteenth Amendment, which has applied the Bill of Rights to the states, the first eight amendments to the Constitution were the source for a majority of the most important court decisions of the twentieth century."

http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=1000565-h&templatename=/article/article.html

This is why, of course, I compared it to masonry: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3992#24529

Pericles,

I have not seen the movie but....

Typical. You know everything even if you have not seen it.

I wish i was like you pericles.

By the way, i have found you my man.

I urge you, since you know me and my background so well, to give me a call and discuss our differences of opinions, and your thoughts on me (as you dont mind the odd ambush) over the phone. i want to see if you have some backbone, and can voice yourself more than just in cyberspace.

If you are any sort of man, you will have the guts to stand by your words and your opinions and perhaps we could have a beer (my shout of course, i understand your situation) and discuss our opinions face to face.

You intrigue me now pericles, and i want to find out what has happenned for you to have such critical views of people with my ideals.

Just like you and your opinions, there is a reason for everything. there is a reason for my views as well, and by revealing parts of myself to display my insight into certain topics i did not expect it to be used against me in this cowardly manner.

07 3387 2200 to make it easy.

Steel, I understand where you are coming from, but I still question whether it is evidence for or against our adopting some form of Bill of Rights.

The fact that in the US it is "the best-known and most widely invoked portion of the Constitution" might easily be construed as evidence that it is too vague, and therefore is the most argued-about.

Or that it is the prime mechanism for creating or adapting laws, and therefore constantly being drawn into legal argument where one side or the other feels disadvantaged.

Or that the legal system is unable to withstand too much pressure, and requires some form of ballast.

It is the need, in 2006, given the systems in place in Australia, that I question.

What, exactly, are we missing in our system that we need to graft such a document on it? There is no doubt that it has been essential to the development of the US Justice system, but we have done pretty well without one for a couple of centuries - what has changed?

I would still like to see some more concrete examples that would illustrate why Australia needs a Bill of Rights at this point in our history.

Realist, re: >>Typical. You know everything even if you have not seen it.<<

I read in the press that "Good Night, and Good Luck" was about Joseph McCarthy, but don't know enough to determine whether it was an accurate documentary or merely a piece of Hollywood fluff. Hence I confined my remarks to what I know about McCarthy, not about the movie. And pointed out that the existence of a Bill of Rights did not prevent his victimization of a whole lot of people.

What's your problem?

Mirko - will you be addressing my question (posted 25/12/05) re your view on Australia withdrawing its ratification of the ICCPR (and/or other international treaties that substantially inform a bill/charter?

I think it is important to understand the parameters of your approach to such standards for the discussion thread. cheers,

I cannot believe the unsubstantiated belief that the courts armed with a bill of rights can protects the society's citizens when the parliamentary process can't or won't. Judges are appointed by the politicians, hence if we give them a "political" role then they will be appointed more and more based on their political philosophies rather than on their judical skills and expertise.

In 1936 in the United States, the Supreme Court ruled the Agricultural Adjustment Administration to be unconstitutional. This was the central pillar in Roosevelt's New Deal for Agriculture.

The lawyer for the plaintiff was a lifelong friend of the Justice Roberts. Pepper (plaintiffs lawyer) actually persuaded President Coolidge to appoint Roberts to the bench. Roberts should have recused himself from the case but did not.

Surely giving the judiciary an expanded role to vet the actions of the legislature will only mean that the court appointments will be more political then ever.

As these appointments are for life or we would achieve is keeping a political straitjacket on our democracy

Hi Slasher

Seems to me that the problem of political appointments to the High Court is a separate issue. For instance appointments could be made by an independent committee.

Stacking the High Court is a huge problem. Barwick in all likelihood championed the tax avoidance industry for the 18 years he got himself on to the High Court - possibly to recover from the humiliation he suffered in failing to get his seditions bill through parliament.

Cheers

Chek