On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:28:36 +0000, Chris H
wrote:

In message , tony cooper
writes
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:52:52 +0000, Chris H
wrote:

You just don't understand. The US is in a WORSE state than the UK
because of your bill of rights.


What is your basis for this claim?

Don't take my response as support for Hemi's ridiculous post. I'm
just curious as to why you think that the Bill of Rights is the cause
of any problems we might have.

As I understand it you have everything defined including National
Security overriding everything. This is not the case in the UK

The Bill of Rights, which is the term used to describe the ten
amendments that were made to the proposed Constitution in 1789, was
added to provide protection to the citizens. Basically, they spell
out the freedoms that were to be guaranteed to the citizens. The
amendments were added because it was felt that the Constitution
itself, as originally drafted, did not adequately protect the rights
of the citizens.

The drafters of these ten amendments used the English Bill of Rights
of 1689 as a guide to what protections the citizens should have. If
you compare our Bill of Rights to your Bill of Rights, you see the
basic similarity. I assume that you are familiar with your Bill of
Rights since you propose yourself as an expert on the effect of the
documents of state on the society of country.

The issue of national security is not covered in the Bill of Rights
unless you consider Amendment II (the right to maintain a
well-regulated militia) to be a national security issue. The effect
of that amendment has been more centered on the right of the citizens
to keep and bear arms than it has on the establishment of a militia.

The various legislation enacted in the name of national security in
the 200-plus years since the Constitution was ratified by the states
must be held to be in line with the Constitution and the subsequent
Amendments. No legislation can abridge the rights given in those
documents.

There are arguments about whether or not certain legislation does
abridge these rights. Often, these take the form of challenges to
legislation, and the challenges end up being decided by the Supreme
Court. It is the Court's job to determine if the legislation is in
accordance with the *intent* of the Constitution and the Amendments.
They have to deal with intent because modern-day situations could not
have been anticipated by the drafters in the 1700s.

In short, some of our laws and practices regarding national security
are controversial, but the Bill of Rights is not the cause of the
problems. Conversely, the Bill of Rights offers protection.

You have a bad habit of going off half-cocked on issues that you have
very little - if any - understanding of. Feel free to criticize us,
but make some effort to approach accuracy in what you say. You are
far too often wide of the mark.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida