Discuss the view that a Bill of rights alone is insufficient to protect rights and liberties.
Discuss the view that a 'Bill of rights' alone is insufficient to protect rights and liberties.
A Bill of Rights effectively outlines the rights and liberties of the people. In the USA the first ten amendments to the constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. Of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 8th and 10th are perhaps the most important today. For example, the 1st Amendments guarantee basic rights such as, freedom of religion; freedom of speech; freedom of the press; and freedom of assembly. These are just a few of the many rights and liberties stated in the Bill of Rights, so why are people to argue that a Bill of Rights alone is insufficient to protect rights and liberties?
Although the American Constitution and particularly the first ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights promise the citizens of the United States certain rights and protections, the civil rights record of the country highlights the fragile nature of such abstract promises. The constitution does not define the meaning of such phrases as 'liberty' or 'equal rights,' and therefore it is the responsibility of the courts, the un-elected branch of government, to make meaning through rulings they make on cases of constitutional importance. Many argue that although the constitution is codified, it still flexible as the content is very vague. Being so, this example highlights that a bill of rights alone is insufficient to protect rights and liberties.
A Bill of Rights effectively outlines the rights and liberties of the people. In the USA the first ten amendments to the constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. Of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 8th and 10th are perhaps the most important today. For example, the 1st Amendments guarantee basic rights such as, freedom of religion; freedom of speech; freedom of the press; and freedom of assembly. These are just a few of the many rights and liberties stated in the Bill of Rights, so why are people to argue that a Bill of Rights alone is insufficient to protect rights and liberties?
Although the American Constitution and particularly the first ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights promise the citizens of the United States certain rights and protections, the civil rights record of the country highlights the fragile nature of such abstract promises. The constitution does not define the meaning of such phrases as 'liberty' or 'equal rights,' and therefore it is the responsibility of the courts, the un-elected branch of government, to make meaning through rulings they make on cases of constitutional importance. Many argue that although the constitution is codified, it still flexible as the content is very vague. Being so, this example highlights that a bill of rights alone is insufficient to protect rights and liberties.