Category: Bill of Rights

This paper will focus on studying the first ten amendments to the American Constitution commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights. It will pay specific attention to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments that apply to criminal defendants. The paper will center on the influence the Fourth Amendment has on procedures implemented in correctional facilities, law enforcement system, and the courts. The emphasis will be made on the reasons for such embodiment and the outcomes. Finally, the paper will provide the examples that support the authors standpoint on the Bill of Right and its indoctrination in the law enforcement system.

Being an investigator in the U.S. Defenders Office is a great honor. However, it can be a stress for a newly hired person, especially when the United States Attorney asks to complete a theoretical task. This time, it was required to reflect on the Bills of Rights and its influence on the law enforcement system.

The initial version of the United States Constitution included the provisions that granted authority to the three independent branches of government: the legislative, the judicial, and the executive. However, there were no dispositions that would limit the federal government in its actions. It is what motivated the need for introducing the ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution that are usually referred to as the Bill of Rights. They are called so because they define certain restriction for the activities of the branches of government granting rights to the citizen (Fagin, 2007). The Bill of Right manages all three branches of government. For example, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments are applicable to the law enforcement system. That said, the Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of people to security in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures (McElreath et al., 2013, p. 372). The Fifth Amendment implies the guarantee of the due judiciary process. The Sixth Amendment centers on the requirements for criminal trials. Finally, the Eighth Amendment is the prohibition of the excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments (Hess & Orthmann, 2012, p. 70).

The Fourth Amendment guaranteeing the right against groundless searches and seizures has greatly affected the law enforcement system. Their primary area of operation is restricting the action of the police officer with the aim of guaranteeing the citizens right to security and being free from intrusion into their property, businesses, homes, and persons. This right extends to being stopped by the police officer in the street or safe against arrest in their homes and business or searching them unreasonably (Search and seizure and the Fourth Amendment, n.d.). In addition to it, the Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to safety of any personal belongings and, again, protects them against groundless search. The effect it had on the system is imposing barriers on officers but granting more rights to the citizens.

I do not absolutely agree with the way this provision was implemented into the functioning of the law enforcement system. The motivation for my standpoint is simple  in the cases if a citizen was not provided a warrant while conducting an arrest or a search, then it means that it was illegal and can be terminated (What does the Fourth Amendment mean? n.d.). It has a significant limitation  all warrants should be issued by a neutral judge or magistrate (Neubauer & Fradell, 2016). This provision may make it inefficient in the case if there are suspicions of the criminal activities of a citizen, but there was no time for getting a warrant. Moreover, one cannot ignore the fact of possible corruption in the judicial branch of authority, so that there is no opportunity to receive the warrant. In such cases, there is a risk of missing a criminal. These imperfections of the system might entail a significant reduction in the effectiveness of the law enforcement system and the decrease in the rate of solved crimes.

References

Fagin, J. A. (2007). Criminal justice. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hess, K. M., & Orthmann, C. H. (2012). Introduction to law enforcement and criminal justice. (10th ed.). Clifton Park, NY: Delmar.

McElreath, D. H., Doss, D. A., Jensen, C. J., Wigginton, W., Kennedy, R., Winter, K. R., & L. Michelle Estis-Sumerel. (2013). Introduction to law enforcement. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Neubauer, D. W., & Fradell, H. W. (2016). Americas courts and the criminal justice system. (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Search and seizure and the Fourth Amendment. (n.d.). Web.

What does the Fourth Amendment mean? (n.d.). Web.

In my opinion, genetic testing at a young age can be beneficial. Although young people can identify incurable diseases, they can work to prevent them. They will know that they must lead a healthy lifestyle from a young age. This will help them delay the illness and lead a richer and more fulfilling life. It is especially important to give young people the opportunity to be tested for diseases such as Huntingtons disease if they consider it necessary. They take this step consciously and will be able to accept the need for a careful attitude to their health in the future (Boslaugh, 2020). If I had the opportunity, I would also take a genetic test. Even knowing about the presence of incurable diseases, I would have had time to get used to this information. This would allow me to become a more open and free person, knowing the limitations of life. Moreover, I would know what steps to take to postpone the illness.

Comparing the Patient Bill of Rights or Patient Rights and Responsibilities of UNMC and the Nebraska Methodist, I find that the latter is much broader. For example, it includes patients ability to access their medical records, find out professional information about a doctor, and even receive spiritual services. However, these documents are similar in the two organizations and aim to protect the patient and provide the highest quality medical services (Pozgar, 2020). In general, these documents can be compared to a textbook documents since they have the same purpose. Therefore, they describe the opportunity to receive medical services regardless of personal characteristics and the need to facilitate treatment in all possible ways (Ellison & Clack, 2020). In my medical facility, the document with rights and regulations is located in the reception area. This allows patients to easily access the needed information at the right time.

References

Boslaugh, S. (2020). Genetic testing. ABC-CLIO.

Ellison, R., & Clack, L. (2020). Health policy management  A case approach. Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Pozgar, P. D. (2020). Legal and ethical essentials of health care administration. Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Human rights belong to all people. Today, we are all entitled to the same rights despite our religion, sex or any other status that allows us to be whoever we want. Unfortunately, almost everyone at one point in their lives will have these rights violated. Throughout history, people’s human rights have been desecrated, but efforts have also been made by activists to address the violations, and protect their rights. While both Nadia Murad and Victor Mukasa’s experiences and objectives differentiate their struggles, they are human rights activists who have revolutionized the world while fighting through the issues they face as minority groups.

Even though Nadia and Victor are both human rights activists, their causes and objectives are quite different. Nadia was born and raised in a small town in northern Iraq, named Kocho. At the young age of 20, Nadia’s hometown was destroyed by members of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS. The older men and women were brutally murdered and the young children were led to another town nearby and sold into sex slavery thereafter. Murad was one of more than 6,700 Yazidi women and girls who were held captive by the Islamic State (Robert Guestis, 2018) in Iraq and was held as a slave in the city of Mosul (Nadia Murad, 2018), where they were beaten, burned with cigarettes, and raped. Once settled, the militants wasted no time and commenced their “slave market” (The Guardian). Hundreds of men began piling up, in search of their next victim, whereas the women and children screamed in agony and distress. They screeched and howled, some lying on the ground, others doing whatever possible to stop the assault, but their voices were drowned by the angry, disapproving growls of the militants and their customers. Nadia’s captor was Hajji Salman, a high ranking judge in Mosul who no one dares to oppose. From then on, she was assaulted daily by not just Salman, but also the men who he brought home; Nadia couldn’t tolerate the pain, and fortunately, was able to escape the rape and torture of the Islamic State after her captor left the house unlocked (The Guardian, 2018) Since then, Nadia vowed to fight for the rights of the people who were not able to speak; she fought for the women, men and innocent children who were in captivity and the survivors of sexual violence and mistreatment. After experiencing the assault first hand, Nadia Murad plans on using her story as “it is the best weapon I have against terrorism, and I plan on using it until those terrorists are put on trial” (The Guardian, 2018). On the contrary, Victor Mukasa was born in Uganda and was assigned female at birth. As he continued to get older, he realized that his true identity did not correspond with his assigned gender. As he grew up in a Catholic household, Victor was often punished for his actions as he liked to dress like a tomboy. The majority of Uganda also deemed transgender acts as sinful. Uganda’s Bill of Rights did not include the LGBT+ community (Kiwanuka, 2011) and members of the community would be punished, objectified and put into holding cells, where they would be brutalized even further. Victor had, unfortunately, experienced the brutality and cruelty after a raid of his home, which resulted in police confiscating LGBT+ related documents and Victor being arrested. Victor is a victim of inhuman and degrading sexual harassment and indecent assault. Ugandan ministers and government officials tried to introduce new laws against homosexuality that would include life imprisonment and even the death penalty. Homophobia was rife in the media with tabloid papers printing the names and addresses of gay men and lesbians (BBC.com, 2019). Many activists suffered intimidation and assault until the law was eventually overturned by the Constitutional Court in 2014 but homosexuality was still illegal in Uganda (BBC.com, 2019). Victor had secretly filed an ‘Application for enforcement of rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights’ challenging his detention and police abuse. Later on in the year, the High Court had ruled that the ‘Bill of Rights’ prolongs to all citizens of Uganda, including the members of the LGBT community (Kiwanuka, 2011).

Nadia and Victor are both respectful human rights activists who have revolutionized the world in the foremost optimal way as they both have been awarded positions of power in their own causes. Nadia was just 26 when she was awarded the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize Award for heroism and she is currently the Goodwill Ambassador for the Dignity of Survivors of Human Trafficking at the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (Carlton, 2018). Nadia’s motivational speeches and emotional talks with survivors have brought light on the issue of human trafficking and slavery that still occur around the globe. Many have praised her work with large organizations, particularly the United Nations, with whom she currently works. Her way to the Nobel Peace Prize started when she joined a dissident gathering in Germany and took her to the U.N., where she turned into a human rights diplomat and afterward composed a book. The U.N. perceives the massacre that happened to the Yazidis, however, there are more steps to verify a preliminary. After the honour of being the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize, alongside Denise Mukwege, Nadia became a brand and a celebrity. Countries, billionaires and NGOs paid Nadia’s Initiative high fees for Nadia to speak (Washington Post, 2019). On a number of occasions, Nadia questioned why people wouldn’t just help the Yazidis without her having to retell her horrifying and heartbreaking story, forcing her to relive her trauma in exchange for support. Throughout her advocacy, Nadia’s Initiative had raised commitments of millions of dollars for farmers, the construction of a new school, a new hospital and other programs, but reconstruction is nearly impossible when the region is not yet secure (Carlton, 2018). The United States was able to provide forces and protection when Nadia met with President Trump in 2019 for a meet and greet to promote an end to religious persecution (USA Today, 2019). Similarly, Victor Mukasa is the program coordinator for the Cape Town office of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission and, has been an active part of the LGBT+ community (Burke, 2019). He has also served in varying capacities with the “East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Network, Freedom and Roam Uganda, Trans Support Initiative, Uganda, and the Pan African e-networks African Solidarity and Trans Africa. Mukasa is the current executive director of Kuchu Diaspora Alliance-USA” (Maglott, 2017). His work has been greatly appreciated by millions across the world, but most importantly, the citizens of Uganda. Victor had assisted in the passing of the “Bill of Rights” in Uganda, alongside Yvonne Oyoo, another human rights activist and his efforts have allowed members of the LGBT community who reside in Uganda to walk freely within the streets of Uganda without fear of brutality and/or arrest. Having experienced the trauma first hand, Victor’s will to challenge law enforcement to stop the hate crimes against the LGBT+ community and to be included in the Bill of Rights, intensified. Even after the passing of the bill, hate crimes against gay people, including physical and sexual assault, blackmail and extortion, are common in Uganda, but most victims are too fearful to go to the police, according to rights groups (Xtra Magazine, 2012). Campaigners say existing laws are also used to discriminate against LGBT+ people, making it harder for them to get a job or promotion, rent housing or access health and education services (Outright International, 2012). As a result, many flee to neighbouring countries where discrimination, though still acute, is less severe (Outright International, 2012). Now residing in the United States, Ugandans thank Victor for all of his contributions in enforcing rights for the LGBT+ people.

Nadia and Victor both face overt discrimination for being part of a minority group. Nadia is a woman and a person of colour, which makes it excruciatingly difficult to be taken seriously by people in positions of power. In a private interview with her lawyer, Amal Clooney, she expressed that she struggles with being treated with respect by others and when she first set about speaking regarding human trafficking issues and rights, she had acquired a large number of death threats by members of the Islamic State and crime bosses with obscene and demeaning slurs that objectified her (CBSNews, 2019). These degrading letters were the reason Nadia was hesitant to come out of her home, currently residing in Germany, and she also is petrified to “make eye-contact” (CBSNews, 2019) says, Amal Clooney. Nadia later stated that it wasn’t enough to step back and let the innocent Yazidis suffer in silence, while the criminals walk free (Channel 4, 2019). Alongside her struggle with being a woman, her Iraqi background and culture have accumulated thousands of racial slurs on social media (Morin, 2019) with comments that included derogatory nick-names instructing her to “go back to where she came from” (MSN, 2019). Media outlets and journalists have written thousands of articles about Nadia’s assault and media focus shifted to the forms of sexual torture she had endured (Glamour, 2018). The terminology used to describe her; “sex slave, ISIS hostage, sexual violence victim” (Whyte, 2018) was offensive and de-emphasized her and other survivors’ heroism. The stories of heroism in escaping ISIS captivity were lost and “I found this disempowering in so many ways.” (Whyte, 2018). Likewise, Victor Mukasa is also part of a minority group. Being transgender has resulted in him being degraded and assaulted by the police, society and even by his own family. Before his activism, Victor was sent to the church and as part of a church ceremony, (Outright Action International, 2012), Mukasa was stripped naked, and his clothes and shoes were burned to “kill the male spirit” (Xtra Magazine, Video); Victor then stopped going to church and decided to embrace his difference. He went to a discrete LGBT+ support group and with a few other members commenced protesting in front of political landmarks. Uganda’s Bill of Rights did not include the LGBT community until late 2008 (The Guardian, 2019), and before the inclusion of the community, they lived out of fear. Like Nadia, many would not come out of their homes for days, scared they will be arrested by the police who patrolled the streets of Uganda (Maglott, 2017), but even if they did stay at home, that did not mean they were safe. In Victor’s case, his house was raided by the Ugandan police when an anonymous tip from a citizen claimed Victor is a part of the LGBT community. When documents with proof surfaced that Victor was, in fact, a part of the LGBT community, he was immediately sent to prison where he was tortured and his cries for mercy were neglected. This goes to show even with four walls around you, proper law action must be initiated to protect the minorities that suffer from the pain of suffering and neglect.

In conclusion, as both Nadia Murad and Victor Mukasa both fight for equality and human rights, they suffer through the hardships of being part of a minority group and the differences that separate them from the rest of the world. Without Nadia’s contribution, thousands of Yazidis would still be in captivity by the Islamic State, and Uganda would still be a dangerous place for LGBT+ people if it weren’t for Victor’s assistance in passing the Bill of Rights. Together, Nadia and Victor strive to correct inhumane behaviour and serve as heroes of the 21st century.

HRA

The UK has long and proud history of recognizing rights and freedom it has protected human rights through documents such as magna carta 1215 and the bill of rights 1689 furthermore principles of human rights have also been protected under the common law thus it can be urged that Britain has helped in developing and fostering fundamental rights

However there have been certain issues with the protection of human rights in the UK the Magna Carta is silent on the right to be free from undue state interference in our personal life whereas the bill of rights 1689 does nothing to protect the principle of nondiscrimination or the right to free expression even though common law principles have been adequate in protecting human rights judges continue to suffer from democratic deficit which means they are reserved in question the government as they are not elected this specially becomes a problem in cases of national security where judges leave it upon the government to decide what the course of action should be this is illustrated by cases such as Liversidge vs Anderson and Malone vs commissioner of police in the first case the secretary of state have been allowed to arrest and detain individuals during the 2nd world war on mare suspicion of terrorism(without a warrant) even though this was a clear violation of human rights the majority of the judges in the house of lords stated that in such a situation involving matters of national security judges had to prioritize the opinion and actions of the government and would not prioritize the protection of human rights. In Malone the claimant urged that his right to privacy was breached when the police tabbed his phone the court however held that in matters of national security the government had a certain discretion that I could exercise and their actions were found to be legal.

However it cannot be stated that judges that judges have never procted human rights there are countless case examples where the judiciary has proected human rights in Entick vs Carrington the court protected free speech and stated that it was illegal for government to trespass someones property without a warrant furthermore through judicial review courts have been able to protect fundamental rights in expartebugdaycay the court recognized the right to life whereas in the cases of expartedaly and exparte leech the court protected prisoners’ rights to communicate privately with their lawyers.

ECHR even though Uk has had a robust mechanism for the proctection of human rights it has not always been adequate internationally aswell after the 2nd world war it became clear that a better regime for the protection of human rights was required due to this the universal declaration of human rights came about in 1948 where by human rights were formally recognized in international law. The council of euorpe also realised that a treaty on human rights was needed for countries within euorpe which is why in 1950 they adopted a ECHR which became a standard for the protection of human rights in euorpe the uk signed the ECHR in 4th November 1950 but this did not apply automatically within their domestic framework due to uks dualist nature. Under international law the UK has been bound by the ECHR and the citizens of uk had the right to take cases directly cases directly to ECtHR since 1966.

It was clear that human rights protection within the UK were not enough and from 1970s to 1998 frequent calls were made for the uk to apply the ECHR within uk domestic law so that these rights could be enforceable in British courts the government in 1997 proposed the introduction of human rights bill which recive royal assent on November 9th 1998 and became the Human rights Act .

It must be noted that HRA 1998 implements the human rights which are to be found within the ECHR the ECHR states that the following rights must be proctected

Art 2 right to life art 6 right to fair trial and art14 proctection from discrimination and article 3 freedom from torture and inhumane or degrading treatment.

Hra 1998 contains provisions for the protection of these rights according to section 3 Judges have a responsibility to interpret all legislation in line with ECHR which means that even if a law is not complaint with the ECHR judges are supposed to interpret it so as to make it compliant this can be illustrated by the case of Ghaidan Vs Mendoza where the rent act 1977 stated that a protected lease could be transferred between husband and wife MR Mendoza partner died and the landlord wanted to evict him as the rent act did not apply to same sex couples the court recognized that the rent act violated principle of nondiscrimination under article 14 and the right to a private life under article 8 due to this judges used their interpretive powers under s.3 to give a wide interpretation to the rent act so as to make it complaint with the ECHR and stated that a protected lease could be transferred as between individuals as living between husband and wife.

S4 HRA 1998

S4 of the HRA allows judges to make a DOI however this is a remedy of last resort because the primary responsibility upon judges lies within s.3 if an existing act of parliament cannot be brought in line with the ECHR merely through interpretation then the court will make a DOI against that act and request the parliament to amend it to bring it in line with the ECHR. This can be illustrated by the Belmarsh case 2004 prison case where the court stated that anti terrorism and crime and security act 2001 was not compatible the ECHR as it allowed the home secretary to detain foreign nationals without a charge which was a violation of right to liberty as protected under article 5 of the ECHR the parliament then amended this act through the prevention of terrorism act 2005 as a result of DOI.

In bellinger vs bellinger mrs bellinger was born in 1946 and registerd as a male however in 1981 she underwent surgery to change her gender to become a women she also married mr bellinger at the time however the marriage act did not recognize a change in gender due to which their marriage was considered void the HOL tried to use their powers under sec 3 but interpretation in this case was not enough due to which they make a DOI as this law was in violation of article 14 and 8 of the ECHR Parliament then responded by making the gender recognition act 2004 and recognized that a person could legally change their gender.

However courts used their power under s.4 cautiously wherever they feel that their actions are violating the principle of PS you will not make a DOI . in R(Nicklinson)vs Ministry of justice 2014 the Supreme court was asked to judge whether the sucide act 1961 which criminalized insisting in killing someone was compatible with the ECHR or not the court stated that this was a controversial topic and refused to make a DOI as parliament has the right to make laws for the country and to adapt human rights accordingly the court took the view that such matters should be left to parliament as parliament has the right expertise to make clear laws for the state.

S6 HRA 1998

S6 requires public bodies to protect the rights under the convention this means that any public body in England is not allowed to violate the rights which are found under the ECHR s8 of the hra states that if a public body violates human rights it can be judicialy reviewed then the court will decide what remedy to give to the victim of a violation of human rights furthermore s19 of the HRA states that whenever a minister proposes a new bill in parliament they will have to make a statement saying that the bill is in complaince with the ECHR this is known as a declaration of compatibility

Is the HRA 1998 adequate?

Enactment of HRA 1998 has led to some positive results as it has allowed for the enforcement of conevtion rights within the UK this has allowed UK citizens to claims of a violation of human rights to their own domestic courts.

Furhtermore the ECHR has an impressive track record for the protection of fundamental rights and includes a wide range of rights which need to be proctected the jurisprudence of the ECHR in cases such as chahal vs uk shows that article 3 which provides for a prohibition on torture and inhumane and degrading treatment is significant and the court may even stop an individuals deportation if there is a chance that he would be tortured in his home state. Furthermore recent case law of the ECHR shows that they are willing to protect a wide range of rights in catt vs Uk whether the police had retained personal data of the applicant who had attended demonstrations but had no record of violence was a violation of article 8 of the ECHR .nonetheless in recent years there has been increasing debate on whether the HRA 1998 must be repealed and should be replaced with the bill of rights in march 2011 a commission on bill of rights was established to investigate whether a human rights bill for UK should be drafted or not it found that many citizens were not in favor of domestic bill of rights because it was unnecessary .and public confidence within a new bill of rights have to be gained by showing that it provides the same protection such as those which are found in the ECHR due to this it is unclear whether UK will move towards establishing its own bill of rights as the HRA 1998 has been adequate. the difficulty in repealing HRA 1998 has been highlighted in recent years when David Cameron stated that he would repeal the HRA in his 1st 100 days in office which was not successful thus it can be concluded that the HRA remains to be a significant constitutional act which protects fundamental rights in the UK adequately.

What is the difference between a civil liberty and a civil right? What are two different amendments related to civil liberties? Briefly explain each and provide examples/ cases that speak to each.

Civil Rights – They include how an individual is treated regarding certain rights, and have a protective aspect of the rights. In the US, people may not be discriminated against based on their protected characteristics in education, employment, access to public facilities, and housing. When people are discriminated against because of their protected characteristics in one of these settings, the discrimination is a violation of their civil rights. Laws have been established by the federal government to protect civil rights.

Civil Liberty – Include basic freedoms and rights that are guaranteed either by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution or by the 14th Amendment. Civil liberties in the US include all of the following rights: Free speech, Privacy, Right to remain silent, Right to be free from unreasonable searches, Right to a fair trial, Right to marry, Right to vote.

Civil liberties are protected by

1. Bill of Rights: freedoms and rights guaranteed in the First Amendment (religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition) Examples – any attempt to prohibit Americans’ expressions of their religious faiths in their own homes, provided they did not violate others’ fundamental rights and freedoms, would be unconstitutional according to the First Amendment.
2. Fourteenth Amendment – protects the violation of rights and liberties by the state governments. Grants all citizens ‘equal protection of laws’ Case – The Free Exercise Clause

The free exercise clause was incorporated through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940). The case involved the distribution of religious materials and playing of religious messages on a phonograph by two members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood. In its decision, the Supreme Court distinguished between “freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be.” While the Court upheld the principle that the state might have a valid interest in restricting the actions involved in religious expression—to maintain safety and public order, for example—in this case, the Cantwells’ actions posed no threat other than being offensive to some (Abernathy 2019).

Essay question

1. Our current U.S. Constitution was built on disagreement and our country still faces constant debate today because of it. Based on class lecture and your textbook, answer the following: a.) Explain the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation that the founders sought to address by calling a Constitutional Convention, b.) Discuss three differences between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and how the differences impacted the constitutional debate (from class lecture) c.) Which side of the debate do you agree with most, and why? (Don’t say both, pick one!)

The first government of the United States was a confederation, a union of thirteen sovereign states in which the states were supreme, not the union. The confederal government was established based on the Articles of Confederation and the Union. The confederal government was designed to be weak due to its limited powers. The Article of Confederation started showing its limitations by 1780s, especially for the members who desired a stronger union. The government could not tax its citizens and no independent judicial system or executive branch existed; thus enforcing the policies and decisions was significantly challenging. The financial system of the nation was chaotic, especially after the continental money system collapsed and each state had only one vote in Congress, regardless of size (“The Great Debate”).

In May 1787, fifty-five delegates from all states except Rhode Island attended the Federal Convention or the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia (Abernathy 2019). The private convention aimed to make necessary changes in the Articles of Confederation by fixing some of the prominent issues in the confederal government. The biggest challenge faced by the delegates was the weak national government. In the debate between small vs. big states, the Virginia Plan laid out the failures of the American Confederation—weakness in national defense and the conduct of foreign policy, conflicts between states, and the failure to suppress the internal rebellion. The Virginia Plan proposed to overturn the one state, one vote structure of the Articles of Confederation. It proposed a system of proportional representation in which more populous states would have more members in both houses of the legislature. However, the New Jersey Plan opposed the propositions of the Virginia Plan and tried to keep the legislature unicameral. Another weakness of the Articles of Confederation was regarding the conflicting laws for slavery throughout the nation. The members established the 3/5th compromise where they agreed not to outlaw slavery for a set number of years and gave states the right to count three-fifths of their slave population when it came to assigning the number of a state’s representatives to Congress.

After the constitution was established, the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was carried out through the printing press. The Federalists supported the constitution and were proponents of a strong national government. They were also supported wealthy merchants and southern plantation owners and believed that the educated should make decisions. The Anti-Federalists opposed the proposed constitution and were in favor of stronger state governments. This group wanted to place strong restrictions on the branches of governments to help solve the problem of a powerful government. Their supporters included people in a rural area, more farmers and shopkeepers. The Anti-Federalists believed in democracy and giving everyone a voice, not just the educated people.

During the ratification debates regarding the constitution, the Anti-Federalists motioned to include the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a list of rights and liberties with which people are born and which government cannot take away (Abernathy 2019). The Anti-Federalists attempts to prevent the adoption of the Constitution were unsuccessful, but they were responsible for the implementation of the Bill of Rights. The different principles of Federalists and Anti-Federalists even gave rise to different kinds of democracy – the elite democracy supported by the former and the popular democracy supported by later.

Even though the anti-federalist established the Bill of Rights, I agree with the Federalists in the constitutional debate. They supported the proposed constitution which gave more power to the national governments. As seen in the history of the US, the confederal government was unsuccessful in promoting harmony and unity among all the states. I believe that the approach of the Federalists to create a powerful and strong central government provided the nation with political and economic stability.

References

1. Abernathy, Scott Franklin. American Government: Stories of a Nation. CQ Press, a Division of Sage, 2019.
2. “The Great Debate.” Constitution Facts – Official U.S. Constitution Website, Oak Hill Publishing Company, https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-articles-of-confederation/the-great debate/.
3. Klein, Ezra. “The Supreme Court vs. Democracy.” Vox, Vox, 9 July 2018, https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17546170/supreme-court-donald-trump-nominee.
4. Cochrane, Emily. “Trump Again Vetoes Measure to End National Emergency.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Oct. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/us/politics/trump-veto-national-emergency.html.
5. Kumar, Anita. “Trump Tries to Persuade Supporters That No Deal on China Is a Win.” POLITICO, 29 June 2019, https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/29/g20-trump-xi-jinping-china-trade-1390734.
6. Epps, Garrett. “The Supreme Court Is Trump’s Enforcer.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 15 Sept. 2019, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/the-supreme-court-is-trumps-enforcer/598081/.

Abstract

After reading the constitution and the bill of rights, I have learned a lot and come down to my favorite amendment. The one I have chosen was the 5th amendment. Not only is this one of the most important ones due to it keeping its citizens protected from the law, the police and the government. It also has the best saying to go with it I PLEAD THE FIFTH is the most common thing to say when it comes to this amendment when someone wants to stay quiet and not self-incriminate themselves when they are being questioned by the cops.

Legal Environment of Business Law: My favorite amendment

The fifth amendment is one of the best ones out there that gives us the most protection from the government. Not only does it allow us to not self-incriminate ourselves as long as you know and understand that fact. But it also does more than that. Even though most people when you ask them what the fifth amendment does most people know it as the plead the 5th amendment. But there is so much more to it. It makes it to where we cant be tried for the same crime twice, it makes it where the government cant come in and take your property without paying you a fair amount for it among other things that will be discussed later one.

Method

The fifth amendment provides several protections for people accused of crimes. It states that serious criminal charges must be started by a grand jury. A person cannot be tried twice for the same offense (double jeopardy) or have property taken away without just compensation. People have the right against self-incrimination and cannot be imprisoned without due process of law (fair procedures and trials.) to start how did the bill of rights even come about? It all started with a guy named James Madison who designed the bill of rights and a couple other of his supporters designed them when ratification was in danger in the key state of Massachusetts. (National Archives) he introduced this bill of rights on June 8 1789, and when it was passed it started out as 17 amendments, then was brought down to 12 amendments, and then by December 15 1791 it was finally brought down to the 10 that we have now.

Interesting enough the person who pushed the Bill of Rights was originally against even having it. Further more the 5th amendment wasn’t even apart of the original constitution. But luckily, he came around and we now have what we have now. (Diane Rehm) along with double jeopardy, self-incrimination, and not allowing the government to take our property without just payment, it also makes it where you cant be indicted without a grand jury, Miranda rights, cant be forced to testify in court that will hurt you in a future case, and the right to due process.

Results

In the end all the amendments you can probably say are what make this country what it is today. It has allowed its citizens to live the life we have with all the rights that the Bill of Rights have given us. And it shows when you look at other countries where the government controls its citizens lives. Those examples are why James Madison pushed so hard to make sure all the rights for the people were integrated. But out of all of them the 5th amendment has been used in a lot of famous cases throughout history United States v. Moreland, Blockburger v. United States, Griffin v. California, Miranda v. Arizona and has shaped this country into what it is.

References

1. The Bill of Rights. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights
2. Rehm, D. (n.d.). The Constitution Today: Fifth Amendment. Retrieved from https://dianerehm.org/shows/2012-01-30/constitution-today-fifth-amendment

Introduction

The revolutionary process that was developed in North America (on the Atlantic Ocean coast) towards the second half of the 18th century was led by the inhabitants of the 13 English colonies, in response to the political and economic measures imposed by Jorge III , king of England. After various rejection actions by the English government, the settlers, led by characters such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and others, decided to declare their independence on July 4, 1776 and constitute the first free country of the American continent: USA. This study explores the primary elements of the document, its purpose, and some of the elements included in the US Constitution.

Primary Elements of Declaration of Independence (DoI) Document

Natural Rights to All

One of the most significant elements of the DoI document is the articulation of human rights as natural law. The document is primarily written to express the fundamental aspect associated with human rights and the freedom deserved by the populations in relation to exiting in their natural environments freely (Jefferson, 1952). The document states explicitly that all men were created equally and are naturally granted the right to live free and equally.

Social Contract between Government and People

Another critical emphasis of the DoI is on the control of the government as an entity representing a social contract between rulers and society members. Thus, the role of putting a government to power is to ensure that various social aspects such as organization of resources and balanced approach to justice are provided (Becker, 2017). As a result of this contract, the citizens have the right to elect rulers who must represent the social aspects impacting their immediate environment and their social structures.

Exercise of Democracy

One of the most fundamental changes of the 21st century is the gradual deepening of interconnection with human groups. According to the DoI, democratic governance is one of the fundamentally supported elements in the document. The dynamic nature of democracy operates within three political axes, namely democracy, citizenship and political participation. Despite the fact that globalization has intensified and extended socio-economic relations between people beyond the territorial contours, the preference for democratic order, the exercise of citizenship and political participation continue to be imperatives of any political order (Becker, 2017). The main premise of this acceptance is based on the understanding of these as a common good, that is, as a value that belongs to humanity and a resource that enables it to perform the free exercise of its functions (Strang, 2019). Democracy refers to the ability of a group or nation to govern itself through procedures that guarantee the participation of citizens to freely choose both their form of government and the leaders who represent them.

Purpose for Writing & Distribution/Evidence in the Document

Justifying Break with the British

This war in America was an extension of the one that occurred in Europe, as a result of the economic rivalry between both nations and conflicts over the definition of the limits of their colonial possessions north of the American continent. With the support of the settlers, the British troops defeated the French, and for that reason, France had to cede to England the region of Canada and Spain to the Louisiana region. England not only obtained a portion of territory whose control it wished to exercise even against the ambitions and interests of the settlers, it also inherited a financial deficit that it wanted to clean up by imposing political and economic measures that affected them (Jayne, 2015).

The Proclamation of 1763 prevented access to the territories gained from the war, in order to limit the ambitions of the settlers, reduce the confrontation with the Indians and implement a more rigid administration. Likewise, trade with the tribes established at the borders was prohibited. Land speculators, immigrants and merchants in general were enraged at such measures; his natural growth was hampered. Later, in 1774, that proclamation would be reaffirmed with the Law of Quebec, by which the Crown redefined the established territorial limits (Lee, 2017).

Creation of numerous tax laws consisted in the establishment of mercantile restrictions and fiscal charges. Among others, the law of sugar (1764) by which they were prohibited from buying sugar from the French of the Caribbean, at the same time that established taxes on the importation of textiles, coffee, indigo, wines and other products (Becker, 2017). The monetary law (1764) prohibited the colonies from issuing local bills, while the stamp or stamped paper law (1765) established a tax on publications, legal documents, manifestos, licenses and other documents. The law of the lodging (1765) established that the colonists would have to take charge of the maintenance of the British troops, and the laws Townshend (1767) reinforced some of the previous measures and established new taxes to articles of import (Lee, 2017).

The settlers tried to prevent the new measures from being applied, claiming that the English Parliament lacked the authority to legislate on them, since they had no political representation in it and had their own representative institutions. Subsequently, they asked Parliament to repeal these measures, organized boycotts and commercial embargoes, formed secret societies, local associations and inter-colonial committees, among other actions that were a concrete expression of the feelings of grievance, opposition and dissatisfaction with the new situation. Writers, politicians, publicists and lawyers did their job by appealing to the ideas of the Enlightenment to defend their demands: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, George Washington, are some of them.

A Call for Foreign Help

The new government had to attract the respect, help and recognition of other nations. One of the first to do so was Spain, which had colonies south of the English colonies. One of the greatest successes came from the diplomatic efforts of Benjamin Franklin, who was sent to Paris to negotiate with the traditional enemy of Great Britain, and try to get the support of France (Lee, 2017). After the battle of Saratoga, France considered that the USA could defeat the British, so France began sending ships loaded with firearms, ammunition, clothing, gunpowder and other necessary goods (Strang, 2019). For its part, Spain, although it immediately helped the rebels with money, arms and ammunition, was reluctant to direct intervention, due to the fear of the Secretary of State, the Count of Florida Blanca, to the consequences of an armed conflict (Jayne, 2015). The Spanish objectives in America were to expel the British both from the Gulf of Mexico and from the banks of the Mississippi River and achieve the demise of their settlements in Central America.

With the entry of France into the war, in 1778, the struggle was transferred to the southern colonies. In 1979 Spain declared war on England, signing an agreement with France (Treaty of Aranjuez, April 12, 1779), by which Spain obtained a series of concessions in exchange for joining France in the war (Becker, 2017). France undertook to help Spain in the recovery of Menorca, Mobile, Pensacola, the Bay of Honduras and the coast of Campeche and declared that peace would not be concluded as long as there was no return of Gibraltar to Spain. This caused the British to divert to Gibraltar troops destined initially to the war in the colonies.

The lack of British troops who could attend all fronts led some French ports that were blocked by the British, to be unlocked, allowing the French to bring troops to America under the command of the Marquis de La Fayette and the Count of Rochambeau, this aid of great importance to the settlers (Lee, 2017). Later Holland will also join the coalition formed by Spain and France, with the intention of positioning itself in the domain of the seas.

Features Reflected on the Constitution

The Bill of Rights

In 1787, in the city of Philadelphia, a convention was held whose objective was to solve the problems derived from the Articles of Confederation, which was the document that established the form of central government until then. Several of the participating representatives decided that it was preferable to create a new constitution instead of modifying the articles. After several months of debate, these representatives ended up signing the Constitution of the USA (Strang, 2019). In this document would be the supreme law by which a new nation would be governed, USA.

The new federal government would be stronger than the previous one. To prevent the emergence of a tyranny in the future, the power was divided into three separate branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial (Becker, 2017). Through a system of control and balance, each branch of government would prevent the others from becoming too powerful. In order to ensure respect for the sovereignty of individuals, the constitution protected certain rights of individuals (Strang, 2019). To deepen this aspect, shortly after its creation, 10 amendments were added that are known as the ‘Bill of Rights.’ These amendments are direct representations of the DoI on the constitution (Michelman, 2016). The Bill of Rights is a representation of the human rights that the DoI sought by separating from the British rule.

Among the rights and liberties that the Bill of Rights guarantees are the freedom of expression, assembly, religion, petition, and the right to bear arms. Additionally, the Bill also aims at achieving the right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, or cruel and unusual punishments (Jayne, 2015). Nonetheless, it also includes the right not to testify against oneself, due process, and a swift trial with an impartial and local jury. These aspects, according to the DoI constitute of the human rights to live freely and to be punished in relation to evidence of wrong doing (Brown, 2017). As a result, the Bill of Rights plays a central role in US law and its government, and continues to be a fundamental symbol of the nation’s freedom and culture. Since then, with a total of 27 amendments, the Constitution provides the framework for the organization of the government of the US.

Conclusion

The declaration of independence is associated with the development of the current democratic governance witnessed in the USA. Primary elements addressed in the document include the natural right to life and freedom, human right to an elected government, and ethical governance that represents the needs of the citizens. The constitution is also based on the DoI especially considering the provisions of the Bill of Rights which encompasses the areas in which the government is held responsible in representing the rights of the citizens.

References

1. Becker, C. L. (2017). The declaration of independence. Jazzybee Verlag.
2. Brown, M. (2017). Hamilton on Broadway and the Founding in American Culture: An Introduction. The Independent Review, 21(4), 485-487.
3. Jayne, A. (2015). Jefferson’s Declaration of independence: origins, philosophy, and theology. University Press of Kentucky.
4. Jefferson, T. (1952). The declaration of independence. Encyclopedia Britannica.
5. Lee, H. W. (2017). Brothers at Arms: American Independence and the Men of France and Spain Who Saved It by Larrie D. Ferreiro. Journal of Southern History, 83(4), 942-944.
6. Michelman, F. I. (2016). The Ghost of the Declaration Present: The Legal Force of the Declaration of Independence Regarding Acts of Congress. Southern California Law Review, 89(3), 16-45.
7. Strang, L. J. (2019). The Declaration of Independence: No Special Role in Constitutional Interpretation. HARV. JL & PUB. POL’Y, 42, 43-46.

The point of our constitution: A discursive Essay

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa is a powerful but essential legal tool which was required to forge her people into the ‘Rainbow Nation’ that they are apart of today. It is through this tool that South Africa became the diverse, democratic and “ truly free” she is recognised as being today.

The South African Bill of Rights is cited by many to be one of the most amazing forms of affirmed humanitarian aid that has ever been created. The Bill was important enough to be included in the South African Constitution (1). By incorporating the Bill of Rights into the Constitution, every citizen of South Africa has had his/her rights protected, regarded equally and affirmed as a result of the Constitution being the supreme law of South Africa. Furthermore, by applying it to all South African citizens, this form of governance protects and enhances the diversity (2) of the nation by ensuring that all members are equal and by allowing them to be equivalent to each other (3) as well as freeing (4) them from the inequality of the past, thereby positively reinforcing the image of our ‘Rainbow Nation’.

During the apartheid era, many races, apart from the Whites, were often disadvantaged and held back in terms of development as a result of the racist Nationalist regime of the time. The Constitution, with the adoption of the Bill Of Rights (1), according to the Oxford Handbook of Gender and Politics (5), where any form of governmental assistance to underprivileged folks, particularly the assistance to disadvantaged women, supports the empowerment of those who have lived through conditions that challenged their identity. This protects the independence of the various cultures, allowing them to be nurtured and to grow safely on their own (4) which in turn supports the diversity and democratic powers of the people in the nation.

Not all of what the Constitution supports benefits the country as a whole. The ability to uphold the Rights listed in the Bill of Rights often requires monetary funding in order to be enabled, which leads to a need for foreign investment which does not build the economy but rather damages it due to the inevitable financial backlash to the point where democracy will fall(6). Inevitably, most democracies in third world countries also end up relying upon a parliamentary rule to aid the presidency with making important decisions which lead to eventual corruption through income inequality and other factors, culminating in the eventual removal of authority and all forms of democracy in the name of social reform (7). These fallacies could eventually lead South Africa back into the days of Apartheid, albeit with a different dominant race leading the mass segregation.

The Constitution of our country is a marvellous document that has played the part of being the tool that has united the citizens of South Africa on a common ground where all are equal regardless of background as well as providing the right to live freely and let their thoughts be heard and considered in the modern government.

Bibliography

1. (1996). Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 – Chapter 2: Bill of Rights. Available from: https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/chapter-2-bill-rights. [Accessed: 14/2/2019].
2. (1828). Definition of diversity. Available from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diversity. [Accessed: 13/2/2019].
3. (1979). Definition of ‘democracy’. Available from: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/democracy. [Accessed: 13/2/2019].
4. (1995). Meaning of freedom in English. Available from: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/freedom. [Accessed: 13/2/2019].
5. Georgina Waylen, Karen Celis, Johanna Kantola, and S. Laurel Weldon. (2013). Equality, Citizenship, and Nation. Available from: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/978019975 1457.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199751457-part-7. [Accessed: 14/2/2019].
6. Barry Weingast. (2015). WHY DEMOCRACY FAILS IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD. Available from: http://www.uabsknowledge.ac.nz/en/research-and-comment/research-and-analysis/why-democracy-fails-in-the-developing-world.html. [Accessed: 13/2/2019].
7. Ethan Kapstein. (2012). Why Democracies Fail: Lessons from Mali?. Available from: https://www.cgdev.org/blog/why-democracies-fail-lessons-mali. [Accessed: 14/2/2019].

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.

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.

Natural rights are allowed to all people that can’t be denied or confined by any authority or person. Regular rights are usually supposed to be granted to individuals by ‘Natural law.’ In creating the laws, Jefferson followed the system of the English Declaration of rights, after the ‘Glorious Revolution’, 1689. Most researchers today conclude that Jefferson was inspired to write the Declaration of Independence from the works of John Locke.

Locke composed that all people are equal as they are born with certain rights that are natural and can never be taken or even parted with. Among these basic common rights, Locke stated, are “life, freedom, and property”. Locke also fought for the belief that people should be allowed to decide on decisions about how to lead their own lives as long as they don’t interfere with the freedom of others. Locke, respectively, accepted freedom to be important. By ‘property’, Locke meant more than land and products that could be sold, parted with, or even taken by the government in distinct situations. The reason for the government that Locke composed is to make sure about the certain privileges of the individuals. The individuals must comply with the laws of their rulers. Accordingly, such an agreement exists between the rulers and the ruled. However, Locke expressed, if an administration abuses its power over a long period of time, the individuals have the option to oppose that legislature, adjust or abolish it, and make another political framework.

Jefferson received John Locke’s hypothesis of common rights to give the motivation to change. He at that point proceeded to offer evidence that change was important for 1776 to end King George’s tyranny over the pilgrims. The changes, known as the Bill of Rights, were intended to secure the essential privileges of U.S. residents, ensuring the right to speak freely, press, gathering, and exercise of religion; the option to reasonable lawful strategy and to carry weapons, and that powers not assigned to the national government were held for the states.

The English B.O.R. was made in 1689 and the American B.O.R. was made in 1789. Being so a lot later, the American B.O.R. was affected a considerable amount by the English. The English B.O.R. was composed of a unique Parliament and expressed the wrongs of King James II, which included not taking into consideration free races, capturing serene dissenters, and delivering remorseless disciplines. The Bill likewise restricted the intensity of the Crown, which incorporated the option to appeal to the lord, the option to carry weapons, the free appointment of Parliament, the right to speak freely of discourse for individuals from Parliament, and remembered a denial for setting up any organizations of the Catholic Church.

By restricting the intensity of the crown, the English B.O.R. introduced an established government. Sacred governments limit the intensity of the ruler, rather than giving that person complete and supreme force.

The American B.O.R. was added to the Constitution in light of worries that the national government would have a lot of intensity and to clarify that a few rights and powers had a place with either the individuals or the states. A portion of America’s establishing fathers needed to clarify that these rights didn’t have a place with the government.

Numerous English homesteaders in America accepted that the English B.O.R. concerned them, and King George III’s difference over their conviction added to the Revolutionary War and the making of the United States of America. A considerable lot of the changes mirrored the impact of the English B.O.R. Different rights developed the English B.O.R.

Likenesses of the two Rights are both were developed after going against a ruler and to change constitutions. A distinction between them is that the US Bill prioritizes on common freedoms while the English Bill additionally tends to governmental issues.