scholarly journals Postcommunist Charters of Rights in Europe and the U.S. Bill of Rights

2002 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wojciech Sadurski
Keyword(s):  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The U.S

Introduction

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
John B. Nann ◽  
Morris L. Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Social History ◽  
Legal History ◽  
The United States ◽  
Historical Research ◽  
The Political ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Law ◽  
The U.S

This introductory chapter provides an overview of legal history research. An attorney might conduct legal history research if the law at question in a legal dispute is very old: the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are well over two hundred years old. Historical research also comes into play when the question at issue is what the law was at a certain time in the past. Ultimately, law plays an important part in the political and social history of the United States. As such, researchers interested in almost every aspect of American life will have occasion to use legal materials. The chapter then describes the U.S. legal system and legal authority, and offers six points to consider in approaching a historical legal research project.

The U.S. Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

1984 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 365
Author(s):  
Peter W. Hogg ◽  
William R. McKercher
Keyword(s):  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Canadian Charter ◽  
The U.S

Against Human Rights

Philosophy ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 65 (253) ◽  
pp. 341-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
John O. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
The Other ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Human Right ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Right ◽  
United Nations Charter ◽  
The U.S

Let me first explain what I am not attacking in this paper. I am not attacking, for instance, the right of free speech or any of the other specific rights listed in the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights or the United Nations' Charter. I am, rather, attacking any specific right's being called a ‘human right’. I mean to show that any such designation is not only fraudulent but, in case anyone might want to say that there can be noble lies, grossly wicked, amounting indeed to genocide.

The Commonwealth of Australia

2021 ◽  
pp. 229-262
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
Federal Government ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
High Court ◽  
Parliamentary Government ◽  
The Common ◽  
The U.S

This chapter traces the development of judicial review in Australia, which was modeled on the U.S. system of judicial review. Australian judicial review evolved out of a need for an umpiring body in federalism and separation of powers cases. Indeed, the original purpose of the Australian High Court under the Australian Constitution was to umpire federalism disputes between the Commonwealth and the six Australian states, which predated the federal government of Australia; and to ensure that the traditionally guaranteed rights and freedoms of British subjects under the common law and responsible parliamentary government were respected regarding Australia’s citizens. The Australian Constitution does not have a Bill of Rights or an enumerated Judicial Review clause, but it does limit and enumerate the broad powers of the Australian federal government. The Framers of the Australian Constitution, like the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, assumed that the courts would have the power of judicial review. As a result, there is, in Australia, judicial review in federalism and separation of powers umpiring cases but not in Bill of Rights cases since there is essentially no Australian Bill of Rights.

Governance

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
David W. Orr
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Future Prospects ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Robber Baron ◽  
The Government ◽  
Economic Necessity ◽  
The U.S

The u.s. constitution and the bill of rights were drafted in an agrarian era by a small group of men as collectively brilliant as any in history. The government they created was designed with checks and balances and divided authority in order to prevent executive tyranny, sometimes override popular majorities, and avoid quick action on virtually anything. From its agrarian origins it has grown incrementally ever since in response to particular issues, economic necessity, and above all war, but not as a result of much planning, foresight, or effort to create a coherent political architecture. Nonetheless, the framework they created has survived and even thrived through sectional rivalry and the Civil War, the excesses of the Robber Baron era, two world wars, and the rise and fall of fascism and communism. The Constitution, for some, is a scripture hence beyond reform. Historian Charles Beard, less reverential, once argued that it was written to protect private wealth, especially that of the founders. That may not have been as true as Beard assumed for the founders, but it is clear that “By the middle of the nineteenth century the legal system had been reshaped to the advantage of men of commerce and industry at the expense of farmers, workers, consumers, and other less powerful groups within the society” (Horwitz, 1977, pp. 253–254). More recently, political scientists Robert Dahl, Sanford Levinson, Daniel Lazare, and Larry Sabato have questioned the inclusiveness of the Constitution as well as its effectiveness and future prospects. Dahl, for example, argues that undemocratic features were built into the Constitution because the founders “overestimated the dangers of popular majorities . . . and underestimated the strength of the developing democratic commitment among Americans” (Dahl, 2002, p. 39; Lazare, 1996, p. 46). While somewhat pessimistic about the prospects for greater democratization, he argues that “it is time—long past time—to invigorate and greatly widen the critical examination of the Constitution and its shortcomings” (pp. 154–156). Constitutional law expert Sanford Levinson agrees: “the Constitution is both insufficiently democratic . . . and sufficiently dysfunctional, in terms of the quality of government that we receive . . . [that] we should no longer express our blind devotion to it” (Levinson, 2006, p. 9).

scholarly journals Recovering the Sabbath:

Lumen et Vita ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 26-37
Author(s):  
Brett McLaughlin, SJ
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
European Countries ◽  
State Model ◽  
Christian Tradition ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The U.S

This paper advances that the religion-state model of cooperationism would allow for civil legislation to protect the Sabbath. Unfortunately, the models of separation or accommodationism have predominated in the U.S. since the Bill of Rights. However, the cooperationist regime, such as in Germany, recognizes the universal common good present in religious legislation. The cooperationist model is present in most European countries; it readily preserves democracy. The Judeo-Christian tradition may be the source of advocacy for Sunday closing laws, yet a weekly rest from the economy serves all citizens.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document