What is the difference between the Human Rights Act and the British Bill of Rights?
In the UK the Human Rights Act is basically what has protected all citizens in the UK with the world’s most respected and authoritative treaty to protect fundamental rights and freedoms, that treaty is called the European Concention on Human Rights (ECHR).It has given tremendous protection to individuals in court, ensuring due process of law and a fair trial.The « British Bill of Rights » is a Tory illusion that they could denounce the ECHR to only have UK courts protect individual rights and freedoms, with the effect that UK citizens would be significantly less protected than their Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, German, Dutch, Irish or French counterparts which all adhere to the ECHR.
How did the English bill of rights influence the bill of rights?
Really? We don't have a bill of rights? That will come as a great surprise to the vast majority of British people, and to Parliament. The Bill of Rights was more or less copied by the Americans when they wrote their version, some parts are a word for word copy. http://www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/con...
What rights do we have from the Bill of Rights?
The bill of rights does not give anyone any rights. It states the protection that people have from the government infringing or restricting pre-existent rights. There are MANY other rights, that are not specifically set forth. See amendments 9 and 10.
The original constitution consisted of articles 1-7 -- why no bill of rights?
royalrunn.... is on the right track. It has been thought by some scholars that the members of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were simply tired and they wanted to go home without any further delays which was why they rejected including a Bill of Rights in their original proposal. In a straight-forward examination (without any second-guessing) the reason the delegates at the Convention rejected including a Bill of Rights is because they felt it was unnecessary. They said that the powers delegated to Congress were narrowly enough written that Congress could not legislate in such a way as to violate the rights of the people.
How did the "english bill of rights" help develop a democracy government in England?
Passed in 1689, The English Bill of Rights is a statement of rights that citizens of the constitutional monarchy ought to have. At that time, the Parliament did not have the power to protect the rights of the people that it would later assume. The right to petition the government and the right to bear arms for defense are asserted in the Bill. The authors suggest that certain actions of the Crown (government) require the consent of the governed (people). It became part of the unwritten Constitution of Great Britain and was used by the people to force the Monarch to recognize that the people have rights and the Parliament represents the will of the people, not the will of the Crown.