| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "ORIGINS BILL RIGHTS": |
|
|
"Origins of the Bill of Rights", 2002.
Describing the essence of Leonard Williams Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights".
2,130 words (approx. 8.5 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 66.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper dicusses the topic of this book, which is precisely as the title suggests, an investigation into the origin of each of the ten amendments that collectively constitute the Bill of Rights as well as (to a less extent) an examination of why the Bill of Rights as a whole was a necessary addition to the Constitution to ensure that it would be ratified. It shows how Levy is concerned to some extent with explaining what is usually called "original intent", with providing us some insight on what was going on in the mind of the Framers of the Constitution when they chose these particular rights to be enumerated and not others.
From the Paper
"Describing the exact nature of Leonard Williams Levy?s Origins of the Bill of Rights is not as simple as it seems, and this is in fact a measure of the strength of the book. We are so accustomed to dividing the world into clear categories ? popular fiction on one side, serious scholarship on another, pulp fiction over there in the corner ? that we are given pause when we come across a book that cannot be so easily categorized. Our first impulse may in fact be to decided that this means that there is something wrong with such a book, that the author has failed in his (in this case) attempt to produce a particular kind of text."
| |
|
The Patients' Bill of Rights, 2007.
This paper discusses the the history and future of The Patients' Bill of Rights.
5,770 words (approx. 23.1 pages), 16 sources, MLA, $ 138.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper addresses the present state of the Patients' Bill of Rights, as well as its history and future possibilities. Also explored are the issues of political support, arguments for and against, and major pitfalls in getting this legislation passed into law. The paper attempts to further explain general intentions of the Patients' Bill of Rights. The most pertinent bills specific to the Patients' Bill of Rights are presented and analyzed.
Outline:
Introduction
Arguments For and Against Patients' Bill of Rights
History of the Patients' Bill of Rights
Why the Patients' Bill of Rights has Failed
Summary and Conclusion
From the Paper
"Before exploring the more complex issues involved, it is necessary to understand the general intentions of the Patients' Bill of Rights. Numerous bills involving patients' rights have been presented to the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Discussed in this paper are the most pertinent bills specific to the Patients' Bill of Rights: the 1998 Patients' Bill of Rights, H.R. 3605 and S. 1890; the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of 2001, S. 1052, S. 872, and H.R. 526; and the 2005 Patients' Bill of Rights, H.R. 2259, H.R. 2650, and S. 1012. In general, federal legislation that safeguards patients' rights is supported by both major political parties and the President, and also has considerable public appeal (Chavez, 2001, 606; Chaddock, 2001, 1)."
| |
|
Australia and a Bill of Rights, 2004.
This paper debates the necessity that Australia implement a Bill of Rights because the existing system is ill-equipped to meet the needs and demands of a modern democratic society.
1,720 words (approx. 6.9 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that many experts believe the Australian constitutional system, which is based on the colonial English administrative model, is too limited and confusing; therefore, the American Bill of Rights system, which would list the basic rights of an individual and would force the government to treat the individual within the limits set by this system, is now preferred. The author points out that opponents to the enactment of a Bill of Rights in Australia have vociferously asserted that the federal parliament has the power to enact laws, which amounts to provisions envisaged in a formal Bill of Rights; however, past instances have shown that the commitment of the lawmakers in Australia is not fully sympathetic to the cause of the underprivileged. The paper relates that a formal Bill of Rights would lighten the load on the judiciary and give it a framework by which important cases relating to human rights could be decided because the courts are not always in a position to protect basic rights, as they themselves operate under many restrictions.
From the Paper
"It is interesting to note that the founding fathers of the constitution of Australia openly rejected the proposal for a bill of rights. Since the Australian constitution was based on the British and the American system, it was only natural that a proposal for inducting a bill of rights was made. However, the proposal was rejected outright because the people who drafted the constitution of Australia felt that such a move would put the government into a great disadvantage. They felt that the provisions of the bill of rights would prevent them from invoking laws against the aboriginals and the Chinese who were discriminated against in this country. Hence, it is quite evident that the bill of rights was rejected as a legal option out of the fear of the loss of influence of the government. That the bill of rights was prevented from gaining entry into the executive branches of the constitution proves that the white dominated majority wanted to maintain their dominance over the natives as well as people of foreign origin. This is an unfortunate example of the total lack of commitment by a legal framework that should have ideally considered all citizens equally."
| |
|
A Bill of Rights for Australia, 2003.
Questions whether Australia needs a Bill of Rights to protect the country from the new anti-terror laws.
1,472 words (approx. 5.9 pages), 8 sources, APA, $ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the new anti-terror laws in Australia and how these impact Australian human rights. It examines what these new laws involve, what entrenching a Bill of Rights would involve and the possible outcomes of an entrenchment of the Australian Constitution. The author of the paper ultimately argues that a Bill of Rights is not necessary to protect the fundamental rights of the Australian people.
From the Paper
"If a Bill of Rights were introduced into Australia, judges would have ultimate power in deciding what actually constitutes human rights (Kerby 1995). Instead of the parliament and the elected politicians deciding on the rights of the people, this would be left to judges (Kerby, 1995). Some argue that this is giving them too much power. It is said that middle aged, upper class and predominantly white males cannot possibly know what is best for all demographics of the Australian nation and have no way in determining the will of the people (Kerby, 1995). Others also believe that judiciary?s are unreliable as the sole determiners of human rights as a Constitutional Bill of Rights would enable them to establish their own political agendas (Gibbs, 2000). In addition, their decisions would no doubt be made on personal morals, views and beliefs (Gibbs, 2000). Also there would be an increase of power for those with wealth. By this it is meant that it would be the wealthy who could afford the legal action to achieve their agendas in how the bill was interpreted (Malcolm ,1998)."
| |
|
The Bill of Rights: An Overview, 2007.
This paper discusses The Bill of Rights as an absolute guarantee of civil liberties for US citizens- with some important exceptions.
952 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer points out that most Americans know of the Bill of Rights, but they do not know what the individual amendments provide and how they affect them personally. The writer notes that perhaps a majority of Americans today know about the First, Second and Fifth Amendments because of the well publicized basic protections afforded for free speech by the First Amendment, and the constant headlines concerning gun control issues and the Second Amendment. The writer discusses the importance these fundamental liberties hold for citizens and looks at how they came about in the first place. The writer concludes that it is important for everyone to know what protections are afforded them by the Bill of Rights to ensure that their rights are not being stepped on by overly zealous and officious school authorities who seek to sacrifice individual liberty for collective security.
From the Paper
"Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 (which contains the due process and equal protection clauses, among others), though, the Bill of Rights did not outweigh individual state laws, but the civil liberty guarantees of the Bill of Rights now supposed to apply across the board for all American citizens. While the First Amendment is therefore supposed to apply equally to minors, the fact remains that under the status quo, students are "less equal" than their adult counterparts. For example, the freedom of speech protections that are provided by the First Amendment apply to schools and a number of recent censorship cases have involved school newspapers or school libraries. As Kaminer points out, though, students occupy a unique niche in American society when it comes to the First Amendment .. "
| |
|
The Bill of Rights, 2006.
A review and discussion regarding the U.S. Bill of Rights.
1,841 words (approx. 7.4 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 59.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reviews and discusses the U.S. Bill of Rights. According to the paper, the Bill of Rights defines procedural rights added to the Constitution. The paper discusses how, under the Fourth Amendment, individual's are protected against unreasonable search and seizures without probable cause. The paper goes on to say that the Fifth Amendment ensures due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy, fair compensation for private property taken by the government and indictment by grand jury. The paper also reviews the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments.
Outline:
Introduction
Fourth Amendment
Fifth Amendment
Sixth Amendment
Seventh Amendment
Eighth Amendment
Modifying the Eighth Amendment
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Upon founding a new country, we would insist that this right be kept. It is necessary for there to be a system that embraces due process. A speedy and public trial will ensure that the accused doen not spend an unreasonable time in jail prior to trial. This could be considered torture, especially if the accused is innocent."
"The Sixth Amendment is a right that allows for all people to be considered equal under that law until proven otherwise. When determining whether to take a man or a woman's right to life and liberty, there has to be a strict standard that is followed to ensure that those rights are not taken away unnecessarily."
| |
|
Bill of Rights, 2005.
An overview of the U.S. Bill of Rights and a summary of some of the amendments.
1,456 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 5 sources, APA, $ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The Bill of Rights was ratified into the United States Constitution in 1791. The Bill consists of 10 amendments and was created to define the liberties of the people of the United States that the government could not infringe upon. This paper provides a brief history of the Bill of Rights before delving into several of the amendments incorporated into the Bill, including the First, Sixth and Eighth Amendments.
From the Paper
"The Eighth Amendment prevents the government from imposing excessive bail or fines and says cruel or unusual punishments shall not be inflicted (Lowi & Ginsburg, 2000). In this case, we can see that it takes the power of the government to punish criminals but, at the same time, it adds restrictions to that power. All of these examples show that the Bill of Rights expresses civil liberties; liberties that are for the people, and states that the government cannot take action that would go against or infringe upon on these rights."
| |
|
Bill Of Rights, 2002.
An analysis of the meaning and history of the Bill of Rights.
650 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 5 sources, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
A paper on the topic of the Bill of Rights and the American nation. The paper analyzes why the founding fathers created the Bill of Rights and looks at their fears for the new country.
| |
|
A Bill of Rights in the Australian Legal System, 2002.
Closely examines whether or not Australia should adapt a Bill of Rights in their Constitution, looking at current protection of human rights in the legal system.
2,386 words (approx. 9.5 pages), 9 sources, APA, $ 73.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the current ability of the Australian legal system in protection of human rights. It includes an examination of the Constitution, High Court, Implied Rights, Common Law, The HREOC (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission), international law, and federal and state laws in Australia. The paper questions whether or not current protection is adequate, and whether a bill of rights is needed.
From the Paper
"Human rights refers to those rights described as "basic and essential to the existence of human beings". These include a range of rights such as the right to life, freedom and security of person; the right to free speech; the right to a fair trial. Pressure for a bill of rights in Australia has been considerable over the last 10 years due to increased awareness of existing laws and to their inability to protect human rights, uncertainty about the High Court and interpretations of implied rights, and embarrassing challenges to the existing Australian laws. The Australian legal system has to be examined closely in order to conclude whether human rights are adequately protected. There are many means of protection in the Australian legal system, yet the actual effectiveness has to be examined as to what extent "little protection" is offered. There are many arguments in favor of the introduction of a bill of rights, however, if this would actually be appropriate for Australia in protection of human rights, and if the need is warranted, needs to be looked at in greater detail."
| |
|
The Defendant and the Bill of Rights, 2006.
The paper discusses the Bill of Rights document and shows how the amendments ensured that all citizens have their basic human rights according to the U.S. Constitution.
990 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper shows by using the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution that the Bill of Rights was necessary to the foundation of law in the United States. Without these, a person accused of a crime, whether federal or state, could face unfair or even dangerous prosecution and could be denied his/her basic human rights as described in the U.S. Constitution.
From the Paper
"When the Constitution of the United States was ratified by a majority of the states in 1789, it lacked what has come to be called the Bill of Rights, a very important document made up of amendments to the Constitution itself. For example, in the original Constitution, there existed no protection against the establishment of a national religion and did not guarantee that American citizens could speak freely, belong to any group they wished or publish magazines and books without the fear of being censored or banned by the federal government. But most importantly, the Constitution did not promise nor provide any protections for a citizen accused of a crime, nor did it specify that such a person would receive a fair and swift trial and if convicted receive just and humane punishment."
| |
|
The Ninth Article of Bill of Rights, 2005.
This paper discusses the Ninth Article of the Bill of Rights, commonly known as the seventh amendment, which grants citizens a right to jury trial in civil cases according to common law procedures.
1,440 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 12 sources, MLA, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the biggest issue concerning the Seventh Amendment is the division of powers between the jury and the judge; the Court has declared it constitutionally correct for a judge to express his opinion on the facts presented during the case with the condition that these facts are eventually referred to the jury. The author points out that an indirect change to the article was made during Colgrove vs. Battin, when the Court decided that it was permissible to have a jury consisting of six persons instead of twelve. The paper relates that the re-examination or review clause is not restricted to federal courts only but covers state as well as Supreme Court; however, it also is stated that in cases where the Court finds violation of constitutional rights, facts can be reviewed and re-examined.
From the Paper
"The right can be waived by the parties themselves. The parties may submit the case to the jury and ask for waiver of their right to a jury. This can be done by presenting a statement of facts to the court. Congress had provided for waiver of right before Federal rules were adopted and had allowed "for the trial of issues of fact in civil cases by the court without the intervention of a jury, only when the parties waive their right to a jury by a stipulation in writing.'' Even after the adoption of Federal Rules, this right is still granted but there is a specific procedure to follow."
| |
|
FDR's Economic Bill of Rights, 2006.
A brief look at Franklin D. Roosevelt's Economic Bill of Rights and how it applies to today's economy.
750 words (approx. 3.0 pages), 2 sources, APA, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
On January 11, 1944, when President Roosevelt presented his State of the Union address to Congress, the United States was optimistic. The country was in a state of economic recovery and Roosevelt looked to the future with confidence and opened his speech with promises of a positive new economy. This paper supports Roosevelt's strong argument that the government should support entitlements. With more employment at decent wages, the economy will undoubtedly be more productive, achieve higher levels of responsible and sustainable growth and provide greater revenues. The paper argues that the U.S. government should assume an active role in improving the quality of life for all Americans.
From the Paper
"This nation could demand that the minimum wage allows adults without children to avoid poverty. Tax credits could provide working parents with enough income to provide their families with basic necessities. Quality childcare should be available to everyone. Comprehensive health insurance should protect people from being thrust into poverty by illness. The supply of decent, affordable housing should equal the demand."
| |
|
The Patient's Bill of Rights, 2005.
An exploration of the different rights of patients in America and the legislation that has most affected these rights.
2,102 words (approx. 8.4 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 66.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how the rights of the patient in the healthcare system today affect many professionals in the field and how these rights were created with the purpose of helping the patient have legal control over their bodies and how they are treated. Patients, doctors, nurses, social workers and healthcare providers compose the majority of people most affected by these rights. They must not only learn them but also how to apply them. This paper explores these groups of people and their perspective on patient's rights.
From the Paper
"Besides protecting the patient against malpractice, rights also lay the groundwork for choosing healthcare that best fits the patient. These rights are much more limited because of financial considerations than they should be. Many patients in America are limited to their choice of healthcare because of financial restraints. This is where the government plays a role and must step in to look in the best interest of its citizens. However, legislation is slow to catch up to the needs of the citizens due to numerous reasons. As Shapiro writes, "Everyone has a different idea of what should change and who should pay for it" (15). Passing legislation is a slow process that can often run into the problem of political parties butting heads and people who are determined that they know what is the best for patients and are unwilling to accept any legislation that does not fully encompass what they believe to be best."
| |
|
The Bill of Rights and Internet Hate Speech, 2004.
Argues for the need to regulate the Internet in regard to undesirable sites and hate speech.
1,335 words (approx. 5.3 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Hate speech on the Internet is an area in modern society that has taken on diverse aspects due to the changing standards of correct social behavior and the lack of precise legislation dealing with this subject. Regulating the Internet addresses such sensitive issues as infringement of human and individual rights. This paper argues that serious new issues have arisen from lack of legislation of the Internet, and amendment is necessary in this state of affairs. It shows that regulation of certain Internet material is needed to protect the values that the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment advocate.
From the Paper
"Trying to balance both, freedom of speech and the fear of an inflammatory speech, the Supreme Court produced the "clear and present danger" clause stating that speakers were punishable by law only if they represented ?clear and present danger" to others. (Gora 1991) Again confusion arose from defining the different elements in this clause specifically so as to fit all situations. Speeches by Dr. Martin Luther King to resist segregation would have been classed as dangerous and inciting hate speech by some without our First Amendment protections. At the same time should a web page encouraging young boys to resort to violence to prove superiority of race be allowed to function unimpeded?"
| |
|
The Federalist Argument and the Bill of Rights, 2004.
Examines how the Anti-federalist versus Federalist argument is reflected in American political history documentation.
1,873 words (approx. 7.5 pages), 7 sources, APA, $ 59.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The Anti-federalist versus Federalist argument is one of the most heated political debates the United States has ever seen. The length of the actual debate was relatively short, lasting from October of 1787, when the final version of the Constitution was approved by the first congressional convention, to June of 1788, when Virginia was the first to ratify the Constitution of the United States. This paper shows, however, that the concepts, ideas, and standards that were set forth by both the Anti-federalists and the Federalists, as well as other, more moderate politicians, are expressed throughout the foundational documentation of the United States. The paper shows how, most notably, the Bill of Rights is a reflective example of the compromises and victories of both sides, but this can be seen elsewhere in other foundational documentation as well.
From the Paper
"Federalists, on the contrary, believed that a weak central government would be ineffective and useless in times of national need and could not stand independently to make decisions about national needs if constantly in conflict with state and local governmental entities. Yet, most importantly the anti-federalists were asking for careful examinations of not only motive but fact and future when decisions so serious were to be made."
|
|
|
