5 ms·

IMO, this is a key difference between AU and USA. In Australia the government gives you rights. But that means they can also revoke them in some situations sinc

IMO, this is a key difference between AU and USA. In Australia the government gives you rights. But that means they can also revoke them in some situations since the rights are derived from the government itself. In the US, our rights are innate and inalienable. We possess them because we exist. Our constitution says the government cannot violate these innate rights, not that the document/government gives us the rights. It is a subtle yet very important difference.

palmetieri2000 4y ago
By what metric are your rights inalienable and innate? Your government permits you to to have those rights through extremely similar mechanisms to ours in Australia. Has the US ever violated one of its citizens 'innate rights'? Constantly, there are thousands of professional constitutional lawyers and government officials arguing over the interpretation of that document and the precedents set by historic interpretations. Ie, your government is actively in the process of deciding how the legal system interacts with the citizens and the constitution, which is definitively your government giving you the rights. See, every 2A Supreme Court battle ever.
- boppo1 4y ago
  >By what metric are your rights inalienable and innate? The 2nd. Edit: >definitively your government giving you the rights Because we've gotten lazy and allowed it. Most of our legislative buildings have public balconies above the floors where laws are made. The architecture is sort of a reminder/implicit threat. Or it was, once upon a time. "We're watching you. Don't make any laws that are draconian".
  - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
    i dont know man, as a non-american, why do you consider your constitution with so much regard as being bulletproof? cant your government just change it? like any other governments do? whats so sacrosanct about it?
    - mbg721 4y ago
      There's a specific method for amending it that requires a very high level of agreement among both houses of Congress and the various state legislatures. In theory Congress or the executive branch could just ignore that and go do whatever they want as long as the judiciary didn't stop them, or the Supreme Court could use weasel-words to make the Constitution mean something other than what it says. Both of those things have happened to varying degrees over the years, but it would be a huge expression of contempt for the rule of law for anyone say outright that was what they were doing.
      - palmetieri2000 4y ago
        Australia has constitutional referendum as well, these require a 'double majority' (from the public) to pass as well as an absolute majority in both House of Parliament. Which means it needs a national majority of voters AND a majority of voters in a majority of states and territories.
    - Vecr 4y ago
      If your government tries to change it without the approval of the states, etc. (see constitutional amendments in the US), you kill the government. That's what the second amendment is for. To be pedantic, they are not the actual government anymore when they don't follow the constitution, but they have to be killed all the same to clear space for the new legitimate government.
      - j16sdiz 4y ago
        > They have to be killed Who have the power to do that? Does individual state have army?
        magicalhippo 4y ago
        That's where the armed bears come into play, isn't it?
      - zaarn 4y ago
tpoacher 4y ago
In principle I agree, and will admit that for a second I marvelled at the wisdom of your forefathers. In practice, I fully expect that those rights are only a jedi mind-trick "Your rights are not being violated" away in any case where it is of actual consequence (e.g. Assange)
moistly 4y ago
> In the US, our rights are innate and inalienable. We possess them because we exist. Seems to me that about half your population no longer has an inalienable right to bodily autonomy. Not to mention that once your security apparatus gets involved, your rights are as ephemeral as gossamer. Cross the wrong cop and you’ll find that your rights are terminated. Permanently and with extreme prejudice. The Constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on once you attract the attention of the government and it’s forces. Same as any citizen in every country on this planet.
- refurb 4y ago
  The Constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on once you attract the attention of the government and it’s forces. Same as any citizen in every country on this planet. Clearly not true when you consider how many cases the government itself loses.
  - moistly 4y ago
    We apparently have differing understandings about “inalienable.”
    - refurb 4y ago
      Clearly the government does. But that's the kicker. If the government does take inalienable rights away, you still have them, it's the gov't that needs correction, not the right.
- yes_really 4y ago
  > Seems to me that about half your population no longer has an inalienable right to bodily autonomy. You are more than a century late. The government has prohibited people from putting drugs in their bodies for a long time. Alcohol, illegal drugs, pharmaceutical drugs rejected by the FDA... There is no serious interpretation of "body autonomy" that gives the government the right to ban alcohol/drugs but doesn't give it the right to stop women from killing fetuses.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
watwut 4y ago
I dunno, usa does not sounds like shining beacon. Between qualified immunity, asset forfeiture, and general acceptance of cops right to shoot you cause you have hands wrong ... plus justice in us is so expensive, that you likely can't afford it in the first place.

palmetieri2000 4y ago

By what metric are your rights inalienable and innate? Your government permits you to to have those rights through extremely similar mechanisms to ours in Australia. Has the US ever violated one of its citizens 'innate rights'? Constantly, there are thousands of professional constitutional lawyers and government officials arguing over the interpretation of that document and the precedents set by historic interpretations. Ie, your government is actively in the process of deciding how the legal system interacts with the citizens and the constitution, which is definitively your government giving you the rights. See, every 2A Supreme Court battle ever.

boppo1 4y ago
>By what metric are your rights inalienable and innate? The 2nd. Edit: >definitively your government giving you the rights Because we've gotten lazy and allowed it. Most of our legislative buildings have public balconies above the floors where laws are made. The architecture is sort of a reminder/implicit threat. Or it was, once upon a time. "We're watching you. Don't make any laws that are draconian".
- 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
  i dont know man, as a non-american, why do you consider your constitution with so much regard as being bulletproof? cant your government just change it? like any other governments do? whats so sacrosanct about it?
  - mbg721 4y ago
    There's a specific method for amending it that requires a very high level of agreement among both houses of Congress and the various state legislatures. In theory Congress or the executive branch could just ignore that and go do whatever they want as long as the judiciary didn't stop them, or the Supreme Court could use weasel-words to make the Constitution mean something other than what it says. Both of those things have happened to varying degrees over the years, but it would be a huge expression of contempt for the rule of law for anyone say outright that was what they were doing.
    - palmetieri2000 4y ago
      Australia has constitutional referendum as well, these require a 'double majority' (from the public) to pass as well as an absolute majority in both House of Parliament. Which means it needs a national majority of voters AND a majority of voters in a majority of states and territories.
  - Vecr 4y ago
    If your government tries to change it without the approval of the states, etc. (see constitutional amendments in the US), you kill the government. That's what the second amendment is for. To be pedantic, they are not the actual government anymore when they don't follow the constitution, but they have to be killed all the same to clear space for the new legitimate government.
    - j16sdiz 4y ago
      > They have to be killed Who have the power to do that? Does individual state have army?
      - magicalhippo 4y ago
        That's where the armed bears come into play, isn't it?
    - zaarn 4y ago

tpoacher 4y ago

In principle I agree, and will admit that for a second I marvelled at the wisdom of your forefathers. In practice, I fully expect that those rights are only a jedi mind-trick "Your rights are not being violated" away in any case where it is of actual consequence (e.g. Assange)

moistly 4y ago

> In the US, our rights are innate and inalienable. We possess them because we exist. Seems to me that about half your population no longer has an inalienable right to bodily autonomy. Not to mention that once your security apparatus gets involved, your rights are as ephemeral as gossamer. Cross the wrong cop and you’ll find that your rights are terminated. Permanently and with extreme prejudice. The Constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on once you attract the attention of the government and it’s forces. Same as any citizen in every country on this planet.

refurb 4y ago
The Constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on once you attract the attention of the government and it’s forces. Same as any citizen in every country on this planet. Clearly not true when you consider how many cases the government itself loses.
- moistly 4y ago
  We apparently have differing understandings about “inalienable.”
  - refurb 4y ago
    Clearly the government does. But that's the kicker. If the government does take inalienable rights away, you still have them, it's the gov't that needs correction, not the right.
yes_really 4y ago
> Seems to me that about half your population no longer has an inalienable right to bodily autonomy. You are more than a century late. The government has prohibited people from putting drugs in their bodies for a long time. Alcohol, illegal drugs, pharmaceutical drugs rejected by the FDA... There is no serious interpretation of "body autonomy" that gives the government the right to ban alcohol/drugs but doesn't give it the right to stop women from killing fetuses.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

watwut 4y ago

I dunno, usa does not sounds like shining beacon. Between qualified immunity, asset forfeiture, and general acceptance of cops right to shoot you cause you have hands wrong ... plus justice in us is so expensive, that you likely can't afford it in the first place.