Preston Byrne makes the comparison in a speech at the Free Speech Union.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
Economics |
25 comments to Bill of Rights vs. ECHRLeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Wow. That was fun!
J.D. Vance on double Adderall.
(Okay, to be fair: J.D. Vance without the need for polite diplomacy.)
Yes – the “details” of wording are important. For example, the American Bill of Rights and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man are often lumped together – they were written at about the same time and are supposed to be about freedom. But they are very different. The American Bill of Rights is about the rights of individual persons against the government, it is about limits on government power. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man (and the Citizen) is almost all about the rights of “the people” not individual persons against the state.
As for the ECHR – it is a sick joke, full of vague language that can be used by Collectivist judges to push terrible agendas. The United Nations Convention on Human Rights is much the same – Freedom of Speech – no (not really – the details of the wording GUT the right – the same is true of the European Convention), Right to Keep and Bear Arms – no, but there is a right to “holidays with pay”.
It would be funny if it was not so tragic. These later documents were written by socialists, such as Harold Laski, or by radical (fake) “liberals” such as E.H. Carr, or by idiots such as Jacques Maritain (a puppet of Saul Alinsky, who was an adviser to the future Pope Paul VI).
Garbage in – garbage out.
Whereas the Bill of Rights came from people steeped in both the principles of the Common Law (looking back to people such as Lord Chief Justice Sir John Holt and the British Bill of Rights) and the political philosophy of such men as Montesquieu.
The difference between British and American legal and political thought goes back to Sir William Blackstone.
Blackstone believed that Parliament could do anything it felt like doing – he hoped Parliament would be reasonable, but if it felt like being tyrannical – oh dear, how sad, never mind. The British establishment seized on Blackstone as a justification for whatever they felt like doing, thus rejecting the principles of the OLD Common Law as understood by such thinkers as Chief Justice Sir Edmund Coke (the case of Dr Bonham was directed against Parliament – not just the King, and as Coke said it can NOT be a crime to practice a trade or profession without a piece of paper called a license or permit or any other such thing, that is not a crime in the sense of the word that the Common Law understands), or Chief Justice Sir John Holt.
Contrary to what some books say, the American Founding Fathers were very clear in their REJECTION of the ideas of Blackstone – indeed the Constitution of the United States, especially the Bill of Rights, might be summed up as down-with-Blackstone – who was, in his central political principle of unlimited power, just Thomas Hobbes wearing the wig of a lawyer. After all Thomas Hobbes was a servant of Sir Francis Bacon – the great enemy of Sir Edward Coke in the struggle within English law (Bacon holding that “enlightened” government could do anything it liked – and there were no rights AGAINST the government).
But this must not be exaggerated – it was only the establishment elite in Britain who embraced Blackstone (and Hobbes and Hume – and Bentham), most people still thought they had rights (in the traditional sense – rights against the state, basic liberties) – most people felt this up to at least the First World War – the British Constitutional Club network was very extensive, and the British National Rifle Association was bigger than the American one.
Great stuff!
One of the odd things about the doctrine that Parliament being, according to Blackstone, being able to do anything it feels like doing – is that it has ended up with Parliament having LESS power, as if Parliament can do “anything” it can give away its powers to unelected officials and agencies – as has been happening for many years. Disraeli warned against it in the 19th century (it is the only political matter with which I agree with him), and Chief Justice Hewart pointed to it in his book “The New Despotism” in 1929.
It can not be otherwise – and was obvious even in Blackstone’s own lifetime.
For example, when Sir Robert Walpole got Parliament to agree to the censorship of plays (via creating a moral panic, by showing them a horrible play, supporting murder-rape-incest…., that he himself had secretly had written, his real motive being to get an excuse for POLITICAL censorship) – it was obviously impractical for Parliament to read each play and decide if it should be allowed, so the Lord Chamberlain was given the power, and even Members of Parliament no longer had the freedom to attend plays the government opposed.
Today “Ofcom” censors broadcasting – and so the internet.
John Locke argued that Parliament had no powers by-right, it only had powers delegated to it by the people – and that as these were delegated powers, Parliament could NOT itself delegate them to officials – but Blackstone would have none of that.
Parliament, by claiming absolute and unlimited power, in practice has less and less power – with bodies such as Ofcom, or the “Bank of England”, or the “Office of Budget Responsibility” having the real power – increasingly international bodies and agreements (and the Blarite judges that make judgements about them) having the real power.
I am reminded of what Edmund Burke (and his son) said about the French monarchy – by claiming absolute and unlimited power under Louis XIV (the Sun King), the French monarchy (by undermining the power of all traditional supports – such as the nobility, who were made into painted fops at Court, with no political power or independence) ended up with no real power at all under Louis XVI – just an isolated individual (the King) with no foundational civil society forces to support him.
The United Kingdom Parliament seems to be going down the same dark road.
I was often told (and can’t confirm if it’s basically correct) that the difference between English common law and French civil law was the former says what you can’t do and the latter what you can do, the phrase “there’s no law against it” isn’t true in civil law.
I’d wager ECHR laws are along the lines of the French variety, the sort that most tyrannies enthusiastically adopt and most liberal democracies now reject.
That was wonderful stuff. I would have hoped for riotous applause.
We desperately need a constitution which cannot be simply overruled by Parliament(ary blackguards).
Madison didn’t even think we needed a Bill of Rights. After all, the government was made up of us and we would never willingly make laws to oppress ourselves would we?
Then people like Jefferson said, “are you new here? Of course we’ll make laws to oppress ourselves because that’s what governments do!”
And after that, Madison thought about it and got on board with the Bill of Rights.
The biggest problem is judges just decide the plain and simple language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights doesn’t actually mean what it says. For example, the Sixth Amendment guarantees free and open courts. But judges have said that doesn’t mean trials necessarily need to be free and open to the public. That’s why we’ve ended up with things like closed courts for cases involving minors, divorces, intelligence and military matters. My copy of the BoR doesn’t say “…except…” but judges have simply assumed it does.
Runcie Balspune – the old Common Law was indeed, basically, based on the non aggression principle – that a crime was an aggression against the body or goods of someone else. That is why, for example, Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke pointed out (in the case of Doctor Bonham – 1610, the same year as Sir Francis Bacon’s totalitarian “The New Atlantis”) that practicing a trade or profession without a piece of paper called a “license” or permit, can NOT be a crime – regardless of that the King or Parliament said.
Roman Law started from much the same founding principle “hands off me and my stuff” – but became partly corrupted over time just as Common Law has (to some extent) being corrupted.
French Law comes from the Code Napoleon which has a Roman Law base.
But, both in Britain and France, it is mad STATUTES and vile international agreements that are the true problem – even the most corrupt judges need something to work with, and statutes by “legislatures” and international agreements, give them that.
Steven R. – James Madison did indeed go on an intellectual journey, President Madison was a much better thinker (from a pro liberty point of view) than the James Madison of the Convention in Philadelphia – who was a bit closer to Alexander Hamilton than the older Madison liked to admit. By the time he worked on the Bill of Rights the intellectual journey of James Madison was only partly completed – later on he wished the wording (particularly of the 10th Amendment) had been a little bit tighter.
For the other point of view on the Bill of Rights the hard headed Roger Sherman (the only man to sign all of the founding documents) springs to mind.
Roger Sherman argued that it did not matter what pretty language was used concerning liberty – if the new government spent a lot of money and started to produce money-from-nothing to cover its position (and the position of its commercial friends) then the new government would become a tyranny – regardless of any Bill of Rights. What mattered to Roger Sherman was hard (commodity) money, and strictly limiting government spending – without that, he argued, all the other words would not be worth a Tinker’s Curse.
Cynical – but the old Puritan had a point.
You can add Canada to the list of countries that have a charter of rights and freedoms that doesn’t guarantee individual rights and freedoms.
There was merit to the idea of “if we start to itemize, we have to itemize for everything, so let’s not.”
Broad expressions of philosophy were deemed, at the beginning, to be preferable to specific listings of powers and prohibitions. From a wide statement of principle, one can infer the correct rulings.
But then, I think, they started to give more thought to how broad expressions left a freedom to prostitute the language. As originally written, the Constitution was sufficient for people of good faith. But not all people act in good faith.
You can’t have a Bill of Rights US style without a US style constitution.
I wish we had both.
@Clovis Sangrail
We desperately need a constitution which cannot be simply overruled by Parliament
I’m not sure you do. I mean if it was being written by amazingly wise people from the 18th century, perhaps. But if you had a consitution it would be written by the current lot of bozos. And after they wrote it, you’d be stuck with it.
Here’s your new bill of rights:
1. Parliament shall guarantee that the climate does not destructively change our world, and will enforce this with legislation.
2. Recognizing the multi faceted society we live in, all people shall be free of discriminate on the basis of their self identification.
3. No cruel and unusual punishment, such as imprisonment and fines, shall be inflicted on those who suffered a disadvantaged childhood
4. The right of the people to express their views shall not be abridged by parliament, unless it is offensive or disinformation
5. A well regulated society being necessary for the safety of our children, the right to keep and bear arms shall be reserved only for the state and those it deems worthy
6. The right of the people to keep the fruits of their labour is guaranteed as long as they pay their fair share.
In fact, you kind of have a constitution, or at least a bill of rights. It is called ECHR.
The US constitution is, in my opinion, little short of a miracle. That it should be drafted in such a way by men who were both utterly remarkable and utterly vile at the same time is nothing short of amazing. That men would be offered power and refuse it in favor of the public is a rare event indeed. Such a document is not easy to repeat.
Amen. This is why I run screaming from the room whenever anyone says “let’s have a Constitutional Convention!”
If we do that, we’ll end up with a monstrosity akin to the South African constitution – 200 pages plus ten pounds of appendices. It will consist of all of the statutory listings that make up the Democrat wishlist, enshrined with a supermajority requirement for change.
It would indeed be wonderful for the UK to have a US style constitution, but failing that we should at least have the right to choose our leader rather than have him or her foisted upon us by the ‘elite’ scum.
@bobby b
Amen. This is why I run screaming from the room whenever anyone says “let’s have a Constitutional Convention!”
It is kind of like the current left’s view of free speech. It is great as long as only I get to do it. A constitutional convention where only people who think like me were invited would be AMAZING.
In fact it is like government as a whole. The idea of government would be awesome if they’d just let me King and everyone did what I said. FWIW, I’d write a great constitution for the UK. Unfortunately riff raff like me are the last type of people who’d get to contribute. And much to my disappointment, they wouldn’t even let me inside Buckingham Palace, never mind take over the place. Apparently that is frowned upon.
@Fraser Orr Were a constitution simply to be passed by 50.01% of the current lot at Westminster then it would indeed be a disaster and were now the time of its passing then it would be equally problematic.
What I was thinking (and perhaps I am being hopelessly optimistic) is that a constitution would need at least a 67% majority (as would any amendment) and that only those on the libertarian right would be minded to kick off the enterprise.
Let me put it this way-our current constitutional settlement, which accords absolute power to Parliament, effectively guarantees a dictatorship of, at best, the (bare) majority.
However, I’m sure you would make a great king (bobby b as Chancellor/Grand Vizier?), so perhaps I should just campaign for that.
Clovis Sangrail.
Absolute power to Parliament in theory – means, in practice, that Parliament has less-and-less power.
As we have seen – power ends up in he hands of officials.
bobby b – yes a Constitutional Convention would be a disaster.
What is needed is for Supreme Court Justices to enforce the Constitution-as-written.
The terrible “gold clause” cases of 1935, which de facto decided that it was O.K. for the government to steal all privately owned monetary gold and to violate all contracts public-and-private, were 5-to-4 judgments.
If just one more Justice had been honest, if four, rather than five, Justices had been corrupt – then the growth of the Federal Government would have been stopped in its tracks.
“But then President Roosevelt might have felt undermined, he might have resigned – and Jack Nance Garner would have been President”.
If someone says that (as if it would have been a bad thing) – the correct response is to say “oh dear, how sad, never mind”.
@Paul
You know the facts better than me, but isn’t that because Parliament has delegated its absolute power?
If Parliament were to enact a repudiation of that delegation, with the act drafted by competent draftsmen, would that not instantly reverse that position?
Court jester. I want to be court jester.
@bobby b
Done.
I’ll just dig out the pig’s bladder and a stick.
Clovis. You are right. The problem, from a pragmatic point of view, is that as the functions taken on by the state over the last century have increased it has become less realistic for there to be genuine parliamentary accountability for all of them. The state’s response has been, in cases too numerous to mention, to hive off direct responsibility for the functions to a Quango which then often develops pet policies of its own that it is difficult for Ministries or parliament to change or reverse. Of course we can debate how many of those functions should have been taken on by the state in the first place and which of them it was right to delegate to a Quango but on those questions there would be wide spreads of opinion.
It seems to me that it is that sort of problem arising from the creation of Government agencies that develop an agenda of their own that Trump’s DOGE is tackling; I think it is probably right that if is to succeed it has to be done brutally.
@David Norman
Yes, DOGE and Musk are showing the way.
Of course, we could never do that, or so I’m told.
I think adopting the US Bill of rights would be a good start, minus a few clauses. It came from us mostly anyway.