DOCSLIB.ORG

Commission on a Bill of Rights 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

volu A UK Bill of Rights? The Choice Before Us Volume 1 December 2012 © Members of the Commission on a Bill of Rights 2012 You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ Any enquiries regarding this publication and copyright should be sent to us at [email protected] This publication is available for download on the Commission’s website at www.justice.gov.uk/about/cbr/index.htm Table of Contents Letter to Ministers 2 Terms of Reference 5 Our Approach to Our Work 6 Overview 8 Chapter 1: The Commission and its Work Programme 40 Chapter 2: The Constitutional Background to our Inquiry 45 Chapter 3: What is a Bill of Rights? 53 Chapter 4: The International Landscape of Human Rights 72 Chapter 5: The European Landscape of Human Rights 83 Chapter 6: Human Rights in the UK 102 Chapter 7: Arguments for and against a UK Bill of Rights 131 Chapter 8: The Language of Rights, Additional Rights, and Responsibilities 145 Chapter 9: Devolution and a UK Bill of Rights 163 Chapter 10: Promoting a Better Understanding of the UK’s Obligations under the Convention 169 Chapter 11: Further Reform of the European Court of Human Rights 172 Chapter 12: Conclusions 175 Individual Papers from Members 181 Unfinished Business, by Lord Faulks QC and Jonathan Fisher QC 182 A UK Bill of Rights, by Martin Howe QC 192 Entrenchment of a UK Bill of Rights, by Martin Howe QC 218 In Defence of Rights, by Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws QC and Professor Philippe Sands QC 222 A Personal Explanatory Note, by Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC 231 An Aspect of Strasbourg Court Reform, by Anthony Speaight QC 235 Devolution Options, by Anthony Speaight QC 243 Mechanisms of a UK Bill of Rights, by Anthony Speaight QC 257 A UK Bill of Rights? The Choice Before Us, Volume 1 | 1 2 | A UK Bill of Rights? The Choice Before Us, Volume 1 Sir Leigh Lewis KCB, Chair Post point 9.55 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ T: 020 3334 2486 E:enquiries@commissiononabillofrights. gsi.gov.uk Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP Deputy Prime Minister and Lord President of the Privy Council 70 Whitehall London SW1A 2AS Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ 18 December 2012 On 18 March 2011 the Government announced to Parliament the establishment of a Commission on a Bill of Rights and invited me to become its Chair. Our terms of reference asked that we aim to report no later than by the end of 2012. On behalf of the members of the Commission I now have pleasure in submitting our report. Yours sincerely Sir Leigh Lewis KCB Chair A UK Bill of Rights? The Choice Before Us, Volume 1 | 3 4 | A UK Bill of Rights? The Choice Before Us, Volume 1 Terms of Reference The Commission's terms of reference were: "[to] investigate the creation of a UK Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in UK law, and protects and extend our liberties. It will examine the operation and implementation of these obligations, and consider ways to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties. It should provide interim advice to the Government on the ongoing Interlaken process to reform the Strasbourg Court ahead of and following the UK’s Chairmanship of the Council of Europe. It should consult, including with the public, judiciary and devolved administrations and legislatures, and aim to report no later than by the end of 2012.” A UK Bill of Rights? The Choice Before Us, Volume 1 | 5 Our Approach to Our Work 1. Many Government commissions bring together a group of varied individuals to investigate, by the consideration of evidence and of the views of respondents, a topic on which they have little previous opinion. This Commission is different. It has been composed, and we must presume deliberately composed, of people who already had well defined views on the protection of fundamental rights. Those well defined viewpoints come from many different places in the political spectrum. 2. Our Chair comes from a different, non-legal, background and, fittingly, brought no strong pre-conceived views to our work. But his extensive experience at senior level in Government has brought a further dimension to our deliberations. 3. Therefore, whilst we have all found our thinking influenced, and sometimes substantially altered, by the responses and discussions which we have had over the past 18 months, our deliberations have also involved an in depth exploration of each other's long-standing convictions. This has been a process of identification of underlying values and aspirations. A central purpose, as we have seen it, of the Government assembling so politically disparate a group to examine a topic characterised by so much misunderstanding has been to ascertain whether differences might be more apparent than real. 4. This dialogue both with respondents and between ourselves has revealed surprisingly wide areas of agreement. It has also allowed us to identify the roots of our intellectual and political differences. We have not attempted to talk each other out of deeply held beliefs: not only would such an attempt have been futile, but it would not have served what we have perceived as our underlying purpose. Our aim has not been to find a lowest common denominator compromise, but to release from the fog of political banalities shared fundamental convictions which we genuinely hold. Those commentators who assumed that we would simply rehearse our different philosophies and prejudices would have been sadly disappointed if they had sat through our discussions. Indeed this country’s debate on human rights would be far better served by a genuine attempt to find that on which most sensible people would agree than by the polarised and sometimes exaggerated polemic which too often tends to characterise the debate currently. 5. It is important to say at the outset that we have all interpreted our terms of reference as treating the UK's continuing adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights as a ‘given’. They speak of a Bill that "builds on all our obligations under the” Convention. 6. There are obligations on a state under the Convention only so long as that state remains a contracting party to the treaty: so the wording of our terms of reference 6 | A UK Bill of Rights? The Choice Before Us, Volume 1 clearly, in our view, presupposes continuing adherence. Therefore, although during the period in which the Commission's work has been undertaken there have been a number of suggestions that the UK withdraw from the Convention, temporarily or permanently, we have not considered it to be within our scope to open that question. Accordingly, we do not in this report analyse arguments for and against the UK's continuing adherence to the Convention. 7. We have considered it to be an important part of our work to recognise the points at which there is a divergence of opinion, and identify the true source of that divergence. The most significant source of disagreement, albeit that it has important ramifications, is as to how creative a court should be: in particular, the issue arises in relation to the role and jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and of UK courts in interpreting and applying the Convention rights. 8. We are united in believing that there needs to be respect for the existence of differing intellectually coherent and valid viewpoints in relation to the human rights debate, and that the debate needs to be well informed and not distorted by the stereotypes and caricatures which have all too often characterised that debate in recent years. That is the fundamental approach that we ourselves have adopted in producing this report. It is also our first, agreed, conclusion. A UK Bill of Rights? The Choice Before Us, Volume 1 | 7 A UK Bill of Rights? – The Choice Before Us Overview Introduction 1. Few subjects generate more strongly-held views than that of human rights. Scarcely a week passes without the appearance of headlines supporting or condemning the latest human rights court judgment. Successive governments are routinely accused by their opponents of ignoring or reducing the rights of individuals. High profile court cases involving potential extradition or deportation turn increasingly on whether the human rights of those facing such action will be infringed. The media, politicians, commentators, academics and lawyers queue up to deliver their views, at times in colourful language, on the latest human rights controversy. Small wonder that the first casualty of such polemic is all too often serious analysis of the issues. 2. Into such waters was this Commission launched. Its members, the Chair apart, were nominated in equal part by the two coalition parties. Those who read this, our report, will form their own judgments of our work and its usefulness. But one thing is certain. As we have set out in our introductory chapter on our approach, we have not been willing as members of the Commission to be stereotyped along pre-ordained lines. We have debated. We have argued. We have put forward our views. But we have also listened to one another. And we have been willing to change our views and set aside our earlier opinions.
Recommended publications
  • High Court Judgment Template

    High Court Judgment Template

    Neutral Citation Number: [2019] EWHC 2381 (QB) Case No: CO/3385/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION DIVISIONAL COURT Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 11 September 2019 Before: THE RT HON THE LORD BURNETT OF MALDON LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES THE RT HON SIR TERENCE ETHERTON MASTER OF THE ROLLS THE RT HON DAME VICTORIA SHARP DBE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: THE QUEEN on the application of GINA MILLER Claimant and THE PRIME MINISTER Defendant and THE RT HON THE BARONESS CHAKRABARTI First Intervener CBE and THE COUNSEL GENERAL FOR WALES Second Intervener and THE RT HON SIR JOHN MAJOR KG CH Third Intervener and THE LORD ADVOCATE Fourth Intervener - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lord Pannick QC, Tom Hickman QC and Warren Fitt (instructed by Mishcon de Reya LLP) for the Claimant Sir James Eadie QC, David Blundell, Christopher Knight and Richard Howell (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Defendant Deok Joo Rhee QC (instructed by Howe & Co Solicitors) for the First Intervener Michael Fordham QC, Hollie Higgins and Celia Rooney (instructed by Legal Services Department, Welsh Government) for the Second Intervener Lord Garnier QC, Tom Cleaver and Anna Hoffmann (instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP) for the Third Intervener The Rt Hon W James Wolffe QC (Lord Advocate), James Mure QC, Alan Maclean QC and Christine O'Neill (instructed by Baker & McKenzie LLP) for the Fourth Intervener Hearing date: 5 September 2019 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment Approved by the Court R(Miller) v PM The Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ, Sir Terence Etherton MR, Dame Victoria Sharp P: 1.
  • A Four Nations Perspective 1 and Child Poverty Policies

    A Four Nations Perspective 1 and Child Poverty Policies

    Devolution and Child PovertyDevolution Policies — A Four Nations Perspective 1 and Child Poverty Policies A Four Nations Perspective Martin Rogers November 2019 Devolution and Child Poverty Policies — A Four Nations Perspective 2 Contents Preface 3 1.0 Introduction 4 2.0 Overview 5 2.1 Definitions 5 2.2 Numbers and trends 5 2.2.1 Absolute low income and absolute poverty 5 2.2.2 Evolution of poverty measures 7 3.0 Mapping UK nations approaches to child poverty 8 3.1 The Child Poverty Act 8 3.2 England 9 3.3 Wales 9 3.4 Scotland 10 3.5 Northern Ireland 11 4.0 Analysing poverty figures and policies 12 4.1 UK figures 12 4.2 England 13 4.3 Wales 15 4.4 Scotland 16 4.5 Northern Ireland 17 5.0 Discussion 19 6.0 Conclusion 20 7.0 Bibliography 21 Devolution and Child Poverty Policies — A Four Nations Perspective 3 Preface The British Academy has undertaken a programme of work that seeks to re-frame debates around childhood in both the public and policy spaces and break down academic, policy and professional silos in order to explore new conceptualisations of children in policymaking. The purpose of the policy case studies is to explore differences in approaches to policymaking around childhood taken by the governments of the four UK nations over the past 30 years. The subjects of the case studies (Young People Leaving Care and Child Poverty) have been selected because they exemplify some of the differences in the drivers of policy development across the four UK nations.
  • Parliamentary Privilege

    Parliamentary Privilege

    Patterns of change – parliamentary privilege How do the privilege provisions applying to Australia’s national parliament compare internationally? Has the curtailment of traditional provisions weakened the Parliament’s position? Bernard Wright Deputy Clerk, House of Representatives December 2007 PATTERNS OF CHANGE – PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE 2 1. Summary 1.1 The law of parliamentary privilege applying to Australia’s national parliament has undergone significant change, as has the way matters of privilege and contempt are dealt with. This paper examines the law in Australia in comparison to the provisions in other parliaments. It does so by summarising three key provisions and commenting on the law of privilege in the wider legal context. It refers to two models for the privileges and immunities which apply in contemporary parliaments, and notes the way key provisions are dealt with in each model. The paper refers to adaptations in this area of law in other parliaments and to assessments that have been made of the needs of modern legislatures. It suggests that, paradoxically, the processes that involved significant reductions in traditional provisions applying to Australia’s national parliament have strengthened the parliament. The paper ends by speculating about some of the issues that may arise in this area in the future1. 1 I am most grateful to Professor Geoff Lindell, who read through a draft of this paper and made very helpful suggestions for improvement - BW PATTERNS OF CHANGE – PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE 3 2. Privilege in the national Parliament – three key features Freedom of speech 2.1 Members of the national Parliament enjoy the privilege of freedom of speech2.
  • Parliamentary Privilege, Article 9 of the Bill of Rights and Admissibility: What Use Can Be Made of Parliamentary Materials in Litigation?

    Parliamentary Privilege, Article 9 of the Bill of Rights and Admissibility: What Use Can Be Made of Parliamentary Materials in Litigation?

    Parliamentary privilege, Article 9 of the Bill of Rights and admissibility: What use can be made of Parliamentary materials in litigation? I. INTRODUCTION 1. As the Court of Appeal observed recently, “…it has become relatively commonplace in public law proceedings for every last word spoken or written in Parliament to be placed before the court. In particular, debates are relied upon extensively when they should not be and, furthermore, the conclusions of select committees are prayed in aid with the court being asked to “approve” them. For the reasons summarised by Stanley Burnton J in his judgment in Office of Government Commerce v Information Comr (Attorney General intervening) [2010] QB 98, paras 46–48, that should not happen”: R (Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] QB 657 at ¶109. 2. The reason that Parliamentary materials should not be used in this way is, of course, Parliamentary privilege. There are two distinct aspects to this: Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689; and a wider principle known as the “exclusive cognisance” privilege. The former is statutory, whereas the latter is a feature of the common law. Article 9 cannot be waived even by Parliamentary resolution, but the exclusive cognisance principle can be: R v Chaytor [2011] 1 AC 684 at ¶¶61, 63, 68 per Lord Phillips and ¶130-131 per Lord Clarke. 3. This paper summarises the law in relation to both aspects of Parliamentary privilege (Sections II and III), and then discusses the resulting practical constraints in relying upon Parliamentary material in judicial review and other public law proceedings (Section IV).
  • 19 03 BR Tomkins.Pdf

    19 03 BR Tomkins.Pdf

    THE REPUBLICAN MONARCHY REVISITED THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION. By Walter Bagehot.1 Edited by Paul Smith.2 Cambridge University Press. 2001. Pp. xxxii, 253. $21.00 Adam Tomkins3 Of all the works of nineteenth-century British constitutional scholarship that have come down to us, two stand out. Among lawyers it is Dicel that continues to be revered above all others. But among communities of political scientists and journalists it is Bagehot who has that honor. The centenary of Bagehot's English Constitution was marked in 1967 with the publication of a new edition, edited by Richard Crossman. Crossman was a leading minister in the gov­ ernment of Harold Wilson, who was Prime Minister from 1964- 1970 and again from 1974-1976. Crossman's famous introduction to his edition of Bagehot was a masterpiece of reading the politi­ cal concerns and preoccupations of 1960s government into the work that Bagehot had written a century earlier, and as a result his introduction now looks very dated-indeed, it has withstood the test of time rather less impressively than have the far older words it introduced.5 Now the brilliant Cambridge University Press series of Texts in the History of Political Thought6 has added a new edition of Bagehot to its formidable list, this new edition edited and introduced by historian Paul Smith.7 To have the new scholarly edition alongside Crossman's more familiar one is welcome. A professional and historical (as opposed to popular and political) appraisal of Bagehot has been long com­ ing. It has been worth the wait. I. 1826-1877; English essayist, economist and journalist; editor of The Economist, 1860-1877.
  • Child Poverty in the UK (Target for Reduction) Bill, 2016-17

    Child Poverty in the UK (Target for Reduction) Bill, 2016-17

    BRIEFING PAPER Number 7891, 1 February 2017 Child Poverty in the UK By Feargal McGuinness (Target for Reduction) Bill, 2016-17 Contents: 1. The Bill 2. Policy developments since 2010 3. Statistics on child poverty www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 Child Poverty in the UK (Target for Reduction) Bill, 2016-17 Contents Summary 3 1. The Bill 4 2. Policy developments since 2010 5 2.1 The Child Poverty Act 2010 5 2.2 The Child Poverty Strategy 2011-14 and consultation on Measuring Child Poverty 6 2.3 Child Poverty Strategy 2014-17 7 2.4 The Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 and ‘life chances’ 8 2.5 Life chances strategy 9 3. Statistics on child poverty 11 3.1 What do the measures used in the Bill mean? 11 3.2 Recent trends and projections 12 Relative and absolute low income 12 Low income and material deprivation 14 Persistent poverty 14 Projections for child poverty 15 3.3 ‘Life chances’ indicators 17 Children in workless households 17 Educational attainment 18 Cover page image copyright: After school play by Nella2010. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 / image cropped. 3 Commons Library Briefing, 1 February 2017 Summary This briefing has been prepared ahead of second reading on the Child Poverty in the UK (Target for Reduction) Bill 2016-17, scheduled to occur on 3 February 2017. This Bill is a Private Members’ Bill (Ballot Bill), sponsored by Dan Jarvis MP. The Bill places a duty on the Secretary of State to meet four targets for child poverty by some target date (to be specified).
  • Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 NECPC Briefing Note (June 2016)

    Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 NECPC Briefing Note (June 2016)

    Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 NECPC Briefing Note (June 2016) 1. Background The Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 passed into law on 16th March 2016.1 It holds significant implications for how the Government seeks to define, measure and address child poverty in the UK. The Act marks a policy movement away from income-based measures of poverty and removes statutory obligations on local authorities to reduce child poverty. Instead, it emphasises tackling worklessness, improving educational attainment and supporting ‘troubled’ families as the most effective ways to address what the Government considers to be the ‘root causes’ of poverty. Later this year the Government will introduce its Life Chances Strategy, which will put forward a plan to, ‘tackle poverty and the causes of deprivation, including family instability, addiction and debt.’2 As part of this, the Government will introduce a new set of indicators for measuring life chances. This briefing summarises some key changes arising from the introduction of the Act, and outlines emerging areas of concern shared by the North East Child Poverty Commission (NECPC) and other commentators. 2. Provisions of the Act - Child poverty policy and measurement Key elements which impact on child poverty policy and accountability are as follows: i. The Act repeals sections 1-11, 15, 17 and 19-25 of the Child Poverty Act 2010. This effectively abolishes all legal targets to reduce child poverty, and removes the requirement for the Government to produce a Child Poverty Strategy. It also removes all Local Duties for local authorities to produce child poverty strategies and needs assessments.
  • Child Poverty Act 2010: a Short Guide

    Child Poverty Act 2010: a Short Guide

    Child Poverty Act 2010: a short guide Standard Note: SN/SP/5585 Last updated: 4 July 2014 Author: Steven Kennedy Section Social Policy Section In March 1999 Tony Blair announced a commitment to “eradicate” child poverty in the United Kingdom by 2020. Gordon Brown announced Labour’s intention to enshrine in law the 2020 child poverty target in a speech to the Labour Party Conference on 23 September 2008. The Child Poverty Act 2010, which received Royal Assent in March 2010, fulfilled the commitment to enshrine the child poverty target in legislation. It established four separate child poverty targets to be met by 2020/21, requires the UK Government to publish a regular UK child poverty strategy, requires the Scottish and Northern Irish Ministers to publish child poverty strategies, paved the way for a Child Poverty Commission to provide advice, requires the UK Government to publish annual progress reports, and places new duties on local authorities and other “delivery partners” in England to work together to tackle child poverty. The Child Poverty Bill received cross-party support but the Conservatives argued that the child poverty targets should focus on the underlying causes of poverty. The current Government amended the 2010 Act to expand the remit of the Commission to also provide advice on, and monitor progress towards improving, social mobility. The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, chaired by Alan Milburn, published its first annual State of the Nation report in October 2013. It concluded that the 2020 child poverty target was likely to be missed by a considerable margin, and that progress on social mobility could be undermined by the twin problems of youth unemployment and falling living standards.
  • Magna Carta and the Development of the British Constitution

    Magna Carta and the Development of the British Constitution

    Magna Carta and the development of the British constitution Robert Blackburn explains why, 800 years on, Magna Carta still has relevance and meaning to us in Britain today. agna Carta established the crucial idea that our rulers may not do whatever they like, but are subject to the law as agreed with the society over which Mthey govern. In establishing this point, the Charter laid the foundations for modern constitutionalism and provided the core principles on which all forms of governments should be based, whether monarchies, republics or democracies. Above all, the Charter affirmed some of the most important fundamental freedoms which were later to be embodied in written constitutions and international treaties all over the world. In a sense the Charter may be seen as ‘the first great act’ of the nation, by its guarantee of liberties ‘to all free men of the realm’ pointing the direction of travel towards the development of our representative institutions today. The content and intention of the Charter were naturally the product of time and circumstance. Included in the 63 clauses of the original 1215 version were a number that dealt with immediate political grievances, among them the release of hostages (clause 49) and the removal of King John’s foreign- born officials (clause 50). A primary concern of the Charter’s draftsmen was to remedy the king’s abuse of his feudal rights, by regulating, for example, payments in lieu of military service and control over the property of widows, minorities and intestate estates. At the same time, however, the Charter asserted some fundamental liberties, for example the freedom of the Church (clause 1: the English church shall be free ..) and freedom of movement abroad (clause 42: it shall be lawful for An illustration from the Wriothesley Garter Book of any man to leave and return to our kingdom unharmed and the Parliament of England assembled at Blackfriars in without fear, by land or water, preserving his allegiance to us, the year 1523.
  • Judiciary Rising: Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom

    Judiciary Rising: Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom

    Copyright 2014 by Erin F. Delaney Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 108, No. 2 JUDICIARY RISING: CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM Erin F. Delaney ABSTRACT—Britain is experiencing a period of dramatic change that challenges centuries-old understandings of British constitutionalism. In the past fifteen years, the British Parliament enacted a quasi-constitutional bill of rights; devolved legislative power to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland; and created a new Supreme Court. British academics debate how each element of this transformation can be best understood: is it consistent with political constitutionalism and historic notions of parliamentary sovereignty, or does it usher in a new regime that places external, rule-of- law-based limits on Parliament? Much of this commentary examines these changes in a piecemeal fashion, failing to account for the systemic factors at play in the British system. This Article assesses the cumulative force of the many recent constitutional changes, shedding new light on the changing nature of the British constitution. Drawing on the U.S. literature on federalism and judicial power, the Article illuminates the role of human rights and devolution in the growing influence of the U.K. Supreme Court. Whether a rising judiciary will truly challenge British notions of parliamentary sovereignty is as yet unknown, but scholars and politicians should pay close attention to the groundwork being laid. AUTHOR—Assistant Professor, Northwestern University School of Law. For helpful conversations during a transatlantic visit at a very early stage of this project, I am grateful to Trevor Allan, Lord Hope, Charlie Jeffery, Lord Collins, and Stephen Tierney.
  • Unenumerated Rights

    Unenumerated Rights

    OKLAHOMA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 62 WINTER 2010 NUMBER 2 BLACKSTONE’S NINTH AMENDMENT: A HISTORICAL COMMON LAW BASELINE FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF UNENUMERATED RIGHTS JEFFREY D. JACKSON* Table of Contents Introduction .............................................. 167 I. Historically Construing the Ninth Amendment: Whose Views Are Important? ............................................ 172 II. The Ninth Amendment in Context: Whose Rights? . 175 A. The English Constitution and the Rule of Law . 176 B. The Influence of Natural Law ............................ 179 C. The Framing ......................................... 185 D. The Ratification....................................... 188 III. Whose Common Law? ................................... 200 IV. What Does It Mean?..................................... 212 A. Some Conclusions..................................... 214 B. And Some Criticisms................................ 220 Conclusion ............................................... 222 Introduction The Ninth Amendment explicitly states that “[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”1 This seems to clearly indicate that there are * Associate Professor of Law, Washburn University School of Law. I would like to thank Bill Rich, Bill Merkel, John Bickers, Linda Elrod, Aida Alaka, and Joe McKinney for their helpful comments and input on this article. Thanks also to Washburn University School of Law for its research support, and to Angela Carlon, J.D., 2009, and Karl Wenger, J.D., 2008, for their research and input. 1. U.S. CONST. amend. IX. 167 168 OKLAHOMA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 62:167 rights other than those in the text of the Constitution that should be recognized as constitutional. Further, the United States Supreme Court has recognized a number of unenumerated rights under a variety of rationales.2 Nevertheless, the question of how to identify and give form to these rights still continues to pose problems for judges, lawyers, and legal scholars alike.
  • PRIMARY SOURCE from the English Bill of Rights

    PRIMARY SOURCE from the English Bill of Rights

    wh10a-IDR-0521_P13 11/25/2003 10:24 AM Page 13 Name Date CHAPTER PRIMARY SOURCE from the English Bill of Rights 21 After the Glorious Revolution in 1688 in which James II was overthrown, England’s absolute monarchy became a constitutional monarchy where laws lim- Section 5 ited royal power. In 1689, Parliament drafted a Bill of Rights, stating the rights of Parliament and of individuals. As you read a portion of the English Bill of Rights, think about what England’s monarchs could not do. The English Bill of Rights, 1689 of parliament, for longer time or in other man- ner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal. hereas the said late King James II having 5. That it is the right of the subjects to petition Wabdicated the government, and the throne the king, and all commitments and prosecutions being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of for such petitioning are illegal. Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to 6. That the raising or keeping a standing army make the glorious instrument of delivering this within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by be with consent of parliament, is against law. the advice of the lords spiritual and temporal, and 7. That the subjects which are Protestants may diverse principal persons of the Commons) caused have arms for their defense suitable to their letters to be written to the lords spiritual and tem- conditions, and as allowed by law. poral, being Protestants . to meet and sit at 8.