At their most basic, human rights are designed to ensure that each person can live with dignity; free from fear, persecution and violence. There are two different types of constitutionally protected rights: express rights and implied rights. Express rights are explicitly defined in the text of the Constitution. Implied rights, however, are not, rather they are suggested or inferred in its text. Both the Australian and American political systems are based on principles of political equality, democracy and the preservation of human rights. Yet when it comes to safeguarding these rights, the American political system is more effective. Where the Australian system relies on constitutionally implied rights, legislative action and judicial interpretation,
…show more content…
In comparison to Australian Constitution’s implied rights, the US Bill of Rights entrenches the civil liberties of its citizens with the force of law. Amongst the intitial ten rights is the freedom of religion, speech and a fair jury. One point of contestability is political participation - people may not be asked to vote on a referendum for rights in the Bill of Rights to be changed, which in itself, impedes on the right to vote (Amendment 14 and 19). Despite this, the US Constitution is a comprehensive document that forms a durable mechanism by which the human rights of citizens are effectively safeguarded. The maximalist nature of the US Constitution alone provides a more efficient platform to protect rights than the implied rights in the Commonwealth …show more content…
Statutory attempts at rights protection is inefficient – the process is limited to addressing one right at a time; statutes are not exempt from Parliament modification (since it’s assent in 1975, the Racial Discrimination Act has been modified three times.) Comparatively, in the US, statutes are created to prescribe minor rights to a small fraction of society, without the struggle of amending the constitution (Pregnancy Discrimination Act). Statutory provisions for human rights is rare; a testament to the effectiveness of the US Bill of Rights. Thus, the protection of rights from a statutory standpoint is adequate in both the USA and Australia, however the latter, due to its reliance on an interdependent executive and legislative institution, is significantly less effective at safeguarding the human rights of
In comparison to Australian Constitution’s implied rights, the US Bill of Rights entrenches the civil liberties of its citizens with the force of law. Amongst the intitial ten rights is the freedom of religion, speech and a fair jury. One point of contestability is political participation - people may not be asked to vote on a referendum for rights in the Bill of Rights to be changed, which in itself, impedes on the right to vote (Amendment 14 and 19). Despite this, the US Constitution is a comprehensive document that forms a durable mechanism by which the human rights of citizens are effectively safeguarded. The maximalist nature of the US Constitution alone provides a more efficient platform to protect rights than the implied rights in the Commonwealth …show more content…
Statutory attempts at rights protection is inefficient – the process is limited to addressing one right at a time; statutes are not exempt from Parliament modification (since it’s assent in 1975, the Racial Discrimination Act has been modified three times.) Comparatively, in the US, statutes are created to prescribe minor rights to a small fraction of society, without the struggle of amending the constitution (Pregnancy Discrimination Act). Statutory provisions for human rights is rare; a testament to the effectiveness of the US Bill of Rights. Thus, the protection of rights from a statutory standpoint is adequate in both the USA and Australia, however the latter, due to its reliance on an interdependent executive and legislative institution, is significantly less effective at safeguarding the human rights of