chris . # .

Why a constitutional Bill of Rights?: I like the idea that a head of state should have the responsibility of making sure any laws passed by parliament do not conflict with the rights of any person. But why does this need to be coded into a Bill or Rights? If, as you say, the HoS is competing for our vote by being the best at protecting what we feel are our rights,  does it really need to be coded into a legal document? Will having it written down do more to limit our rights to only what is written down, or prevent our rights from being eroded to less than what is written down?

I guess what I\'m wondering, is would the Bill of Rights become a minimum or maximum set of rights for the HoS to work from? IMHO The danger of a formal Bill of Rights, is that it becomes a maximum set of rights, (ie the HoS must be able to say \"I will not pass this law because it conflicts with this section of the Bill or Rights\") and then becomes outdated as society progresses and expects more rights. The danger of a minimum set (or no formal Bill or Rights at all), is a HoS who oversteps their bounds refusing to pass laws not because they strictly conflict with a persons rights, but because the HoS has managed to (tenuously) justify his or her ideology in terms of rights.