cam . # .

Explicitly coding the minimum of rights: The Bill of Rights can be an additive constitutional document. If there is need for it, referendums can be held to add new explicit rights to it. Unfortunately it will have to be explicit even if it leaves some rights out. Politicians without an explicit legal limit on their power will claim they rule the earth and the sun.

Without a Bill of Rights to limit the HoS, soon the HoS will be claiming having the ferries (or trains) run on time is a natural right, and usurp the power of the Prime Minister that way. Alternatively without an explicit document on the bare minimum of rights, the PM will ride roughshod over minorities.

The Bill of Rights has to represent the minimum of codified rights that the people want to be protected absolutely. I agree with you though, codifying them gives the appearance that the document contains all an individuals natural and political rights, by the same token even with the protection of such a bill, governments still do not follow it.

But at least an explicit bill of rights gives the judicial a framework to make legal judgements, and in the case of a rights refereee HoS political judgements.

cam