Ping ATB.

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:


Greg Procter wrote:



If you were to stop ranting and think for a moment - well perhaps in
your case for a long time - you might be able to tell me what your
Constitution is intended for. Then we can consider the difference with
what the NZ constitution stands for.
I know it's tough, but try to bear with me on this one.

What difference does it make what the US Constitution stands for.

The issue is whether or not NZ had a constitution.
According to the NZ government, the answer is "yes".



The New Zealand Government has a constitution.
You'll notice I write "US Constitution" - that refers to one of the
"Founding Documents" of the United States and the United States form of
government.
It is, if I understand the situation correctly, something that US
citizens consider important to their rights etc.
The NZ Government constitution, on the other hand is a total irrelevance
to government and rights here in New Zealand.
Our 'Rights' are set out in the Magna Carta of 1215 and Law Precedence
since that date. In fact they are set out in reverse, the Law and
Precedence tells us what we _can't_ do and the Magna Carta tells our
Government what it _can't_ do.
That leaves everything else as our 'freedoms and rights'. You poor
yanks, on the other hand, have a very limited, defined set of "rights
and freedoms" which cannot be added to if situations change,

In another post, I pointed out the 9th Ammendment to the US
Constitution, which talks about "unenumerated rights".

Now back to a listing of Rights.
Can you explain the NZ Bill of Rights and how it doesn't contain a
listing of rights similar to the US Constitution?

http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/repo...ts-guidelines/


How could it possibly list all our rights???

You've quoted a page of _guidelines_, not a bill of rights.

Are you an idiot?
I pointed ot the link explaining the NZ Bill of Rights.
Do I actually need to post the link to the actual Bill of Rights for you
to admit there is one that list rights in NZ?


Not at all - who cares? It's irrelevant.
Our "Rights" are covered in the Magna Carta and subsequent legal
precidents.


http://www.hrc.co.nz/hrc/worddocs/BI...%20version.doc

So, there it is, a document listing the rights, after you claimed NZ was
better than the US, because our constitution limited our rights, which
as indicated clearly in the 9th Ammendment to the US Constitution, does
not. Additionally, NZ has it's own Bill of Rights that list these
rights, and you claimed there was no such list of rights similar to the
US constitution's list.


I claimed the "New Zealand constitution" isn't a document like the "US
Constitutution" which is a founding document of the US nation and one
USAians consider important. The New Zealand one neither adds nor
subtracts anything from New Zealand law and/or New Zealand citizens'
rights.

Sure, at the beginning of this discussion I overlooked the fact that
such a web-page existed - it is a total irrelevance to NZ life and law.

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


First, note, the first 10 Ammendments were not rights given after the
constitution, but rights that were already in effect.



The New Zealand constitution has 10 amendements????

No, I am referring to the US Constitutiions's first 10 ammendments, know
as the Bill of Rights.



Hmmm, we're apparently talking about a New Zealand Constitution, but you
bring in the "US Bill of Rights" unannounced.

You are really an idiot.
You are the one who mentioned the NZ Constitution was unlike the US
Constitution and NZ'ers aren'tlimited in their rights Americans are by
the Constitution.

I pointed out two things wrong with those comments

1. New Zealand has a Bill of Rights that enumberates rights,
2. Ammendment 9 of the US Constitution indicates there are rights that
are not enumerated, but still exist.

Greg Procter wrote:

Sure, at the beginning of this discussion I overlooked the fact that
such a web-page existed - it is a total irrelevance to NZ life and law.

Forget the damn web page explaining the NZ Bill of Rights.
I am talking about the NZ Bill of Rights
How is the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act not relevant to NZ law?
Well, then I suppose YOUR govenment is a bit confused, spending so much
time and money on an Act that is irrelevant to NZ law and life.
So, before you start complaining about our governemnt, perhaps you
should take a look at your government, or at least understand it.

Why do you feel the only rights a US citizen has are listed in the US
Constitution? Did you not understand Article 9? If you are going to
condemn the document, at least read the damn thing.

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


First, note, the first 10 Ammendments were not rights given after the
constitution, but rights that were already in effect.



The New Zealand constitution has 10 amendements????

No, I am referring to the US Constitutiions's first 10 ammendments, know
as the Bill of Rights.



Hmmm, we're apparently talking about a New Zealand Constitution, but you
bring in the "US Bill of Rights" unannounced.

You are really an idiot.
You are the one who mentioned the NZ Constitution was unlike the US
Constitution

Right - you actually took some notice!

and NZ'ers aren'tlimited in their rights Americans are by
the Constitution.

Exactly!


I pointed out two things wrong with those comments

1. New Zealand has a Bill of Rights that enumberates rights,

Assuming you mean something other than that which you have written, the
US Constitution is a founding document of US law.
The New Zealand constitution is some obscure web-page provided by the NZ
government because the US thinks we might need one someday, somehow. We
haven't needed one since 1215 (the _year_ 1215, not early in the
lunchbreak)

2. Ammendment 9 of the US Constitution indicates there are rights that
are not enumerated, but still exist.

Sure, but they are not 'enumerated' so you don't know what they are.
sheesh

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

Sure, at the beginning of this discussion I overlooked the fact that
such a web-page existed - it is a total irrelevance to NZ life and law.

Forget the damn web page explaining the NZ Bill of Rights.
I am talking about the NZ Bill of Rights

Where is it?

How is the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act not relevant to NZ law?

New Zealand law pre-exists before this so-called Bill of Rights.
The "Bill of Rights" makes no difference to our already existing rights.
It neither adds nor subtracts from them and lists only a tiny proportion
of them.
So exactly what relevance can it have?


Well, then I suppose YOUR govenment is a bit confused, spending so much
time and money on an Act that is irrelevant to NZ law and life.


Exactly, most NZers would agree with that. In facr many said exactly
that long before the thought entered your little head.


So, before you start complaining about our governemnt, perhaps you
should take a look at your government, or at least understand it.

Way ahead of you, Robin!


Why do you feel the only rights a US citizen has are listed in the US
Constitution? Did you not understand Article 9? If you are going to
condemn the document, at least read the damn thing.

Nahh, you've totally failed to understand the whole point of this
discussion.

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


"Mr. Travel" wrote:


Greg Procter wrote:



First, note, the first 10 Ammendments were not rights given after the
constitution, but rights that were already in effect.



The New Zealand constitution has 10 amendements????

No, I am referring to the US Constitutiions's first 10 ammendments, know
as the Bill of Rights.



Hmmm, we're apparently talking about a New Zealand Constitution, but you
bring in the "US Bill of Rights" unannounced.

You are really an idiot.
You are the one who mentioned the NZ Constitution was unlike the US
Constitution


Right - you actually took some notice!


and NZ'ers aren'tlimited in their rights Americans are by
the Constitution.


Exactly!


I pointed out two things wrong with those comments

1. New Zealand has a Bill of Rights that enumerates rights,


Assuming you mean something other than that which you have written

No, I am referring to the NZ Bill of Rights Act of 1990
Did you understand NZ has a Bill of Rigths written into law?

, the
US Constitution is a founding document of US law.
The New Zealand constitution is some obscure web-page provided by the NZ
government because the US thinks we might need one someday, somehow. We
haven't needed one since 1215 (the _year_ 1215, not early in the
lunchbreak)

NZ wasn't a a coutnry in 1215.




2. Ammendment 9 of the US Constitution indicates there are rights that
are not enumerated, but still exist.


Sure, but they are not 'enumerated' so you don't know what they are.
sheesh

So, you don't understand the 9th Amendment?

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


Sure, at the beginning of this discussion I overlooked the fact that
such a web-page existed - it is a total irrelevance to NZ life and law.

Forget the damn web page explaining the NZ Bill of Rights.
I am talking about the NZ Bill of Rights


Where is it?

It's your country's damn Act, surely you can find it?



How is the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act not relevant to NZ law?


New Zealand law pre-exists before this so-called Bill of Rights.

The "Bill of Rights" makes no difference to our already existing rights.
It neither adds nor subtracts from them and lists only a tiny proportion
of them.

Sooner or later, you might get my point. Stop pretending NZ'ers have
more rights than Americans.

The US Bill of Rights in our constitution DOES NOT limit rights to
those listed, just like the NZ Bill of Rights. Take a few seconds, read
the 9th Ammendment to the US Constitution. In fact many of the founding
fathers believed the US Bill of Rights did not need to be added, since
it might lead some people to believe the the rights we have are limited
to those. The purpose of the 9th Ammendment was to clearly specify the
rights outline in the Bill of Rights were NOT the only rights.

James Madison expressed his concern when presenting the amendments to
the House of Representatives.

''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by
enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would
disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it
might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled
out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General
Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most
plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of
rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded
against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the
last clause of the fourth resolution.''

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


"Mr. Travel" wrote:


Greg Procter wrote:



First, note, the first 10 Ammendments were not rights given after the
constitution, but rights that were already in effect.



The New Zealand constitution has 10 amendements????

No, I am referring to the US Constitutiions's first 10 ammendments, know
as the Bill of Rights.



Hmmm, we're apparently talking about a New Zealand Constitution, but you
bring in the "US Bill of Rights" unannounced.

You are really an idiot.
You are the one who mentioned the NZ Constitution was unlike the US
Constitution


Right - you actually took some notice!


and NZ'ers aren'tlimited in their rights Americans are by
the Constitution.


Exactly!


I pointed out two things wrong with those comments

1. New Zealand has a Bill of Rights that enumerates rights,


Assuming you mean something other than that which you have written

No, I am referring to the NZ Bill of Rights Act of 1990
Did you understand NZ has a Bill of Rigths written into law?

It wouldn't be a "Bill of Rights" if it wasn't written into law.
New Zealand was founded 150 years before 1990 so it's not a document
anyone cares about, it's not a document that makes any changes, it's not
a document that actually achieves anything.


, the
US Constitution is a founding document of US law.
The New Zealand constitution is some obscure web-page provided by the NZ
government because the US thinks we might need one someday, somehow. We
haven't needed one since 1215 (the _year_ 1215, not early in the
lunchbreak)

NZ wasn't a a coutnry in 1215.

That is the document that is the basis of the laws that protect our
rights - yes, our law dates back, unbroken, to 1215.




2. Ammendment 9 of the US Constitution indicates there are rights that
are not enumerated, but still exist.


Sure, but they are not 'enumerated' so you don't know what they are.
sheesh

So, you don't understand the 9th Amendment?

Why would I care?

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


Sure, at the beginning of this discussion I overlooked the fact that
such a web-page existed - it is a total irrelevance to NZ life and law.

Forget the damn web page explaining the NZ Bill of Rights.
I am talking about the NZ Bill of Rights


Where is it?

It's your country's damn Act, surely you can find it?



How is the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act not relevant to NZ law?


New Zealand law pre-exists before this so-called Bill of Rights.

The "Bill of Rights" makes no difference to our already existing rights.
It neither adds nor subtracts from them and lists only a tiny proportion
of them.

Sooner or later, you might get my point. Stop pretending NZ'ers have
more rights than Americans.


Of course we do - for a start we don't have to go off to fight in some
foreign country where the US is determined to eliminate all rights and
freedoms.



The US Bill of Rights in our constitution DOES NOT limit rights to
those listed, just like the NZ Bill of Rights.


The "NZ Bill of Rights" is a total irrelevance - it merely attempts to
state some of the rights we already have in reverse manner to the way
they are already stated in our laws.
The "US Bill of Rights" is your base document.


Take a few seconds, read
the 9th Ammendment to the US Constitution.

Why? It's a total irrelevance.


In fact many of the founding
fathers believed the US Bill of Rights did not need to be added, since
it might lead some people to believe the the rights we have are limited
to those.


Ahh, so there were once some smarter yanks!


The purpose of the 9th Ammendment was to clearly specify the
rights outline in the Bill of Rights were NOT the only rights.


LOL, so you're saying it negates the effects of the rest of the Bill.
you yanks are soooo sad


James Madison expressed his concern when presenting the amendments to
the House of Representatives.

''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by
enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would
disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it
might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled
out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General
Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most
plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of
rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded
against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the
last clause of the fourth resolution.''

Greg Procter wrote:




It wouldn't be a "Bill of Rights" if it wasn't written into law.
New Zealand was founded 150 years before 1990 so it's not a document
anyone cares about, it's not a document that makes any changes, it's not
a document that actually achieves anything.


So, why are you suggesting the rights of people are more restrictive
then the rights of people in NZ? We both have Bills of Rights. Both Bill
Of Rights are clearly NOT the only rights of the people in our
respective countries, except you have trouble comprehending the US
document that states this for US citiszens.



That is the document that is the basis of the laws that protect our
rights - yes, our law dates back, unbroken, to 1215.

Yes, and NZ is the only country in the world that would have used the
Magna Carta. I mean, it wouldn't be the basis for anything in the US,
right? WRONG.



So, you don't understand the 9th Amendment?


Why would I care?

You stated the rights of US citizens were listed in the Constitution and
since only a few rights are listed, Americans don't have any others.
The 9th Amendment directly disputes your statement.