Participant Bill Of Rights & Responsibilities: Fill & Download for Free

Nothing.Goods and services are not Rights.No one has a right to be given money, or a free education, or a high-paying job, or free healthcare, or a comfortable lifestyle.You have to earn it. Life is not made of participation trophies.

The debate of the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives was journaled, and we have those journals; I’ve written about the House debate on Quora before (see Kelly Kinkade's answer to Who wrote the definition of the 2nd Amendment, Hamilton or Jefferson?). But the House journals provide fairly little information about the development of the language of the Second Amendment because the language the House adopted was completely rewritten by the Senate, and it is the Senate’s language that was ultimately proposed to the States for ratification. The early Senate conducted all of its debate on this topic (indeed on all topics) in secret, and did not keep any journals; thus, we have very little information about what was in the minds of the Senators as they rewrote the House’s proposed language into the language we have today. What little we do know is based on the private letters of various Senators who participated in the process, some of which were written years after the fact.There are various public articles contemporaneous to the debate on the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights arguing in favor of the Bill of Rights and of specific components of the Bill of Rights, including Article IV (what is now the Second Amendment), and some insight into what some people believed the Second Amendment meant at that time can thus be gleaned. Whether these articles are representative of the view of the Framers generally is less obvious: people who agree with the views presented in those articles tend to insist that they are, while those who disagree tend to be less willing to accept such a position.It’s my opinion that the language of Article IV was deliberately equivocal, meaning different things to different people, and was adopted precisely because this equivocality is what made it possible for the Article to achieve a two-thirds vote in the Senate and the affirmation of three-quarters of the states. Anyone who insists that the meaning, or intent, of the article is “obviously” one thing or another is almost certainly engaged in advocacy rather than critical analysis. Because of this intrinsic equivocality and the lack of hard historical evidence, it’s my position that attempts to divine the “true meaning” of the article from the historical record are inevitably doomed to failure. Such efforts invariably end up simply reflecting the established ideological disposition of the person doing the seeking, and thus add no more weight to the debate than if the person had simply said “I say it means this!”

Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, SO 1993, c 28 - OntarioThe law requires minimum standards of public participation when the government wants to change a law related to the environment.Last year, the Ontario government repealed it’s carbon cap and trade scheme when a new government took power. Greenpeace sued under the Bill of Rights, saying that the government was required to hold public consultation before repealing the law.The court agreed. The law fell within the scope of the Bill of Rights. There should have been public consultation before it was repealed.But the court did nothing about it. The Act is silent on what happens if consultation isn’t done, particularly if the law has already been repealed.That’s what I call a pointless law.Greenpeace Canada v. Minister of the Environment (Ontario), 2019 ONSC 5629 (CanLII), <2019 ONSC 5629 (CanLII)>