The birth of the Bill of rights, 1776-1791.

Mode of access: Internet.

The short Constitution ... being a consideration of the Constitution of the United States, with particular reference to the guaranties of life, liberty, and property contained therein, sometimes designated the Bill of rights,

Mode of access: Internet.

The Charters of freedom : the Bill of Rights.

Shipping list no.: 93-283-P.

The Bill of Rights and beyond, 1791-1991.

Mode of access: Internet.

The famous old charter of Rhode Island, granted by King Charles II., in 1663 : also, the Rhode-Island Bill of rights, and the Declaration of religious freedom.

Mode of access: Internet.

Where constitutional liberty came from : the origins and meaning of our Bill of Rights and constitutional government /

At head of title: Freedom agenda.

Teach about the Bill of Rights and beyond : a study guide for elementary & junior high schools.

Shipping list no.: 91-490-P.

Taxpayers' bill of rights : hearings before the Subcommittee on Private Retirement Plans and Oversight of the Internal Revenue Service of the Committee on Finance, United States Senate, One hundredth Congress, first session, on S. 579 and S. 604.

"June 22, 1987"--Pt. 2.

The Bill of Rights and beyond : a resource guide.

"September 1990."

Stephen Martin Leake: a Victorian's view of the Common Law

This article considers the life and work of Stephen Martin Leake and seeks to locate his work within the wider context of the procedural and substantive transformation of the mid-to-late Victorian legal world. In particular, the article attempts to rescue Leake from obscurity and emphasise his importance in this process. It is argued that Leake’s work began the process whereby common lawyers conceived of their law as organised in a principled rather than procedural manner. Later common law jurists built upon this work. Consideration is also given to the philosophical and jurisprudential sources upon which Leake drew in constructing his treatises.

Australian tort law reform: statutory principles of causation and the common law

By mid-2004, Parliaments in each Australian jurisdiction will either complete or will be in the process of partial codification of the law of torts. The reforms, including those to the law of negligence, are extensive. This article focuses on codification of the law of causation as an element of the cause of action in negligence. It examines the background to "tort reform", as the process has been labelled, and discusses the common law paradigm of negligence and various approaches to causation. It then analyses and compares the causation provisions in each jurisdiction.

Succession and Indigenous Australians : addressing Indigenous customary law notions of 'property' and 'kinship' in a succession law context

The purpose of this article is to critically evaluate the existing capacity of Indigenous people to exercise succession rights against their estate. This article begins with a discussion of the sources of the general succession laws in Australia, noting that they have derived from UK law, where the common law notions of property, property rights and family, including the expectational right to succeed to property, are all important factors. These common law notions do not easily fit within the spectrum of Indigenous customary law. Generally, many Indigenous Australians will die without executing a valid will (ie, they die intestate) and it is here that this article undertakes an examination of the general intestacy laws in all Australian jurisdictions noting the inadequacy of the provisions to recognise Indigenous persons’ spiritual and cultural obligations to property, land or otherwise, together with a failure to distinguish extended Indigenous kinship relationships under Indigenous customary law. It is argued that Indigenous people who die intestate should be supported by a flexible and adaptive intestacy framework, responsive to the full customary and cultural responsibilities of the deceased, thus promoting an organic and developmental approach to succession entitlements.

Modernising charity : steps to an alternative architecture for common law charity jurisprudence

This chapter addresses the question, how can the common law concept of charity law be modernised? There are difficulties with the present jurisprudential conception. The focus of the chapter is not on those difficulties, however, but rather on the development of an alternative architecture for common law jurisprudence. The conclusion to which the chapter comes is that charity law can be modernised by a series of steps to include all civil society organisations. It is possible if the ‘technical’ definition of charitable purpose is abandoned in favour of a contemporary, not technical concept of charitiable purpose. This conclusion is reached by proposing a framework, developed from the common law concept of charities, that reconciles into a cohesive jurisprudential architecture all of the laws applying to civil society organisations, not just charities. In this section, first the argument is contextualised in an idea of society and located in a gap in legal theory. An analogy is then offered to introduce the problems in the legal theory applying, not just to charities, but more broadly to civil society organisations. The substantive challenge of mapping an alternative jurisprudence is then taken in steps. The final substantive section conceptualises the changes inherent in a move beyond charities to a jurisprudence centred on civil society organisations and how this would bring legal theory into line with sectoral analysis in other disciplines.

Bills of Rights:A Comparative Perspective

Bills of rights are currently a much debated topic in various jurisdictions throughout the world. Almost all democratic nations, with the exception of Australia, now have a bill of rights. These take a variety of forms, ranging from constitutionally entrenched bills of rights, such as those of the United States and South Africa, to non-binding statements of rights. Falling between these approaches are non-entrenched, statutory bills of rights. As regards the latter, a model which has become increasingly popular is that of bills of rights based on interpretative obligations, whereby duties are placed upon courts to interpret national legislation in accordance with human rights standards. The aim of this book is to provide a comparative analysis of the bills of rights of a number of jurisdictions which have chosen to adopt such an approach. The jurisdictions considered are New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the Australian Capital Territory and the Australian state of Victoria.

There have been very few books published to date which contain a detailed comparative analysis of the bills of rights which this book addresses. The book adopts a unique thematic approach, whereby six aspects of the bills of rights in question have been selected for comparative analysis and a chapter is allocated to each aspect. This approach serves to facilitate the comparative discussion and emphasise the centrality of the comparative methodology.