This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.
What follows is an argument in favour of a billofrights that is subject to legislative and judicial review.
A billofrights does not negate political responsibility to legislate in the public interest.
Most commentators assume that a billofrights will only be effective if it allows judges to correct rights infringements that have occurred in legislation.
This billofrights did not have an appreciable effect on government decisions.
This omission could have serious consequences for the vitality of a billofrights.
In so doing it questions the logic and justification for exclusive reliance on judicial interpretation of a billofrights.
While the new constitution enshrines a billofrights, poverty, unemployment and illiteracy remain essential obstacles to the enjoyment of any rights.
The adoption of a billofrights signals a political community's decision to utilize rights to evaluate the appropriateness of state actions.
Although these concerns are often used to justify rejecting a billofrights, this article takes a different position.
Few contemplate legislative review and assume that the primary political obligation under a billofrights is to redress judicially identified problems in legislation.
This is that for a billofrights to be effective, judicial interpretation must prevail over political judgement.
Most view a billofrights as an explicit restraint on legislative and executive powers.
A more complete interpretation of the scope of a billofrights is that it protects individuals from inappropriate state actions.
See all examples of bill of rights
These examples are from corpora and from sources on the web. Any opinions in the examples do not represent the opinion of the Cambridge Dictionary editors or of Cambridge University Press or its licensors.