Originally Posted by :
The claim that we do not have a written constitution is usually made in comparison of the codification of the American constitution, which is Masonic, and was made at one time

You show your ignorance and obsessive bias. The US Constitution was originally drafted and passed in one go, as a unified, codified document. Some, but not all, of the authors are known to have been Freemasons. That doesn't make it Masonic, whatever that means.

The US Constitution has been amended 27 times, including a Bill of Rights The present constitution was not made in one go.
[Rep]

aarable, I realise that you have confused Margaret and Elizabeth Beckett and misspelt her surname, that makes it harder to discover the origins of what you have produced.

Elizabeth Beckett is not an expert on constitutional law and has never been examined in the subject. She has not been peer reviewed by debating with other students of the law, she has never written an essay or analysis that has been reviewed by a qualified constitutional lawyer and she has not studied on an accredited course of constitutional law. She is described on a number of blogs as a 'student' of constitutional law. I was examined at degree level on the subject of constitutional law by a person who drafted the constitutions of Pakistan and Bangla Desh and I would never consider myself an expert in the way you project Ms Beckett.

When she has appeared before the courts they have dismissed her arguments; if she was an expert she would have won.

As with twizzel and your ill founded treason allegations, you have mistaken someone's reading of law books, which they do not fully understand, with an expertise on the law. As with twizzel's case, Ms Beckett has not sought legal advice nor paid lawyers for an opinion.

Ms Beckett's father was a High Court judge, but she wasn't. You do not get qualifications by osmosis, inheritance or sitting discussing things with daddy over breakfast. The fact that he wrote a law when she was a child does not mean that she became an expert on that law. Ms Beckett's husband was a District Officer in India (a role which ceased to exist 61 years ago), but she was not. That is not a legal qualification and is a spurious 'qualification' to say the least. My father was part of the design team for the Hillman Imp; that doesn't make me a car designer.

To me an expert is a practitioner on the subject, someone who others look to for advice and tuition and who has contributed to the area studied.

aarable, you have given expert evidence in court. You had to state your experience and qualifications which were accepted as valid as you worked in the field in question. Ms Beckett will never be called to produce an article for any legal publication because no legally qualified person will look to her for advice. She has never practiced and never will. She is not an expert.
[Rep]

From the Bill of Rights, 1688 (Bill of Rights (c.2) - Statute Law Database)

Originally Posted by :
And thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their auntient Rights and Liberties, Declare ...
Freedom of Speech.
That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.

The point that the Speaker relies upon is interesting. It suggests that, even if the Heath Government has committed treason (and the statute of limitations on that expired in 1976 at the latest) they couldn't be impeached according to the Bill of Rights. About time Burgess stopped promoting this as the only way out of the EU.

However, other MPs have pointed out that parliamentary privilege is about unfettered speech within the two chambers, not "the defense of the indefensible". It should be noted that there is, as yet, no transcript of the High Court case re the provision of the Gateway Reviews on ID cards. That would suggest that judgement has not yet been passed. (I'm happy to be corrected on this by any of the legally qualified forum members).

It should be remembered, perhaps, that the only reason for the Bill of Rights existence was to ensure that another Catholic monarch did not get the chance to victimise Protestants because of their religion, nor ignore or persecute the Parliament of the day. It has to be read in conjunction with a good specialised history of the time. Most of the references in the Bill of Rights refer to the rights and treatment of those Parliamentarians that defied James the Second, rather than purely trying to uphold the rights of the 'common man'.

PARLIAMENT PASSED THE BILL TO PROTECT PARLIAMENT FROM A STROPPY MONARCH.

The reference to excessive bail and fines and

Originally Posted by :
...That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void. ...

was to ensure that no-one was persecuted and expected to pay fines they could not afford. It was not intended to ensure that anybody who got fined could refuse to pay regardless. The phrase "particular persons" means that the authors of the Bill knew the people they were referring to. They were voiding the fines that had already been applied and/or levied on existing Parliamentarians. James II had wanted £1.2m (the equivalent of £60 - 70 million today) voted to him by Parliament in 1687. When they only voted him £700k, he prorogued Parliament 4 times and then dissolved it completely in July 1687. That prompted letters of invitation to William of Orange and the construction of the Bill of Rights.
[Rep]

there was something awhile ago about the government possibly making a proper constitution like the US one, but im willing to bet if there was one made itd be really long, drag on and be hard to understand like the EU proposed one/the lisbon treaty. (comparison - US constitution: ~4600 words, Eu proposed constitution: ~160k words)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Aardvark:
The present constitution

'The present constitution'? The US has had only ONE constitution since 1787. The Americans didn't need to write a new constitution. They wrote only 27 amendments - which are sufficient.
The US Constitution isn't just older than the German one, the Spanish one, the Italian one or the Russian one - it's older than all these constitutions combined.
[Rep]

PU,

You could at least make an attempt to understand idiomatic English. The 'present' constitution is the original constitution subject to amendments. It is not the original document since it has indeed been amended 27 times. The 'original' constitution, in comparison, is the unamended one. That is what I meant as any native English speaker would have known.

I don't understand the point you make about the age of the constitution. So what? The US constitution is as valid as any of the others as they are equal.

Constitutions are unified codes that are amended as required. I have made recommendations to change the constitutions of one or 2 countries as part of my vocation.

The UK does not have a unified, codified constitution which is why our body of constitutional law is unique. We are lucky not to have been occupied, invaded, carved up, reunified, conquered etc for nearly 1000 years. Nor have we, apart from the Commonwealth in the 17th century, sought to change our system in one go, but have opted for a series of 'gentle' changes over several hundred years.

All other countries, with unified written constitutions, have either been part of another country's empire, have changed their system of rule by force or have been subject to some other change that has required or allowed the writing of a formal document.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Aardvark:
The UK does not have a constitution; it has a body of constitutional law. All bar 3 jurisdictions are governed by a unitary document known as a constitution. Constitutions are clear - they are usually called the constitution of a country and can only be changed subject to a specific voting process.

Louisiana does not have a constitution but is governed under a purchase arrangement. New Zealand is governed by treaty.

Those laws and conventions that are part of the body of UK constitutional law have varied over the centuries and there are many mistakes promulgated, on this forum in particular, about what those laws are. The Magna Carta 1215 is not part of our body of laws at all having never been enforced, but parts of it were subsequently duplicated and became part of our legal system.

The Laws LJ hierarchy of laws, which aarable alludes to, does seem to be out of kilter with our system of laws since many 'constitutional' laws have been impliedly repealed by virtue of the fact that new law has overruled them.

It is, as I understand it, still accepted in all other cases that the latest law always supercedes earlier laws. All laws are amenable to change and all laws can be removed or enacted by a simple vote of Parliament. As Eurosceptics we have to hold on to this principle since it is part of our argument that Parliament is sovereign and can at any time vote to remove us from the EU.

Anyone who argues, as some have on this forum, that the repeal of a particular law is treason, or that a law such as Magna Carta is unamenable to amendment, undermine our case. Parliament can impliedly or actually delete all that remains of the 13th century Magna Cartae. Parliament can change or abolish the treason laws. Parliament can withdraw us from the EU. Parliament is sovereign.

aarable sets an interesting challenge, but I do believe that we have cases where metric road signs have been removed as unlawful and Imperial measures remain in force.

Ashley Mote, when he was bailed prior to sentence, refused to hand over his diplomatic passport at the judge's request and argued the supremacy of the EU over the English judiciary. The judge refused to accept Ashley Mote's argument that EU law prevailed in his court and confiscated Mote's diplomatic passport. In that case a criminal tried to enforce EU laws over English laws and to the judge's credit he didn't accept the arguments. I count that as a victory for English law.

The same criminal had tried to avoid prosecution in the UK by claiming an EU immunity to prosecution. Again it was accepted that the UK lack of immunity to prosecution, an integral part of our constitutional laws, was superior to the immunity enjoyed by many EU Parliamentarians. I count this as a victory for UK law.

How often do you need to be hit by a bat to realise it hurts, we don't have a constitution we have a body of constitutional law. That body of constitutional law is what makes our constitution. I was going to ask if I had missed something but have decided against it. You will only give me a hundred and one reasons why I am wrong, but there is no debate I am right, which makes you wrong.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by twizzel:
How often do you need to be hit by a bat to realise it hurts, we don't have a constitution we have a body of constitutional law. That body of constitutional law is what makes our constitution. I was going to ask if I had missed something but have decided against it. You will only give me a hundred and one reasons why I am wrong, but there is no debate I am right, which makes you wrong.

Statute law cannot repeal constitutional law so said Lord justice laws who also said that the 1972 ECA was a constitutional law which could not be amanded by implied repeal by the wieghts and measures act. He was wrong in only one respect the 1972 ECA IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW it is a statute law like any other with the exception that it has no legitimate force in law because it was brought about by the lies and deception of the Heath government. And as all law is a contact between the subject and the state, and no contract is binding, if one party to the contract has decieved the other party to the contract causing a loss to the other party to the contract. The loss in this case being our freedom to be ruled by laws of our own choosing. As passed by the Queen in parliament and approved by us the people, Normal law of contract says it all don't you think.
[Rep]

' ......... And as all law is a contract between the subject and the state, and no contract is binding if one party to the contract has deceived the other party to the contract causing a loss to the other party to the contract.'


Think that says it all Twizzel, you are so wise. It remains then, for the oxygen of publicity to bring this to the attention of the public - hurrah for UK Column
[Rep]

aarable, twizzel - Contract law - another area of law that neither of you has studied and neither of you understands.

twizzel - wise - oxymoron. twizzel, there is no danger of your being right on the issue of whether we have a constitution or not. Your interpretation changes with every post so that we don't really know what you think. Have you decided that you are bound by your oath as a Special Constable or by your assertion that you hold all of the laws that you enforced to be illegal under your interpretation of the 'constitution'?

We do not have a codified constitution, but a continually changing mass of constitutional law that can also, arguably, include the flawed judgement of Laws LJ. Judges are capable of interpreting and changing constitutional laws, but as, apart from Laws' LJ judgement, you probably haven't read any of the case law on the matter it is impossible to argue with you on this point. There is no 'constitution' as every lawyer in the world understands it; that is what is taught at law schools. How do you, semi-literate as you are, have the audacity to assert that you know more of our laws than the nation's best lawyers? Judging by what you write, your inability to spell, your inability to punctuate, your inability to construct grammar and your complete inability to articulate your thoughts, I doubt that you have ever really understood the law books you have been reading.

aarable,

Have you not read David Hume? Not every philosopher or jurist believes in social contract. Hobbes and Rousseau wrote very much for their era and social contract as a theory is very much a child of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, as you a fan of Tom Paine well know. In any event the contract between the people and the ruler was implied and not binding. A recent case proved that you cannot enforce a manifesto pledge at law so one must be able to argue that there is no longer a contract between ruled and ruler as Rousseau originally postulated; certainly it is not enforceable. To win at contract law you have to prove that you have actually lost a quantifiable amount; as liberty, if it is lost, has no price you cannot enforce the contract on the grounds of uncertainty (as you would know if you had read a single law book on the subject). What replaces it is another matter, but I don't think that you can ignore laws on the basis of eighteenth century philosophy.

UK Column is poorly written and poorly researched, although reasonably well presented. As with all newspapers that are distributed free the majority of copies end up in the bin.

twizzel, Normal law of contract says nothing on this point - I know as I have studied the subject. You would be strongly advised to study the law before you go citing things of which you clearly know nothing.

aarable, What oxygen of publicity is this? With the best will in the world you could find about 30 or 40 people on this forum to agree with you. The public (read electorate) are about 40 million strong, give or take a few million. There are 26-27 million households. The UK Column is received by about 40,000 households if you accept Noakes'/Gerrish's figures. If 10% read the free newspaper then that makes about 4000 households (10000 people) per month. At that rate it will take over 100 years to get the message to every household, if they were interested.

You would have more influence if you became a scriptwriter for East Enders (10 million viewers). That's what you're competing with. Look at the national newspapers and how they are presented. If you haven't got a 21 year old nubile lovely prepared to get her tits out for the boys you will never get your message across.
[Rep]