Bill of Rights 1688/9 out of date excepting when it suits government

I was answering another e-mail today and had another read of the Bill of Rights, as one does.

Originally Posted by :
no foreign prince or person prelate state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction power supremacy pre-eminence or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm

This is part of what is known as the oath of supremacy and relates only, as it says, to matters ecclesiastical or spiritual. This is related to supremacy of the church and is nothing, and I will repeat it for the hard of reading, nothing, whatsoever to do with the EU or any treaty handing over sovereignty. The oath of supremacy is not taken by Jews, RCs or Jedi Knights

The full oath, that aarable didn't quote, is, and the wording is a clue:

Originally Posted by :
Supremacy.

I A B doe sweare That I doe from my Heart Abhorr, Detest and Abjure as Impious and Hereticall this damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever. And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.

The full text, and you have to read all of the preamble to see why certain things were enacted, is here:

Bill of Rights (c.2) - Statute Law Database

The preamble states:

Originally Posted by :
Grants of Fines, &c. before Conviction, &c.
And severall Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction or Judgement against the Persons upon whome the same were to be levyed.All which are utterly directly contrary to the knowne Lawes and Statutes and Freedome of this Realme.

These punishments are annulled in the present tense (important as you can see the tense change clause by clause). A reasonable interpretation of English is that it was only those people who had been punished before conviction in 1688 who were affected.

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

Note the use of the word 'particular' referring to those unfortunates.

aarable's misinterpretation of basic English would lead you to think he had a point to make, but the Bill of Rights has not been breached and aarable's comparison with the Speaker preserving the privileges of Parliament is fallacious (no, I've not spelt it wrong, you are thinking of Fellatio the Italian football team).

[Rep]