British Democracy Forum - View Single Post - Bill of Rights 1688/9 out of date excepting when it suits government

Aardvark · 23-03-2008, 08:18 PM

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alludes to, does seem to be out of kilter with our system of laws since many 'constitutional' laws have been impliedly repealed by virtue of the fact that new law has overruled them.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

23-03-2008, 08:18 PM	#4 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 2,835	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. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008 Last edited by Aardvark; 23-03-2008 at 08:32 PM.