Crimes against the Authority and Integrity of Parliament are punishable by Impeachment.

 

 

 

 

One of our greatest authorities on the Law and the Constitution on the question of the future use of refusal of supplies or Impeachment says:

 

The answer is, that they are disused [not obsolete] because ultimate obedience to the underlying principle of all modern constitutionalism, which is nothing else than the principle of obedience to the will of the nation as expressed through Parliament is so closely bound up with the law of the land that it can hardly be violated without a breach of the ordinary law.

 

Hence the extraordinary remedies which were once necessary for enforcing the deliberate will of the nation, having become unnecessary, [until another Tyrant such as Tony Blair as with Charles the First in history assumed he was above the Law of the Constitution.], have fallen into desuetude.

 

If they are not altogether abolished, the cause of the conservatism of the English people, and partly in the valid consideration that crimes may still be occasionally committed [as with Tony Blair] for which the ordinary law of the land hardly affords the punishment, and which therefore may well be dealt with by the High Court of Parliament.

 

In the words of Mr Dicey… one essential principle of the Constitution is obedience by ALL persons to the deliberately expressed will of the House of Commons in the first instance, and ultimately to the will of the nation as expressed through Parliament.

 

   . . . The Law of the Constitution, again is all its branches the results of two guiding principles, which have been gradually worked out by the more or less conscience effects of generations of English Statesmen and Lawyers.

This curious process by which the personal authority of the King has been turned into the sovereignty of the [Queen] King in Parliament, has had two effects:

 

1)         It has preserved the arbitrary power of the Monarch.  It has preserved intact and undiminished the supreme authority of the State.

2)         The second of the principles is what I have called the “Rule of Law” or the supremacy through all our Institutions of the ordinary laws of the land.

 

This rule of law, which means at bottom the right of the Courts to punish any illegal act by whomsoever committed, is the very essence of the English institutions.

If the sovereignty of Parliament gives the form, the supremacy of the law of the land determines the substance of our Constitution.

 

The English Constitution, in short, which appears when looked at from one point of view to be a mere collection of practices or customs, turns out, when examined in its legal aspect, to be more truly than any other polity in the world, except the Constitution of the United states of America, based on the Law of the land.

 

A few words may be in place as to the method by which the gradual transfer of power from the Crown [in 1669] to a body which has come more and more to represent the nation. [To the First minister or Prime Minister]

The leaders of the English People in their contests in their contests with Royal power never attempted, except in periods of revolutionary violence, to destroy or dissipate the authority of the Crown as Head of State.

 

Their policy, continued through centuries, was to leave the power of the King untouched [this is how Tony Blair has been able follow his own agenda with no concern for any one else’s views.] but to bind down the action of the Crown to recognised modes of procedure which, if observed, would secure first the supremacy of the law, and ultimately the sovereignty of the nation.

 

The King was recognised as the only legislator, but he could enact no valid law except as King in Parliament; the King held in his hands all the prerogatives of the executive government, but, as was after long struggles determined, he could legally exercise these prerogatives only through Ministers who were members of his Council, and incurred responsibility for his acts.

 

Thus the personal will of the King was gradually identified with and transformed into the lawful and legally expressed will of the Crown.  This transformation was based upon the constant use of fictions. It bears on its face that it was the invention of lawyers.

 

When we see what are the principles, which truly underlie the English polity, we also perceive how rarely foreign statesmen who more or less intended to copy the Constitution of England have followed them.

 

The sovereignty of Parliament is an idea fundamentally inconsistent with the notions, which govern the inflexible or rigid constitutions existing in by far the most important of the countries, which have adopted any scheme of representative government.

 

The “Rule of Law” is a conception, which in the United States indeed has received a development beyond that which it has reached in England; but it an idea not so much unknown to as deliberately rejected by the constitution-makers of France. [This is an important aspect of the great differences between the systems of England and other nations in Europe particularly France. That is why Tony Blair has done everything he can to destroy our form of Constitution.] And of other continental countries which have followed the French guidance.

 

For [us] the supremacy of the law of the land means in the last resort the right of the judges to control the executive government, whilst the separation des pouvoirs means, as construed by Frenchmen, the right of the government to control the judges. [If we had not implemented the Human Rights Act into our law we would have had less ridiculous decisions from our Judges and if we left the EU our Judges would be again as previously over 700 years ,Guardians of our: ]

 

“Rights and Liberties of Englishman”

 

To say this is not to assert that foreign forms of government are necessarily inferior to the English Constitution, unsuited for a civilised and free people.

 

All that necessarily results from an analysis of our institutions, and a comparison of them with the institutions of foreign countries, is that the English Constitution is still marked, far more deeply than is generally supposed, by peculiar features, and that these peculiar characteristics may be summed up in the combination of Parliamentary Sovereignty with the ‘Rule of law.’

 

[The author of the above work was obviously being diplomatic in his final judgment because if his statement was so accurate why have our politicians over 40 years been gradually endeavouring to change our superior Constitution for a continental system, which is counter to the manner of our People.]

 

 

[Fonts altered-bolding used –comments in brackets]

 

 

*          *          *

*

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN-IS THE EU COMMISSION LISTENING? * Ditch the EU TREATY after IRISH REJECTION SAY VOTERS by Daniel Martin Political Reporter [Daily Mail-Wednesday, June 18,2008] MORE THAN HALF of voters believe Britain should drop the controversial European Treaty in the wake of its rejection in last week's IRISH REFERENDUM' The poll comes as the Tories launch a last-ditch bid in the HOUSE of LORDS today to delay the RATIFICATION OF THE TREATY. And 10,000 people have signed a PETITION on the DOWNING STREET- WEBSITE within the past few days JUNE16-2008 , calling on the GOVERNMENT NOT TO RATIFY THE BILL [WHY DON'T YOU?]   Downing Street website is http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/ * JUNE 18-2008

 

 

*

 13th October,2007

 

So You Want Out Of The EU

 

THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE

RENUNCIATION of EU CITIZENSHIP

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Optout

Details from petition creator

With the signing of the Maastricht Treaty the people of Britain were given

DUAL CITIZENSHIP

-both

EUROPEAN and BRITISH

The extra tier of citizenship was thrust upon the people without their consent -and in many cases knowledge.

The PEOPLE of GREAT BRITAIN should be allowed the option of opting out of the EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP if they so wish. The GOVERNMENT will then be able to provide those who have opted out with

BRITISH DOCUMENTATION

-only such as British  (not EU) passports, driving licences and other national documents.

EU laws will also NOT APPLY to those who

HAVE OPTED OUT OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP

*

*

www.noliberties.com

[Latest Addition - June07]

*

www.eutruth.org.uk

*

www.thewestminsternews.co.uk

*

 

www.speakout.co.uk

*

 

Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU

www.telegraph.co.uk.blogs

 

*

 

 

VOTE -2007

 

TO LEAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION

WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE

TO SET YOU

 FREE

 

THE

UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY

www.ukip.org

 

TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER

BUT

SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.

*

 

ONLY

PRO-PORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE

*

Home Rule for Scotland

WHY NOT

HOME RULE for ENGLAND

 

*

MAY/07

 

[All underlined words have a separate bulletin]