| Author | Message | | Von Curtis | | Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:38 am Post subject: British Constitution Group is calling for Lawful Rebellion |
| We, the British People have a right to govern ourselves. That right has been subjugated as a consequence of acts of treason having been committed by the collective political establishment, aided and abetted by corrupt segments of the judiciary, the police, the Church and the civil service.
Furthermore, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, whose position has been usurped by a corrupt House of Commons and who has been forced into the destruction of her Kingdom and the breaking of her Coronation Oath, no longer governs us in accordance with our laws and customs, as was the situation when she was elected by the people as our Sovereign and our Head of State.
Why Her Majesty has failed in her duty is not for us to judge at this point in time – Her Majesty has however been made aware of the situation and is now duty bound to make amends.
A political elite has for some time manipulated the electoral system to deprive the people of true democratic representation by constructing a party political system that has allowed, indeed encouraged, acts of treason to have been committed.
As a direct consequence of the betrayal of the British people by the collective political establishment, and others, the British Constitution Group is calling for Lawful Rebellion, as is our right under article 61 Magna Carta 1215.
http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/rooting-out-the-evil-in-britain/ | |  | | Cowboy | | Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:54 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | British Constitution Group is calling for Lawful Rebellion |
Maybe they should be calling for an actual constitution... | | | | Diceros | | Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:04 pm Post subject: |
| Cowboy :
The United Kingdom already has a constitution which is written down in Acts of Parliament and is also in rules that Parliament has made over many hundreds of years.
Some people think that all of
the most important rules should be put into one single document and then make it difficult for this to be changed.
Our r current flexible constitution is far more suitable for a fast changing modern society. It means rules can be altered when needed and we live by modern rules rather than ones made for the generations that came before us.
For example the right to carry guns in America is
still a right today even though it was from a time when people needed guns as frontiersmen to hunt food and protect themselves. The rules still exist even though they don’t work in a modern
society because it is so difficult to change the written US constitution.
======
The Human Rights 1998 Act which incorporates the European Convention of Human Rights is the British Bill of Rights. Because EU laws overrides UK laws, any British violation of the HR Act would
be repealed at a European level.
cheers. | | | | Cowboy | | Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:44 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: |
The United Kingdom already has a constitution which is written down in Acts of Parliament and is also in rules that Parliament has made over many hundreds of years. |
A poor excuse for not having a Constitution, because it is pretty universally acknowledged that your definition leaves huge latitude for deciding what is or is not included in citizen rights. | | | | Cowboy | | Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:46 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | Some people think that all of
the most important rules should be put into one single document and then make it difficult for this to be changed.
Our r current flexible constitution is far more suitable for a fast changing modern society. It means rules can be altered when needed and we live by modern rules rather than ones made for the generations that came before us.
For example the right to carry guns in America is
still a right today even though it was from a time when people needed guns as frontiersmen to hunt food and protect themselves. The rules still exist even though they don’t work in a modern
society because it is so difficult to change the written US constitution. |
Your argument simply proves my point above... | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:12 pm Post subject: |
| The United Kingdom already has a constitution which is written down in Acts of Parliament and is also in rules that Parliament has made over many hundreds of years.
Diceros is correct. You put the stupid in "Ugly American".
Cowboy, your ignorance on US civics is breathtaking. It is well known and by your own choice permanently ignorant. Don't lecture anyone on the governance of their own country because you are incapable of grasping anything other than what you Ditto Master tells you. | | | | Cowboy | | Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:42 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | Cowboy, your ignorance on US civics is breathtaking. |
Free clue, clown....
The British 'constitution' is not US civics.
What an idiot you are.
| | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:11 pm Post subject: |
| The British 'constitution' is not US civics.
I never said it was . It's your total lack and understanding of political science that is breathtaking. No one is prouder of their continual statements of blatant ignorance than you. | | | | ktholcombe | | Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:53 pm Post subject: |
| | Diceros wrote: | Some people think that all of
the most important rules should be put into one single document and then make it difficult for this to be changed.
Our r current flexible constitution is far more suitable for a fast changing modern society. It means rules can be altered when needed and we live by modern rules rather than ones made for the generations that came before us.
For example the right to carry guns in America is
still a right today even though it was from a time when people needed guns as frontiersmen to hunt food and protect themselves. The rules still exist even though they don’t work in a modern
society because it is so difficult to change the written US constitution. |
Firstly, it is noted that in responding to the orginal post in this thread......you have gone to google to find out what 'constitution' means.....and pasted a variety of comments from the first site you found on the list......which happens to be a children's site for a children's debate.
As the source you've plagiarised your post from says, 'your post' is actually a comment by an under eighteen year old in response to the opening statement for debate, that the UK does NOT have a constitution.
The UK does NOT have a constitution. To suggest the law is an acceptable constitution when the law has recently been changed over 3000 times in Governments favour in 10 years is ridiculous, but a comment which is perhaps understandable when coming from a 12 year old.
If anyone else would like to take the comments of children on an internet forum and pretend they are their own observations, you will find Dicero's source here:
http://www.headsup.org.uk/content/default.asp?page=s1 | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:27 am Post subject: |
| | kt wrote: | The UK does NOT have a constitution. To suggest the law is an acceptable constitution when the law has recently been changed over 3000 times in Governments favour in 10 years is ridiculous, but a comment which is perhaps understandable when coming from a 12 year old.
If anyone else would like to take the comments of children on an internet forum and pretend they are their own observations, you will find Dicero's source here:
http://www.headsup.org.uk/content/default.asp?page=s1 |
Now that's interesting but I guess your statement is based on a singular codified document being a Constitution? could be correct but I can't see how that the cornerstones of Magna Carta's greatness of the Rule of Law, habeas corpus and due process, et al can't be ignored or discounted because they have widespread wholesale acceptance and application over the centuries. They are the benchmarks of Common Law and natural law of any modern constitutional government today despite their non inclusion onto a ongoing single document. In my mind they are very legitimate even if not a 'constitution', it is imitating one very well.
Are not Acts of Parliament just as legal and applicable as any amendment to any written constitution?
I confess I'm am no expert on the British government but IMO Britain is constitutional without a constitution at the base minimum as the numerous Acts over the centuries do carry the same force and Rule of Law.
Now as to 3000 changes in 10 years, your point is well taken. It makes a mockery of intention and design and reeks of duplicity and machinations. You have forced me to research some before I make blanket statements. But having a singular document is no guarantee either as well anymore than the US government abrogates specified constitutional limitations and exceeds its authority under it under the "modern living document' crapfests which is just code to do whatever they want under diguise. Constitions are documents that limit the government and specifiy their obligations, reponsibilities, ways and the best means of accomplishing these goals as specified.
Both of our governments have forsaken the design that required limitations of government as meddlesome, antiquated rules to go around. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
