| Author | Message | | ktholcombe | | Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:43 am Post subject: |
| | JD wrote: | | 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. |
Hi JD,
What you say is how it should be. But the government here disposed of people's rights under the Magna Carta etc. with the stroke of a pen when it signed us up to various international and E.U agreements. How can it be held that the Magna Carta has meaning when it declares:
"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land."
And then the lawmakers sign ageeements giving foreign powers authority to try someone accused under foreign laws, in a foreign country, and even in fact snatch and detain people indefinitely without evidence or charge?
| Quote: | | Are not Acts of Parliament just as legal and applicable as any amendment to any written constitution? |
Yes. But they are not in the interests of the people. They are in the interests of government. And they are changed daily. They are/were rarely with the intention of being written for the people.
The Magna Carta tells me that I may not be deprived of my means of making a living for a minor crime. And yet the government has given itself the right to seize my car and put it through a crusher if I don't pay the taxes they levy for my driving one. And if I need my car to make a living.......well, that is irrelevant. It's gone. Do you imagine if I were to fail to pay my vehicle tax, the police are going to tell the operator of the car crusher he can't push the button as that wouldn't be acting according to the text in the Magna Carta? I don't think so.
| Quote: | | 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. |
The Lisbon Treaty will do away with much of our consitutional past. Politicians pushing on most sides for corporate government are desperate to do away with our 'constitutinal rights'. It looks as though they will get their way as so many who are riddled with ignorance make claims such as 'we need to comply with the E.U as we trade with them'.
| Quote: | | Both of our governments have forsaken the design that required limitations of government as meddlesome, antiquated rules to go around. |
Absolutely right JD. The difference is that you can at least hold something up and say, this is what it should be. We on the other hand, would not only have to follow parliament but spend half the day demanding information and minutes from a multitude of government's secret/private/closed little meeting rooms to try to discover what 'statutory instruments' have been added to our laws today, via the back door without any ratification by parliament to know or have any understanding of what laws we are supposed to be living under today. The House of Commons is full of people who sit amending our laws without telling 'us' all day. These people are not working in our interests, but their own.
Once Lisbon is ratified we will have to do the same to have a clue with regard to laws that we have to live under and what somebody somewhere has decided is illegal for a day/week/month or whatever. That can hardly be constitutional in any way. | |  | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:47 am Post subject: |
| Thanks kt.
As usual, a veritable fountain of knowledge, education and pragmatism. I'm cynical in nature but I still cling to the slightest hope that somebody(s) in government gets it and stands up and says "No" whatever side of the pond. It's inevitable the "hero" will be a fascist/totalitarian type then the circle starts again.
I just can't see a permanent '1984' anymore than I can see Bush's "security" or Obama's "unicorns".
If it continues, government's abrogation of trust and service and its self interests for the special interests makes revolutions, unrest, bloodshed inevitable. Maybe Jefferson's "natural manure" of tyrant and patriots' blood for the Tree of Liberty is truly prophetic rather than splendid rhetoric. I'm going to go read some Lord Acton, he always charges my battery. "He got it". So somebody still does. Let me know where you want the arms and ammo and explosives sent. | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:48 am Post subject: |
| | PS The last sentence was a joke. | | | | Von Curtis | | Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:06 am Post subject: EASY TO BE CYNICAL |
| 'I'm cynical in nature but I still cling to the slightest hope that somebody(s) in government gets it and stands up and says "No"
Its very hard not to be cynical - this massive global corporate push for centralization and control is so huge and people are so scared, appathetic and unaware and will not wake up fast enough that it makes one feel as though it has to go to its ultimate awful end to shock people into waking up.
Many people in the heirachy do 'get it' but they won't squeak because they see what is going on as the only way to keep western criminal gang power and control, to keep the monarchy, to keep all the history lies about WW1and 2 covered up, to keep Jerusalem , Israel and christian power in place and also western media control.
They believe it will be catastrophic as so many things in our heirachical ordered society will be in jepoady so they are all singing from the same hymn sheet and they are going full speed with this absolutely massive global take-over. | | | | Von Curtis | | Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:51 am Post subject: |
| | Although I shouldn't really say its just western power as I think all the elite in the majority of governments around the world are in on the act of keeping control and power over their people . | | | | Von Curtis | | Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:25 am Post subject: they all know about false flag terrorism |
| | People in power in goverments don't want to talk about false-flag terrorism because they don't know when they might need to use it on their people to keep control - they like to keep it up their sleave - they like to ridicule it as stupid 'conspiracy theory' and make it taboo. | | | | Diceros | | Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:46 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | 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:
|
Wrong again KT - I took it my cache - its a subject we discussed on C4 forum last year . But thanks for the link , it enaled me to find out who said it .
If you check you'll find it was NOT a comment from a 12 yr old but from Oliver Heald MP* - Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs
Bothsides of the debate was covered . For yr convenience I give you the first section ( C + P ) in full :
:Britain uncovered… Do we need a constitution?’(November 20th– December 8th2006)
An online platform providing young people with a secure and structured space todiscuss their perspectives on the constitution
All organisations need rules to function properly and a country is no different as it needsrules of government, more commonly known as a constitution. Some rules concern proceduree.g. how a law is made or how often elections are held. Others concern the amount of powerheld by government. This provides a crucial safety net around our freedoms and rights. The UK is one of a small number of countries which does not have a written constitution butwe wanted to get to the bottom of what young people thought about this and whether it adversely affects us. The Constitution debate was hotly-anticipated by young people across the country, plusteachers and parliamentarians because it covers such big and topical questions in the constitution field.Students in the Constitution debate explained their own opinions and tried to see all sides ofthe argument.
(which is worth noting , more than you're doing )
They demonstrated a collective knowledge of a wide range of sometimes complicated constitution-related issues. The debate gained parliamentary expertise from an excellent range of well qualified parliamentarians, taking part online – these included:[/b]
[b]•Bridget Prentice MP* – Parliamentary Under Secretary of State.
•Jane Davidson AM – Labour (Pontypridd) and Minister for Education, Life-Long Learningand Skills.
•Henry Bellingham MP – Shadow Minister for Constitutional Affairs.
•Chris Ballance MSP* – Member for South of Scotland – Scottish Green Party.
•Lord Tyler – Liberal Democrat Peer with an interest in Constitutional Affairs.
•Peter Black AM – Liberal Democrat (South Wales West) and Chair of Education and Lifelong Learning Committee.
•Oliver Heald MP* - Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs
•Keith Vaz MP* – Member of the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee.
•Lord Kingsland* – Opposition Spokesperson for Constitutional Affairs.*
These decision-makers provided a statement of support before the debate began and willbe asked to respond to this report.The welcome involvement of Peter Black, Jane Davidson and Chris Ballance in this debate isthe first time that AMs and MSPs have taken part in HeadsUp, but we will ensure that it is not.......#
==============
KT You'll find this on page six ..
"Oliver Heald MP backed up this participant’s point of view, by claiming that we already havea constitution written down and enshrined in Acts of Parliament, dating back hundreds ofyears: The United Kingdom already has a constitution which is written down in Acts of Parliament and isalso in rules that Parliament has made over many hundreds of years. Some people think that all ofthe most important rules should be put into one single document and then make it difficult for this.... etc,etc.
http://www.headsup.org.uk/content/mediaassets/pdf/Constitution%20Debate%20Forum%20Report.pdf
But dont let THE FACTS get rid of that bee in your bonnet , dearie.
CHEERS. | | | | ktholcombe | | Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:33 pm Post subject: |
| | JD wrote: | | PS The last sentence was a joke. |
Tsk, tsk.....I'm very disappointed JD. And for the benefit of all those shitty little monitors trawling the net as part of our modern day gestapo.......my reply was a joke. Really. Just a private joke......but then again I guess you can never be too sure, eh? | | | | Diceros | | Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:20 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | 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.
|
JD - A load of bull has been posted here abt Britain's constitution.. The subject can be debated till the cows come home but I dont think you can find better authorities on the subject than the works written by nineteenth- or early-twentieth-century constitutionalists, in particular A.V. Dicey, Walter Bagehot and Erskine May as mentioned by wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
cheers. | | | | Cowboy | | Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:25 pm Post subject: |
| | al Jeffie wrote: | | Are not Acts of Parliament just as legal and applicable as any amendment to any written constitution? |
Which says that "the Constitution" can be whatever Parliament decides at any given moment... | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
