Britannia Radio

Constitutional and EU Law

General & Political Lists

 

More of the "keeping you informed about our nation" here......where J L  nicely explains to Sir James Paice MP "where he is wrong"!

 

Nice one, J            The man should know all this, anyway! Which, of course, makes him a traitor also.....!

 

Gilbert & Sullivan - "got him on the list......!"

 

Several previous recent governments have been manipulative over both the Lords and also our Common Laws! It's wrong!

 

S

 

PS: How can he be a "Sir" and NOT know all this! It's basic English history! Definitely treason and a traitor, I would say!

Dear Mr P
I have interleaved my comments in red. 
You may like to take a look at this new website http://www.englishconstitutiongroup.org
Regards

J L

On 26/03/2013 09:44, PAICE, James wrote:

Dear Mr L

It is correct. It is a long established fact that Parliament makes laws and courts interpret them. That is why periodically courts make decisions different to those intended because the drafting is occasionally inadequate.

By Parliament I assume you mean the Government and the Commons? This is a description of an elected dictatorship which is not how this country is meant to Governed. This is the real way in which the country should be run and was run for hundreds of years up until the last 60 years or so.
1 If the Common laws do not cover a particular situation, then the Commons create law (this is Statute Law) to reinforce the Common Laws and not to replace them.
2 The Statute then goes before the House of Lords, containing all the Lords Spiritual and Temporal (this means all the hereditary peers that Blair got rid of), for approval. If it is considered not in the interests of the people then it goes back to the Commons for amendment.
3 If the Statute is approved by the House of Lords it then passes to the Sovereign who will give the Royal Assent if it is thought OK for the people. If not Assent is refused and it goes back for amendment.

As far as the question of constitutional law versus statute law is concerned there is no official distinction. As you should know very little of the Constitution is written down.  

I quote from your own link below.

People often refer to the UK having an 'unwritten constitution' but that's not strictly true. It may not exist in a single text, like in the USA or Germany, but large parts of it are written down, much of it in the laws passed in Parliament - known as statute law.

Therefore, the UK constitution is often described as 'partly written and wholly uncodified'. (Uncodified means that the UK does not have a single, written constitution.)

Our Constitutional Laws were developed of hundreds of years and each time it was to curb the powers of tyrannical Governments and Sovereigns. Constitutional law cannot be repealed as every on of those laws is designed to protect the people from those who rule over them. Statute Laws however are additional laws that cannot violate or imply repeal of Constitutional Law as they are there to reinforce it.

The doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty means that Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK.

Wrong! The Sovereign is Sovereign. 
David Cameron once stated that Parliament was Sovereign. George III had a twenty year running battle with Parliament about who was Sovereign; him or Parliament. George won! The Prime Minister William Pitt the Elder, said, ’...instead of the arbitrary power of a Stuart king, we must submit to the arbitrary power of the House of Commons. If this be true, what benefit do we derive from the exchange? Tyranny my Lords, is detestable in every shape, but none more so formidable as where it is assumed and exercised by a number of tyrants. My Lords, this is not the fact, this is not the Constitution, we have a law of Parliament. We have a Statute Book and the Bill of Rights’.

However Parliament incorporated EU law into UK law via the European Communities Act 1972 and the European Convention on Human Rights was also incorporated into UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998. Parliament remains sovereign and could legislate to abolish those Acts if it wanted to, but as it stands it has voluntary ceded some power to the EU and the ECHR.

Parliament does not have the authority to abolish any Common Law neither does it have the authority to cede any power to any foreign power or organization. It is treason to do so. 
This is pure treason and violates the Act of Supremacy of 1559. This Act contains an oath of which this is part
, ‘...no foreign prince, person, state or potentate, hath or ought to have any power, jurisdiction, superiority, supremacy, or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual in this realm’. This Act clearly shows that we are not to tolerate any attempt to allow any kind of foreign interference in our affairs.

Edward Heath committed treason when he set up a conspiracy in violation of this Act, to submit our sovereignty to the EEC. By default every succeeding Government, and all those supporting it, has also committed treason in continuing with EU membership.

The Common laws are there, as previously stated above, to protect us from tyrannical rulers. Why therefore would any Government want to harm the country in such a way?

You can see more information here: http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/

 

This website contains only half-truths but then a Government controlled website is not going to condemn itself so they would say that wouldn't they.

You reply is eagerly awaited.

JL

Yours sincerely

Rt.Hon. Sir James Paice MP

Member of Parliament for South East Cambridgeshire