The English Constitution

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4120
  • +75/-0
The English Constitution
« on: January 31, 2019, 03:06:57 PM »
Sir Stephen Laws                                                                               Albert Burgess
Policy Exchange                                                                                15Parliament Road
8/10 Great George Street                                                                   Thame
Westminster                                                                                       South Oxfordshire
London                                                                                              OX9 3TE
SW1P 3AE                                                                                        30-01-2019
The English Constitution
I  do not expect politicians in the House of Commons to accept that the House of Commons does not as a matter of law have either primacy or sovereignty. Nor do I expect them to accept we do not have a British or UK constitution. However I would hope our legal profession in particular those members of the legal profession who purport to know about the constitutional arrangements which actually exist in these islands, to understand the Constitutional arrangements of this Island Kingdom.  So let me explain to you in the hope you will explain to the politicians and other lawyers who purport to be knowledgeable on constitutional law.
                               The Royal Assent and the House of Lords
First let me dispose of the myth the last time the Royal assent was refused was by Queen Anne in 1707 when she rejected the Scottish Militia Act. Queen Victoria rejected the Bill on homosexuality because it mentioned female homosexuality, on the basis she did not believe women would engage in this activity and she ordered the Bill rewritten removing all reference to female homosexuality, a number of Bills on homosexuality were given the Assent during her reign. Queen Victoria's son King Edward VII refused the Assent to what became known as the Parliament Act on the grounds it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects, he ordered Asquith to go to the country. Asquith and his ministers lied their way around the country about those Lords in their big mansions who would not let the common man have a pension. The reason the Upper House had rejected the 1909 budget was because they knew the common man could not afford the extra tax to pay for the pension on top of what he was already paying as tax. Asquith was returned and on the state opening of Parliament on the 21st February 1910 the King when he came to the Parliament Act King Edward VII said that he was only doing this on the advise of his advisors, Shortly after this whilst out of the country the King fell ill and on his return he remained ill until his death. Had the Parliament Act passed both Houses which it eventually did after the Lords were threatened with 500 life peers who would vote for its abolition. The King could still have refused the assent it was essential if the Parliament Act was to be certain of going through the King had to go. The Constable in me would be interested in the toxicology on Edward VII. On coming to the Crown King George V was told by a government minister he kept all his prerogatives but could not use any of them without the backing of a minister. This constituted treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act by imagining the death of the King as a fully sovereign King. The 1911 Parliament Act contravened the common law cognisance of the House of Lords to conduct its own business in its own way. The 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts contravened sec 3 of the 1848 Treason Felony Act by overawing the House of Lords. For these reasons the theft of the prerogative from King George V and the overawing of the House of Lords both these acts are in law voided by English Common Law in line with the ruling by Sir Edward Coke when he said some times Parliament may pass a law which is repugnant against common right and reason or is impossible to perform the common law will intercede and strike it down. These two illegal acts tick all the boxes.
Sovereignty when we elected our first King the people them selves did two things they gave him six times the property of the richest man so that he was visibly higher than his subjects and this was to ensure the King could fund the office of the Crown from the profits from what we today call the Crown Estates, they also made the King the supreme governor of his Kingdom. Since 1297 the house of Commons has been on a power grab in 1420 they got their first major breakthrough when they blackmailed King Henry V into granting the commons the right to initiate all legislation in return for granting a tax. they advanced there case in 1609 when the wrote to the Lords claiming to be the Knights Burgess and Lords of the High Court of Parliament. The Lords replied they would never accept them as Lords and without them they were no court at all. In 1667 the House of Commons stated the House of Lords could not amend a money bill after a ten year argument the Lords agreed not to amend a money bill there is no legal requirement for the Lords to accept this and it is not legally binding on the House of Lords.  Then 1911 when they neutered the House of Lords and stole the Royal Prerogative. Each of these acts was contrary to the common law arrangements of Parliament. The 1999 House of Lords Act contravened the common law cognisance of the House of Lords to decide who they allow to sit in the House of Lords. This is contrary to sec 3 of the 1848 Treason Felony Act. Now to the matter of Sovereignty, on the 8th March 1784 after a twenty year running battle with the House of Commons as to where sovereignty lay with the lawfully anointed King or the elected House, after a speech by Pitt the younger the King won the vote. So by both the common law on Kingship and by Parliamentary vote Queen Elizabeth II is the supreme governor of England from where all her other titles superiorities and supremacies flow.
The constitutional arrangements of Britain.
King Edward I captured the Principality of Wales and he killed the last Welsh Prince of Wales, he imposed English law on Wales so Wales is governed by English common constitutional and statute law.
Scotland attacked England over our northern border the Scots army was defeated at the battle of Neville's Cross 17th October 1346 and the Scots King David II was captured and kept in the Tower of London because the Scots were unable to pay the Ransom King David II was released on the condition he ruled Scotland as a vassal King to Edward III apart from the 1351 Treason Act the only English law imposed on Scotland which by deed of battle was now effectively a part of England. Edward III allowed King David II to keep Scottish law in Scotland this included the Scottish constitution. The Act of Union did not combine our laws with the exception of the treason laws where Scots treason laws were brought into line with English treason law. It has been the custom and practice of England to refuse foreign interference in the governance of England from Alfred the Great this is reflected in the various acts of supremacy from King Henry VIII.  Queen Elizabeth I King George III King George V and King George VI fought wars to keep foreign rule out of England. Every EEC/EU Treaty contravenes English common constitutional law and the custom and practice of England and each is an act of high treason at the highest levels of government. There is no need for any debate with the EU on the terms we leave by simply applying the common constitutional law and the custom and practice of England extending back to King Alfred when he gave us our law in 886 and his refusal to accept domination from the Pope. Dicey in the 1860's and Bogdanor today are both wrong on the subject of sovereignty.
Respectfully submitted
Albert Burgess

Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk