Two interpretations of the result of the Glorious Revolution 1688.
The British say that Parliament is Sovereign. Incorrect
The English say that the people are sovereign or as Sir John Laws said the Constitution is sovereign. Correct
“Sir John Laws is noted for his extrajudicial writings in the journal, Public Law. His most notable contribution, “Law and Democracy”, asserts that the constitution would be undemocratic if it gave all the power under it to the elected government. Therefore, it is the constitution, and not Parliament, that should be sovereign in the British [English] constitution. “
The Glorious Revolution happened when we still had an English Parliament it pre-dated the British Parliament. Therefore, the British Parliament is subverting the English Constitution.
English Law:
English recorded law dates back thousands of years, ancient laws and Customs.
The ancient Laws of Cambia, the Historical Triads of Britain.
But Magna Carta 1215 is probably a good starting point for this overview. The ancient laws and customs are still valid (as Her Majesty swore an oath to them).
“The Bill of Rights and the Scottish Claim of Right of 1689, still part of statute law, are the sure foundation on which the whole edifice of Parliamentary democracy rests, and had great influence abroad, especially in the United States of America and in the Commonwealth.” Her Majesty the Queen 20 July 1988 Hansard vol 499 cc1301-3
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1988/jul/20/her-majestys-reply
and of Course 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: “There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of Rights . . . the House is entitled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.”
I would suggest that anyone that says we do not have a Constitution reads the full speech by the Lord Privy Seal and Her Majesties response.
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1988/jul/20/tercentenary-of-the-revolutions-of-1688
“By their acceptance of the Declaration of Rights, presented to them on the 13th of February 1689 in the Banqueting House in Whitehall, subsequently enacted by the Bill of Rights; and by their assent to the Claim of Right of Scotland, their late Majesties King William and Queen Mary concluded a solemn compact with their people; thereby were vindicated and asserted the ancient rights and liberties of the dutiful and loyal subjects of Your Majesty’s predecessors.
§“In consequence of this deliverance from arbitrary power and affirmation of the people’s rights, this nation has, since 1688, enjoyed security under a constitutional monarchy.” Lord Privy Seal.
The Magna Carta was a peace treaty between the Monarch and his subjects. It predated Parliament and cannot be repealed by Parliament. Parliament did not exist in its current form until centuries later. We had a roaming parliament travelling England similar to the legal system at the time. i.e the court went to the area where it was needed rather than the defendants and representatives going to a central place. We now have, The Old Bailey, The Royal Courts of Justice and the House of Lords is the court of last resort (the supreme court is unconstitutional and was brought about by a corrupt government and Houses of Parliament via the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which should of gone to referendum or convention).
Laws which are Constitutional often contain phases such as “In perpetuity “, “all time to come”, “within this realm forever”, “forever”.
Up until 1849 we had a similar system in place as the Americans. i.e Separation of powers (but British trained lawyers and barristers would disagree). BUT the Monarch stopped a key element of the “protections” that is of assent. Some say, we are a republic of because of that legal situation. In America that still exists as a power of “veto” (assent) by the President of the United States. A subject to ask the monarch to veto a law made in the monarch’s parliament could use the petition (an ancient right reconfirmed {i.e it pre-existed}) in the declaration of rights and Bill of Rights 1688. Contained in the Convention of 1688, the Declaration of Rights 1688 and the Bill of Rights 1688 was the right of the subject to petition the Monarch.
They include Magna Carta (1215)
the Bill of Rights and Scottish Claim of Right (both 1689),
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction
Scottish Claim of Right 1689
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1689/28/contents
and the Treaty of Union (1706, enacted by both the English and Scottish parliaments), as well as the acts affecting union with Ireland. It is Crucial to remember the Crowns were unified in 1603, i.e the Monarchs of England and Scotland. Therefore, the Act(s) of Union were and are a political union, no different from the EU, USSR and Yugoslavia. A political state. Not a natural Country.
Scottish Act of Union 1706
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Ann/6/11/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/apgb/Ann/6/40/contents
English Act of Union 1707
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1707/7/contents
The Instrument of Government, introduced by Oliver Cromwell in 1653
http://www.olivercromwell.org/protectorate/protectorate_7.htm
The Petition of Right 1628
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha1/3/1/contents
The Declaration of Rights 1688 * Formal Contract
The Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1688.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMar/2/1/contents
The Bill of Rights 1688/9
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction
The Coronation Oath Act 1688
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMar/1/6/introduction
The Act of Settlement 1701
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/12-13/2/introduction
The Act(s) of Union 1706/1707: The Act(s) of Union 1706/7
The British Parliament came into effect in 1707 preceded by The Acts of Union 1706/7. It was these acts that gave rise to the “power of the British Parliament”. The acts were clear. This was not to be to the detriment of the English Laws or Scottish laws. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1707/7/section/XXV
It is important to understand that the oath system binds our Constitution and to betray your oath, is very serious. It is known as “perjuring ones oath” i.e breaching it. This is on par with Treason. Marxists, do not believe in God, therefore do not take the oath to God. In general they affirm as non believers. This is a Major issue.
(pre existing English right)
Bill of Rights 1688 (pre existed 1688 English right)
Subjects’ Arms.
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
“The Subjects’. Englishman
Protestants may have Arms for their Defence (this is clear)
suitable to their Conditions (what you can afford)
and as allowed by Law. (self defence laws and natural law of defence an unalienable right a God given right, this is contained within the discussions of the Convention and Declaration and Bill, it also pre existed these, so was a reconfirmation of that right, the British have removed it unlawfully by way of policy not law)”
England and Wales have a Common Law Constitution; Britain does not have a Constitution. Britain contains two Countries within its geographical area, both of which have completely different legal systems. England is Common Law Jurisdiction, Scotland is Roman Law.
What is the difference?
In England you can do what you like unless it is strictly forbidden in law. The Law says what is forbidden. In general; No Loss, No Harm, No Injury, No Fraud. So as long as you have not caused any of the above, you have not committed an offence.
In Scotland you can only do what is written in law. Which is why the EU and European Nations have reams and reams of paper law. Detailing the control of your life by lawmakers.
What is Common Law: It is the interpretation of the Laws of the Land by Judges where the Acts of Parliament are unclear or unlawful, BUT no Act of Parliament, Monarch or Judge may contravene your rights as set out by the Constitution.
Parliament has not, and does not have the power to dismiss the Constitution – Erskine May, P3 13th Ed 1924 Ch. 1
“The Succession to the Crown Act declares it High Treason for any one to maintain and affirm, by writing printing or preaching, “that the kings or queens of this realm, by and with the authority of Parliament, are not able to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to limit and bind the crown, and the descent, limitation, inheritance, and government thereof,” Nor was this a modern principle of constitutional law, established, for the first time, by the revolution of 1688. If not admitted in its whole force so far back as the great charter of King John it has been affirmed by Parliament in very ancient times.“
The English Legal System: Exam Cram 1952
Real Judges, Real Barristers, Real Solicitors, real peace constables were not indoctrinated by the British or UN ideologies. They were examined prior to the Bar and public duty on the Law.
Remember one other thing, The British have stolen your Identity of English. Via the The British Nationalities Act 1981. Illegal under international law of indigenous people.