The Written and Unwritten Common Law Constitution of England, Bound by Oath.

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. Correct

The Glorious Revolution was 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 and 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  It predated Parliament and cannot be repealed by Parliament.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)

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/magna-carta/british-library-magna-carta-1215-runnymede/

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. 

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

This is the Declaration in Full, which King William and Queen Mary accepted. Offer + Acceptance = Contract in Law. Then it was converted via The Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1688 into a Bill of Rights 1688/9 forever!

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.

Graham Moore Replies to The Daily Telegraph article by Andrew Roberts 01 02 20

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2020/02/01/britain-has-become-adult-againtaking-ultimate-responsibility/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw#comments

It is with respect, that I reply to Andrew Roberts article of 1st February 2020.

This article goes some way to shedding light on the history of the laws of England (there is no such thing as British Law) yet fails to detail the most obvious.  

In fact, it mentions exams in the future, yet fails to mention why the curriculum syllabus and bar exams from 1970 onwards exclude Civic and Constitutional Law – rather an important point I would suggest.

The reason, I contend, is an intention by the “elites” and enemies of this Country (England), Marxists and Socialists in all forms, their enemy is our written Constitution.  The enemy always attack what they fear the most!

There is nothing more powerful than the English Constitution – but only if it is enforced.

There are many Constitutional and Ancient Laws and Customs that are forever and unalterable!  In fact, there is a case, where the Judgement states that:-

[1953] ScotCS CSIH_2, 1953 SC 396, 1953 SLT 255

Further, the Treaty and the associated legislation, by which the Parliament of Great Britain was brought into being as the successor of the separate Parliaments of Scotland and England, contain some clauses which expressly reserve to the Parliament of Great Britain powers of subsequent modification, and other clauses which either contain no such power or emphatically exclude subsequent alteration by declarations that the provision shall be fundamental and unalterable in all time coming, or declarations of a like effect.  I have never been able to understand how it is possible to reconcile with elementary canons of construction the adoption by the English constitutional theorists of the same attitude to these markedly different types of provisions.

The Lord Advocate conceded this point by admitting that the Parliament of Great Britain “could not” repeal or alter such “fundamental and essential” conditions. He was doubtless influenced in making this concession by the modified views expressed by Dicey in his later work entitled Thoughts on the Scottish Union, from which I take this passage (pp. 252–253):—

“The statesmen of 1707, though giving full sovereign power to the Parliament of Great Britain, clearly believed in the possibility of creating an absolutely sovereign Legislature which should yet be bound by unalterable laws.” “

and

“I have not found in the Union legislation any provision that the Parliament of Great Britain should be “absolutely sovereign” in the sense that that Parliament should be free to alter the Treaty at will.”

By reading this Judgement and Blackstone’s Commentary of the Laws of England one should now bring in one or two of these “Constitutional written Laws bound by Solemn Oath and Convention”

The Bill of Rights of 1688/9 (Public Law) clearly states;

1. The Bill of Rights 1688 “Adjudged

2. The Bill of Rights 1688 “for all time to come

3. The Bill of Rights 1688 “Forever” three times.

4. The Bill of Rights 1688 “shall stand remaine and

be the Law of this Realme forever

And by no means least:-

Supremacy: The Bill of Rights 1688 “And I doe

declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or

Potentate hath or ought to have [any Jurisdiction Power

Superiority Preeminence] or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall

within this Realme Soe helpe me God.

Moving to The Bill of Rights 1688/9 authority (private law), the most powerful authority, the Convention of the people 1688 and its outcome.

The Declaration of Rights 1688 read to and signed by both William and Mary.

This convention is as important to England as the Magna Carta of 1215 and restates “our rights”. It is the detail and record of this convention that truly holds the keys to liberty and freedom of the people.  Including the Right to Bear Arms in self-defence.  A right which was subsequently passed to and included in our American Brothers and Sisters Constitution.

The Coronation Oath Act of 1688 sworn by Her Majesty the Queen on June 2nd 1953, and the substance of that Oath, being declared still valid on July 20th 1988 by Her Majesty to both Houses of Parliament (a Declaration).

Restated and confirmed by Betty Boothroyd (speaker of the House of Commons) in Parliament as advice to the Courts in 1993.

The Crown and Parliament Act 1688, The Act of Settlement 1701 and of course the Acts of Union 1706/7 did not diminish these ancient laws and customs in fact, it enshrined it for all time to come.

So then we come to Dicey, what did he say with reference to our Constitution

“All the conventions of the constitution, said Dicey, were ‘intended to secure the ultimate supremacy of the electorate as the true political sovereign of the State’.

Constitutional maxims are ‘subordinate and subservient to the fundamental principle of popular sovereignty’. (p253)

Now to the issue of Treaties and how very illegal (unlawful, unconstitutional) and extremely dishonest they were (are), to the point of perjuring ones oath “and” Treason.

Regions: Regions are a construct of the plan to divide England, not so much Little Englanders as England is too big. I quite like England as Counties, Districts and Parishes.

Treaty of Rome 1957

1992/3 Maastricht Treaty – no referendum

1997 Amsterdam Treaty – no referendum

2001 Nice Treaty – no referendum

2007 Lisbon Treaty – no referendum

Treaty of Rome 1957 (which we were lied to about) see below:-

Initially known as the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (or EEC Treaty in short), its name has been retrospectively amended on several occasions since 1957.

The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 removed the word “economic” from the Treaty of Rome’s official title and, in 2009, the Lisbon Treaty renamed it the “Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”.

As you can see there was a deliberate sleight of hand (fraud).

The regions are seriously dangerous to England, solely intended to destroy and erase England from the map and “common law”.

There are nine regions of England according to the EU mandate and plan.

However; Scotland will remain a single region (one reason it now has a single police constabulary, instead of seven).  Its National Identity remains intact.

The same for Wales and NI.  (Although the eventual intention of the EU is to create a single republic of Ireland).

Now, do you understand that Nations and Regions of the United Kingdom are in effect code for the breakup and division of England?

I agree, with Winston, but do not be fooled by Boris Johnson or any political system which believes it is sovereign.

Nothing can save England if she will not save herself,” Winston Churchill told his countrymen on St George’s Day 1933. “If we lose faith in ourselves, in our capacity to guide and govern, if we lose our will to live, then indeed our story is told.”

Now shall we have the first English National Referendum on English Independence?

I believe we should!

PDF link

What could happen in the Independence fight with the deep state UK, The English Constitution?

The Supreme Court are in their second day. In my opinion this case should not be in the Supreme Court and it could backfire spectacularly for the remainers.

Why do I think it should never of been heard? Simple, and it is simple. The Declaration of Rights 1688, The Bill of Rights 1688 and The Coronation Oath act 1688. The Declaration is a valid contract, as valid as the day(s) it was written, read and agreed to in mansion house. It is still in the House of Lords archives and is in fact the only parchment rolled document, sealed and signed, that is not a statute. The conversion to law, statute, was enabled via The Crown and Parliament Act 1688, this allowed for the conversion of The Declaration of Rights 1688 into The Bill of Rights 1688 (the only statute to be termed a Bill, not an Act). Then of course we have the Oath, sworn by Her Majesty and every Monarch before her from the time of first swearing in 1688.

Article 9 of The Bill of Rights 1688 states clearly;

Freedom of Speech.

That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.”

There were thirteen wrongs, and thirteen rights. This happened at the end of a period of heinous brutality by the Crown and Crown advisers. Evil Counsellors.

So what is my opinion on what could happen?

If the Supreme Court uphold the Law of the Land, The Constitution. Then they will rule unanimously that this is not a case for the courts to hear. They will back, Her Majesty the Queen and Her Government. To do anything else breaches their Oath of Office. To rule against the Constitution would cause the courts to be involved with politics and not the law. A very serious breach of convention and trust.

Here it comes people:

The People are Sovereign and here is what should and could happen now.

The Supreme Court rules. This is not Justiciable.

Then, Boris Johnson goes back to Parliament on the 15th October 2019 and prorogues until the end of the fixed term parliament session comes to an end. In the meantime, government will govern and the rest of Parliament will be removed as they have lied and cheated for votes, they have arrogantly gone against the will of the people and would seek to intentionally destroy the Country, rather than make decisions for us all in a positive way. (Think democrats USA against President Trump).

Bear in mind, Boris asked for a General Election, they said “NO”, he asked for a Vote of No Confidence. They said “No”. What does that mean? It means they have confidence in the Government and in effect have approved of the prorogue for the good of the Country until the end of the fixed term (if that is what Dominic Cummings decides). Then, the people will decide at a General Election.

If you think this cannot happen, think again. There is another option. Her Majesty could dissolve parliament, appoint Her own Ministers, i.e Army, Navy, Airforce generals, admirals, Air Vice Marshalls and they could appoint advisors as needed. Not martial law. But close. Becarefull what you wish for…