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  It predated Parliament and cannot be repealed by Parliament.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.

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…