From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Page 75 quotes the case of Bowles v. Bank of England confirms that the Bill
>of Rights remains an operative statute BTW. Page 10 contains the following
>passage;
>>... cannot the 1920's set of restraints be challenged as
>>well on the grounds that the inferred threat is no longer present?
>>It seems to me that <if> the purpose of the 20's enactment's
>>were valid for that period, and since that threat is no longer valid...
ET,
The sinister fact about the current political and legal regime in the
UK is that the law does not apply to them. That is because the legal
establishment is appointed by the political establishment. The separation of
powers has broken down. This is not new, it seems to be an inherent tendency
of establishments that morality comes to mean the protection of that
establishment. A speech in the mid 1700's by Lord Chatam criticising
breaches
of the Bill of Rights by purported Crown prerogative to suspend the law
could
have been written today, and the remedy, I would argue, is the same;
"...This also I will be bold to say from the history of England, that our
liberties owe most to great noblemen who were not lawyers. Sure I am,
lawyers have often appeared amongst us, to be the worst guardians of the
constitution, and too frequently the wickedest enemies to, and most
treacherous betrayers of the liberties of their country. Of this truth, the
preamble of the Bill of Rights, which the learned lord. has himself appealed
to in the debate, as his chief; though I think, much mistaken and much
misrepresented authority, will be a perpetual monument, in these words:
'Whereas king James 2, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges,
and ministers, employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the
Protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom.'
Certain it is, that no arbitrary prince, when meditating the subversion of
the constitution, ever was at a loss for lawyers and judges to second his de
signs in spite of their learning, and in spite of the religion of the Oaths
to support and maintain the constitution.
And so ship money and the dispensing power have, in former times, had the
vile countenance, and, if it could be so called, the authority of the bench,
and of the sages of the fathers of the law (as Charles 1 named his
ship-money judges) while a Hampden, and such like patriots, who were the
greatest honour, and the greatest blessing of England in their day, stood
forth the saviours of their country, by resisting the Usurpation's of the
crown, supported by the perfidy of corrupt judges....".
The Internet means we are all potential Hampdens now.
Regarding the quote from the Research paper above, following the Dunblane
incident petitions based on the Bill of Rights circulated via the Internet
by concerned shooters were sent to as many MPs as possible. The intention
was to register their concern about possible infringement of the Bill of
Rights and to warn them that they could be held to account through the
Courts for their actions if they did not comply with the law. It is believed
that this correspondence is the reason why the library of the House of
Commons felt obliged to issue the following document titled "Gun Control and
the Bill of Rights" for the information of members, and the final chapter of
the Research Paper;
"The library has received a large number of enquiries, which appear to be
the result of campaigns among shooters opposing the new provisions on
firearms control. Because of the initial influx of such enquiries, I
prepared a section on the alleged constitutional implications of the then
Bill as part of our research paper which we published for its second reading
debate.
There are a numbers of variants of the message sent to members which contain
a reference to the Members oath of allegiance. I assume that the argument
put forward by shooters is along the following lines;
(1) The Bill of Rights 1689 requires all officers and ministers to serve the
Monarch according to its provisions.
(2) The Bill of Rights 1689 protects citizen's rights to bear arms and not
to have their property confiscated.
(3) Therefore Members who support this sessions legislation may be in breach
of their oath of allegiance.
The 1997 Act does not appear to refer at all to the 1689 Statute, and any
claims that the earlier statute has been impliedly amended or, indeed, that
Parliament has no power to make such amendments, would have to be matters
for the Courts if put before them.
It is perhaps of interest that, notwithstanding the apparently widespread
lobbying on Bill of Rights grounds, virtually no mention of this argument
was made during the Bill's passage through Parliament"
(Document Ref. 4321 97/3/14HA BKW/aor. 4th March 1997)
Note the last paragraph. The Bill of Rights was not mentioned. I would argue
that this was because they were afraid to reveal to the general public the
existence of a British RKBA which had been unlawfully infringed. But as your
President Lincoln once said, "you can't fool all of the people all of the
time...".
Regards, John Hurst.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
