From: "rastech", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>More to the point: If a law is found by three juries
to be defective, then a judge should be able to declare the
law unfit.<< EJT
It is already catered for in the Constitution. As Parliament cannot pass
"bad" laws (even though they do, they cannot be considered "bad" as that
would undermine the Constitutional basis for law making), when the victims
of "bad law" come before a Court, then that Court is bound to find that it
is "no law" - it cannot be held to have ever existed. So logically, the
accused cannot be found to have broken a "non-existent" law, and the case is
dismissed. Parliament must then sort the shambles out, when it is referred
back to them (usually by quietly dropping the matter).
Though Courts cannot make laws, they enforce existing laws, and effectively
approve new laws, by checking that they do not run counter to the Common Law
rights and liberties of those that appear before them (well, they are
supposed to). So Parliament does not have the power to pass laws that
contradict the citizens Birthright, as Parliament is bound to obey "And that
for Redresse of all Grievances and for the amending strengthening and
preserveing of the Lawes Parlyaments ought to be held frequently."
Quite literally, and with the safety check of the Courts, Parliament cannot
pass laws that have a damaging effect upon the Common Law. Of course the
Courts cannot refer these instances back to Parliament, unless a relevant
case appears before them . . .
Another safety check is the Speaker of the House, who is supposed to inform
the House when proposed legislation runs counter to Common Law rights, and
would have to be considered "no law".
I would suggest that both these safety checks have been failing the British
People rather disastrously, over the years.
Some people might find this a scandalous concept, that Parliament cannot
legislate any law it wishes. But in reality, do we really need to have laws
that deny citizens their well founded liberties and rights? Provided those
are safeguarded, Society will run well enough, and the least interference is
perhaps best. How often, in fact, are Politicians able to improve the
running of things, when acting outside this sort of remit? As a rule of
thumb, you could almost say that on balance, if politicians get involved,
any possible benefit in anything goes straight out the window. A bit like
Banks employing "Business Advisors" to tell people how to run their
businesses - as Banks tend not to have the first clue about how to run a
business themselves, how on earth can they presume to advise anyone how to
run theirs?
We also have to be protected as a Society from the ambitions of those that
seek careers in the field of Politics. Many have dubious motives for
pursuing careers in Government, either as elected representatives, or
unelected officials. The "immovable object" of an independent Judiciary,
accompanied by the judgement of ones peers sitting on a jury (provided they
are properly instructed), takes some beating, imho, as one of the "down the
line" safeguards against the ambitions of such people.
Of course all of this neatly slots in, with the Oaths taken by all Public
Officials, to ensure that they too stand watchful against infringements
against the Common Law rights and liberties of the people that employ them.
Too many these days seem to have lost sight of that primary duty and
obligation. There seems to have been a general breakdown in the
understanding of what Society is all about, at every level, and what has to
be done to stop it falling apart at the seams.
By way of example, the Common Law right "That all Grants and Promises of
Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons
before Conviction are illegall and void." shows, that for instance wheel
clamping, and "on the spot" fines are clear illegalities. What are the
implications of bringing such laws in? I would contend, that as they get so
severely "up the nose" of ordinary people, that Parliament, the Law, the
Police, and Bailiffs, are all brought into severe disrepute amongst large
numbers of the population, and I think that is bloody dangerous. By not
having to take "offenders" to Court, "offences" become simple and cheap
revenue raising measures, and boy the "conviction rate" looks good. I think
it goes some way to explain why apparently 75% of Police resources are now
spent harrassing motorists, and why the public is getting so upset about it,
and have lost so much faith in the Police as a consequence. If all those
cases had to go to court, the Police's attention would be diverted elsewhere
(you can bank on it), and maybe even into looking for criminals. The
employers of these officials (the Public) simply become easy and defenceless
prey for "wallet lifters", in other words, and they know it and do not like
it one bit.
Those employed in such positions, are supposed to say they will not carry
out such orders, because they are illegal, and in breach of their Oath.
Those issuing such orders, are supposed to say, I will not issue those
orders, because they are illegal, and in breach of my Oath. By failing to do
so, they are undermining the very fabric of the Society they wish to live
in, and are helping to flush it down the tubes. By failing to do so, when
they KNOW they are breaking the law, means they are criminals, in the full
sense of the word, because their crime too, is against the fabric of
Society.
Bob
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
