The English Bill of Rights 1688:
This is considered part of England's constitution and is still in effect today as Government legislation
We all should report the culprits and those who aided and abetted them to the police for arrest in accordance with breaking the law under the Bill of Rights 1688 and if police refuse to arrest, then misconduct of the refusing officer is to be reported to another officer and keep repeating until the police realise we will not back down on this one, until the police abide by our own constitutional law of England.
18 comments
If anyone's interested, here's the full section of the Bill of Rights he's quoting:
New Oaths of Allegiance, &c.
And that the Oathes hereafter mentioned be taken by all Persons of whome the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy might be required by Law instead of them And that the said Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy be abrogated.
Allegiance.
I A B doe sincerely promise and sweare That I will be faithfull and beare true Allegiance to their Majestyes King William and Queene Mary Soe helpe me God.
Supremacy.
I A B doe sweare That I doe from my Heart Abhorr, Detest and Abjure as Impious and Hereticall this damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever. 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.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that England (or Great Britain or the United Kingdom) doesn't have a constitution.
This is considered part of England's constitution and is still in effect today as Government legislation
Because if they have the British citizenship, they are no longer foreign...? Just a guess.
The foreigners the writers were concerned about were French and other Catholics who had influence on James II. I don't have to look it up to know there weren't any rights for women or commoners included.
And, you're going to try to sort out the Scottish, Irish, and Welsh from the "pure" English? Oh, this will be entertaining.
1) The Bill of Rights were enacted by joint sovereigns, one of whom was Dutch and the other was Scottish.
1) You're a year out, it was 1689.
@ Kuno:do have a Constitution. The difference is that ours is uncodified . Whereas most constitutions are a single document or, in the American case, two of them (Constitution and Bill of Rights), ours is scattered across a dozen or more documents in a mixture of English, Latin, Legal Latin and Medieval French. This is why classes on the constitution in British universities run the entire three years of a law degree.
There is a pressure group called Charter 88 (which, full disclosure, I am affiliated with) that seeks to codify the constitution into a single document with attached bill of rights.
@ Ebon
Aren't there parts of the British Constitution that remain oral only?
so why are non-English - Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups of any colour, including the Scottish, Irish, and Welsh allowed authority positions in England?
Because they're... citizens?
Because the 'Foreign' in this part refers to citezenship, not ethnicity, otherwise basicly everyone is out (after all, the british royality traces back to William the Conquerer, who was a norman)
And you seriously want to exclude the scots and welsh from passive suffrage? Good luck.
You annexed Scoland and Ireland to the United Kingdom, and Wales was fused with England, so I conclude they should be allowed authority positions in England.
And praemunire is no longer an offense in British law.
@ Indicible:
Yes, parts of the constitution are tradition rather than law (such as the monthly MPs surgeries). And yes, this allows for a very fluid and adaptable approach. However, one could argue that adaptability is also a disadvantage. For example, Blair attempted to have terrorist suspects held without trial. That's the danger, that fluidity can be used to enact abuses.
The main idea with codifying our Constitution (and attached Bill of Rights) is to have a clear guide to what people and government can expect from one another and prevent the government of the day from abusing it's people. Granted, the ECHR pretty much does teh same thing but our current cartoonishly evil government wants us to abandon that. They would have problems re-writing a Constitution.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
