- WE ARE SOVERIGN
- By David J Hageman
- 09/11/2013 Make a Comment
- Contributed by: MrNatural ( 18 articles in 2013 )
“Sovereignty The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived;“
(https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sovereignty)
I believe that the people are sovereign via the British constitution. As opposed to the monarch being sovereign. Or the parliament .Or the Judiciary. (the Crown temple) Or the church. As in times past.
And we have been since 1688.
What this means is that only the people can make law.
And we have made it. It was made 300 odd years ago. and was to stand for all time.
we don't need any new laws. we haven’t made any new laws, as far as I’m aware.
significant ones anyhow.
I’d like to compile in this post my reasoning to support that lawful state of sovereignty.
Anyone contributions would be welcome.
It is an important point to make in a court situation. Where you are treated as subordinate to a judge, or indeed parliamentary Acts. Or even Imperial Acts.
Because if the people are sovereign then you are not subject to any authority except laws made directly by the people.
Our foundational law the Bill of Rights is a powerful indication to me that we people are sovereign.
Remembering that a generation prior to the Glorious revolution of 1688, the parliament held sovereignty.
In that turbulent century where the westminster system evolved from trial and error and much bloodshed, as protestants tried to free themselves of rome and the babylonian system. They did indeed see parliamentary sovereignty as a viable alternative to monarchy, that perhaps this was a way for people to rule themselves.
But in practice parliamentary sovereignty proved more tyrannical than any monarch. they had learnt this lesson the hard way.
“because the Parliament had forsaken their rule, the fundamental Laws of England, and exercised an arbitrary and tyrannical power over the consciences, lives, liberties, and estates; and instanced in me and others,” John Lillburne 1653, who had fought and won the war to instill parliamentary sovereignty not long prior. (https://www.strecorsoc.org/docs/defence1.html)
So in looking at the Bill of Rights, I keep in mind the times. That men were well acquainted with the evils of parliamentary sovereignty, and had no wish to return to it.
So reading the Bill of Rights it says the people being protestants are making this foundational law in its content.
But more importantly , to me , on this question is that it is called a “bill”
What is a bill?
“A bill is a proposed law under consideration by a legislature.[1] A bill does not become law until it is passed by the legislature and, in most cases, approved by the executive. Once a bill has been enacted into law, it is called an Act or a statute.”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%28law%29)
A bill does not have the force of law . Its merely a proposal. why on earth would they call their foundational law a “bill”. would this not make it seem powerless?
It was passed through parliament in 1689 and became an Act. Yet the name bill was retained.
Why?
I can think of no other explanation than that they were retaining the name Bill to reinforce the point that it was law the moment the people wrote it. It was not subject to parliament’s approval. They had had a gutful of parliamentary masters a generation earlier.
And so important was this point, that the name “bill” carried forward to the American revolution, and they copied the name “bill”.
I believe that this in and of itself shows us that the people hold sovereignty.
More later on this topic. An important one when refusing to be a slave to Australian parliament, in your every day.
COUNTERFEIT PARLIAMENT AND COURTS
This is a quote from william of Orange, appealing to be the new king via the glorious Revolution, and is thus a foundational principle of our law (read the war makes the law)
“though it is apparent that all acts made by popish magistrates are null and void of themselves, so that no Parliament can be lawful for which the elections and returns are made by popish sheriffs and mayors of towns; and, therefore, as long as the authority and magistracy is in such hands, it is not possible to have any lawful Parliament.”
(Declaration of the prince of Orange 1688 https://www.jacobite.ca/documents/16881010.htm)
(https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sovereignty)
I believe that the people are sovereign via the British constitution. As opposed to the monarch being sovereign. Or the parliament .Or the Judiciary. (the Crown temple) Or the church. As in times past.
And we have been since 1688.
What this means is that only the people can make law.
And we have made it. It was made 300 odd years ago. and was to stand for all time.
we don't need any new laws. we haven’t made any new laws, as far as I’m aware.
significant ones anyhow.
I’d like to compile in this post my reasoning to support that lawful state of sovereignty.
Anyone contributions would be welcome.
It is an important point to make in a court situation. Where you are treated as subordinate to a judge, or indeed parliamentary Acts. Or even Imperial Acts.
Because if the people are sovereign then you are not subject to any authority except laws made directly by the people.
Our foundational law the Bill of Rights is a powerful indication to me that we people are sovereign.
Remembering that a generation prior to the Glorious revolution of 1688, the parliament held sovereignty.
In that turbulent century where the westminster system evolved from trial and error and much bloodshed, as protestants tried to free themselves of rome and the babylonian system. They did indeed see parliamentary sovereignty as a viable alternative to monarchy, that perhaps this was a way for people to rule themselves.
But in practice parliamentary sovereignty proved more tyrannical than any monarch. they had learnt this lesson the hard way.
“because the Parliament had forsaken their rule, the fundamental Laws of England, and exercised an arbitrary and tyrannical power over the consciences, lives, liberties, and estates; and instanced in me and others,” John Lillburne 1653, who had fought and won the war to instill parliamentary sovereignty not long prior. (https://www.strecorsoc.org/docs/defence1.html)
So in looking at the Bill of Rights, I keep in mind the times. That men were well acquainted with the evils of parliamentary sovereignty, and had no wish to return to it.
So reading the Bill of Rights it says the people being protestants are making this foundational law in its content.
But more importantly , to me , on this question is that it is called a “bill”
What is a bill?
“A bill is a proposed law under consideration by a legislature.[1] A bill does not become law until it is passed by the legislature and, in most cases, approved by the executive. Once a bill has been enacted into law, it is called an Act or a statute.”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%28law%29)
A bill does not have the force of law . Its merely a proposal. why on earth would they call their foundational law a “bill”. would this not make it seem powerless?
It was passed through parliament in 1689 and became an Act. Yet the name bill was retained.
Why?
I can think of no other explanation than that they were retaining the name Bill to reinforce the point that it was law the moment the people wrote it. It was not subject to parliament’s approval. They had had a gutful of parliamentary masters a generation earlier.
And so important was this point, that the name “bill” carried forward to the American revolution, and they copied the name “bill”.
I believe that this in and of itself shows us that the people hold sovereignty.
More later on this topic. An important one when refusing to be a slave to Australian parliament, in your every day.
COUNTERFEIT PARLIAMENT AND COURTS
This is a quote from william of Orange, appealing to be the new king via the glorious Revolution, and is thus a foundational principle of our law (read the war makes the law)
“though it is apparent that all acts made by popish magistrates are null and void of themselves, so that no Parliament can be lawful for which the elections and returns are made by popish sheriffs and mayors of towns; and, therefore, as long as the authority and magistracy is in such hands, it is not possible to have any lawful Parliament.”
(Declaration of the prince of Orange 1688 https://www.jacobite.ca/documents/16881010.htm)
Source: https://isaih520.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/we-are-soverign/
1Will not be visible to public.
2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.
4To show an image enclose the image URL in tags - ie.. Note: image may be resized if too large
To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here
To contribute a news article Click Here
To view or contribute a Quote Click Here