coup-d'etat Inquiry
Lords seek evidence on war making powers
The Lords Constitutional Committee is to conduct an inquiry on "The use of the royal prerogative power by Government to deploy the UK’s armed forces". The Chairman of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, Lord Holmes, said:
“This has been one of the most important constitutional issues of the past few years, on which feelings run understandably high. It is important to conduct a thorough inquiry to identify how the requirements of democracy and national emergency can best be reconciled.”
click here for Call for Evidence: War Making Powers.
Ok Lord Holmes, for what it is worth, the following is my two penny submission
The Clerk to the Constitution Committee,
House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW
Lords Constitution Committee
Call for Evidence: War Making Powers
11 August 2005
International treaties & the Royal Prerogative.
Ministers of the Crown have, from time to time entered into treaties on behalf of the UK. It should be noted that the Ministers concerned must seek authority from the Crown by the Royal Prerogative before signing. Because the Monarch is constitutionally bound to respect the provisions of the common law, which were recognised in Magna Carta and declared in the Bill of Rights, such Royal Prerogative has the following restrictions. (The term "prerogative" means a right or privilege exclusive to an individual or class).
(a) Prerogative cannot be used in an innovatory way. If this were not so, the executive could dispense with Parliament and Judiciary and become an unlimited tyranny. Any future Attorney General could claim that an edict was part of a treaty and it would become unquestionable.
(b) The use of Prerogative power may not be subversive of the rights and liberties of the subject. (The case of Nichols v. Nichols stated "Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice".)
Royal Prerogative may not be used to suspend or offend against Statutes in Force. This comes from the Bill of Rights and the Coronation Oath Act which specifies the following form of words; "Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland...according to their respective laws and usages." Prospective Monarch: "I solemnly promise so to do." Note the similarity to the Judicial Oath. This is because the Courts dispense justice on behalf of the Crown.
The limitations of Royal Prerogative are clear:
"No prerogative may be recognised that is contrary to Magna Carta or any other statute, or that interferes with the liberties of the subject. The courts have jurisdiction therefore, to enquire into the existence of any prerogative, it being a maxim of the common law that the King ought to be under no man, but under God and the law, because the law makes the King. If any prerogative is disputed, the Courts must decide the question of whether or not it exists in the same way as they decide any other question of law. If a prerogative is clearly established, they must take the same judicial notice of it as they take of any other rule of law."
Bowles v. Bank of England (1913) confirmed that, "the Bill of Rights still remains unrepealed, and practice of custom, however prolonged, or however acquiesced in on the part of the subject can not be relied on by the Crown as justifying any infringement of its provisions".
The Bill of Rights 1688 is a declaration of the common law. It is also an operative Statute. It contains the Oath of Allegiance, which is required by Magna Carta to be taken by all Crown servants including members of the Armed Forces, MP’s, and the Judiciary. They are required not to "take into consequence or example anything to the detriment of the subjects liberties".
The Oath required of Crown servants includes " I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance..." The qualification "true" confirms that allegiance is not required to a Monarch whose actions are unlawful.
It can be shown that we have recently had a coup-d'etat in this country. This was accomplished when the Government took control over the armed forces to use them for political purposes.
The Bill of Rights allows the Crown a standing army in peace time and who's members swear allegiance to defend Her "in person Crown and dignity against all enemies". No one else (except the Duke of Argyll), is allowed an army.
The Armed Forces Act 1996 purports to allow the Crown to set aside the requirement for annual army acts. It states that the Crown may authorise the armed forces by "Order in Council". This provision would permit the Government to use the Armed Forces even if Parliament was suspended, and is contrary to the intent of the Bill of Rights.
Various defence reviews have resulted in the Government issuing mission statements that claims that the forces role in future is to defend the Realm and "to implement Government policy, in particular foreign policy". This is from a document published by the MOD and available from them and on the Web. It means that the Government is now claiming that it can use the Army for its own purposes where the safety of the Realm is not threatened. Serving members of the Forces have been invited to sign new contracts agreeing to this new arrangement. Recent recruiting adverts for the Forces reflect this. A recent cinema advert for the RAF depicts a foreign "peace keeping" operation and has the slogan "Their country needs you".
This is a equivalent to a coup-d'etat.
Supplemental information submitted 1st of Sept 2005 Looming Constitutional Crisis
.
The Lords Constitutional Committee is to conduct an inquiry on "The use of the royal prerogative power by Government to deploy the UK’s armed forces". The Chairman of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, Lord Holmes, said:
“This has been one of the most important constitutional issues of the past few years, on which feelings run understandably high. It is important to conduct a thorough inquiry to identify how the requirements of democracy and national emergency can best be reconciled.”
click here for Call for Evidence: War Making Powers.
Ok Lord Holmes, for what it is worth, the following is my two penny submission
The Clerk to the Constitution Committee,
House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW
Lords Constitution Committee
Call for Evidence: War Making Powers
11 August 2005
International treaties & the Royal Prerogative.
Ministers of the Crown have, from time to time entered into treaties on behalf of the UK. It should be noted that the Ministers concerned must seek authority from the Crown by the Royal Prerogative before signing. Because the Monarch is constitutionally bound to respect the provisions of the common law, which were recognised in Magna Carta and declared in the Bill of Rights, such Royal Prerogative has the following restrictions. (The term "prerogative" means a right or privilege exclusive to an individual or class).
(a) Prerogative cannot be used in an innovatory way. If this were not so, the executive could dispense with Parliament and Judiciary and become an unlimited tyranny. Any future Attorney General could claim that an edict was part of a treaty and it would become unquestionable.
(b) The use of Prerogative power may not be subversive of the rights and liberties of the subject. (The case of Nichols v. Nichols stated "Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice".)
Royal Prerogative may not be used to suspend or offend against Statutes in Force. This comes from the Bill of Rights and the Coronation Oath Act which specifies the following form of words; "Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland...according to their respective laws and usages." Prospective Monarch: "I solemnly promise so to do." Note the similarity to the Judicial Oath. This is because the Courts dispense justice on behalf of the Crown.
The limitations of Royal Prerogative are clear:
"No prerogative may be recognised that is contrary to Magna Carta or any other statute, or that interferes with the liberties of the subject. The courts have jurisdiction therefore, to enquire into the existence of any prerogative, it being a maxim of the common law that the King ought to be under no man, but under God and the law, because the law makes the King. If any prerogative is disputed, the Courts must decide the question of whether or not it exists in the same way as they decide any other question of law. If a prerogative is clearly established, they must take the same judicial notice of it as they take of any other rule of law."
Bowles v. Bank of England (1913) confirmed that, "the Bill of Rights still remains unrepealed, and practice of custom, however prolonged, or however acquiesced in on the part of the subject can not be relied on by the Crown as justifying any infringement of its provisions".
The Bill of Rights 1688 is a declaration of the common law. It is also an operative Statute. It contains the Oath of Allegiance, which is required by Magna Carta to be taken by all Crown servants including members of the Armed Forces, MP’s, and the Judiciary. They are required not to "take into consequence or example anything to the detriment of the subjects liberties".
The Oath required of Crown servants includes " I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance..." The qualification "true" confirms that allegiance is not required to a Monarch whose actions are unlawful.
It can be shown that we have recently had a coup-d'etat in this country. This was accomplished when the Government took control over the armed forces to use them for political purposes.
The Bill of Rights allows the Crown a standing army in peace time and who's members swear allegiance to defend Her "in person Crown and dignity against all enemies". No one else (except the Duke of Argyll), is allowed an army.
The Armed Forces Act 1996 purports to allow the Crown to set aside the requirement for annual army acts. It states that the Crown may authorise the armed forces by "Order in Council". This provision would permit the Government to use the Armed Forces even if Parliament was suspended, and is contrary to the intent of the Bill of Rights.
Various defence reviews have resulted in the Government issuing mission statements that claims that the forces role in future is to defend the Realm and "to implement Government policy, in particular foreign policy". This is from a document published by the MOD and available from them and on the Web. It means that the Government is now claiming that it can use the Army for its own purposes where the safety of the Realm is not threatened. Serving members of the Forces have been invited to sign new contracts agreeing to this new arrangement. Recent recruiting adverts for the Forces reflect this. A recent cinema advert for the RAF depicts a foreign "peace keeping" operation and has the slogan "Their country needs you".
This is a equivalent to a coup-d'etat.
Supplemental information submitted 1st of Sept 2005 Looming Constitutional Crisis
.
posted by Anoneumouse at 5:15 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home