hmmm...
[spoiler]Legal Policy Team
Legal Directorate
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
T: 020 3334 3555
F: 020 3334 4455
E:
xxxxxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx http://www.justice.gov.uk Mr Ben Addison
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx Your ref: TO263052 -TO09/5866
Date: 18 December 2009
Dear Mr Addison,
Thank you for your correspondence of 5 December where you have asked a further question relating to the principles of law within the English legal system.
Parliament is the supreme law-making authority in England and Wales and can legislate in whatever field of law it wishes. Laws passed by Parliament are referred to as Acts of Parliament or statute law. Statute law has become the commonest source of new laws or law reform since around the seventeenth century. Parliament can therefore legislate in all areas of law for example criminal, civil, commercial and public law.
Statute law has not, however superseded the common law. Both sources of law remain significant within the English legal system and apply side by side. It is only when an Act of Parliament deals with an area of law previously covered by case law that the common law is superseded.
As mentioned in previous correspondence, the development of the common law in the English legal system can be traced back to the twelfth century. Statute law did not develop as the primary source of law until around the seventeenth century. Statutes can amend or replace common law in a particular area, but the common law cannot overrule or change statutes. A statute can only be overruled or amended by another, later piece of legislation. This reflects the legal and political doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty - the recognition and acceptance that Parliament is the supreme law-making authority.
Parliament is the representative of the people through election to the House of Commons. Members of Parliament are elected to represent the people and by those elections they have been legitimately handed the power to assess, enact or reject legislation.
The transfer of primacy from the common law to statute law was a gradual process which occurred simultaneously to the process of Parliament acquiring additional powers and establishing itself as the supreme law-making authority. There is no formal documentation or written evidence, for example legislation, to confirm this transfer.
I hope that you find this information helpful.
Tania Williams[/spoiler]
ok, i think this is going to take me a while and To be honest, it's a complex issue that has not been fully agreed upon. It's open to different interpretations, obviously those in power know and will interpret it however it best suits them, and they may claim we would do the same.
I'll try answering some of the points, as I see it.
Some people claim the MC was only for the Nobility, Barons etc. yet nowhere in the document does it specify what a freeman is, so how can anyone prove who it was intended for? Being as none of us were present or party to it and very few people today can read Norman French.
The MC is still in effect today, MC statute of 1297, which was watered down from the original in 1215, but there are still active parts of the MC 1297 statute today, the rest has been repealed. In particular, and this is the most important point to many people, FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs
for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs
for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.
So how does anyone ever have authority to override the rights in the MC? I'd say they don't.
So nobody, no government, no Monarch has the authority to change the constitution, ever, even if they do, or try, it’s null & void, & treason.
The system in place now may claim that later statutes such as the Local Government Act, Magistrates’ Court Act, Crime & Disorder Act & Parliament Act have developed the system so that the House of Commons, our ‘representatives’ draft & pass bill etc. – many would argue that's Treason. Without the express wishes of the majority of the population can these laws be changed, amended or repealed? i'd say no, they can't.
And if they have been completed superseded in the eyes of the current system of ‘law’, it has only happened recently, being as it was only 70 years ago that Edward VIII was forced to abdicate (or volunteered to renounce depending on how you look at it) for supporting the Nazi’s, Nazi propagandists & supporters tried for Treason, & then in 1984 Michael Bettany for spying for the Russian’s.
So it’s not ok for people to produce propaganda & support the Nazi’s (just a foreign power) or spy for the Russian’s, but it’s ok to knowingly give the rule of this Nation to a foreign power, the EU?
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/ ... 0009_enm_1Editorial Information
X1Variant reading of the text noted in The Statutes of the Realm as follows: To All to whom these present Letters shall come; Greeting.
[spoiler]HENRY by the Grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Guyan, and Earl of Anjou, to all Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, Sheriffs, Provosts, Officers, and to all Bailiffs, and other our faithful Subjects, which shall see this present Charter, Greeting: Know Ye, that We, unto the honour of Almighty God, and for the salvation of (X1) the souls of our Progenitors and Successors [Kings of England,] to the advancement of Holy Church and amendment of our Realm, of our meer and free will,
have given and granted to all Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and to all [Freemen] of this our Realm, these Liberties following, to be kept in our Kingdom of England [u]for ever.[/u][/spoiler]
hmmm...i'm going to go with the MC till i find something concrete.
anyways, i dont think the document (MC) was solely for barons and whatnot since freeman were not just barons or nobility...if i'm not mistaken.
