They're Asking Us to Explain the Rule of Law to Them!

Here is your opportunity, but you'll have to move quickly.

https://committees.parliament.uk/call-for-evidence/3614/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Similar to the Leveson enquiry, the House of Lords Constitution Committee is asking people to submit evidence to key questions regarding the Rule of Law. And they have guided you by listing some specific questions.

I will be honest here, the doors are gradually closing on this. Over the previous forty years or so, the understanding of the rule of law and the constitution in senior influencers has deteriorated. A few decades ago, their knowledge was very different and they had some understanding that the government was constrained by the Constitutional limitations placed over them, even if they didn't fully understand what those were.

That has changed and we now have dangerous confusions (or deliberately emplaced false notions) that have taken hold.

In particular is the erroneous idea that the legislature (driven by the cabinet and party currently 'in power') can purport to legislate (use its own legislative powers) to change the Constitution - meaning that there is effectively no limitation placed upon the government! (Which is the whole point of a Constitution).

If you have been reading into the genuine Constitution and the Rule of Law, it will be clear to you straightaway how distorted their understanding already is. I would suggest that one of the most important things to challenge is their claim of 'Parliamentary Sovereignty'.

• Parliament cannot and must never have the power to legislate away aspects of the Constitution - i.e. Government is bound by the Constitution's limitations.
• A free society must respect Individual or Fundamental Rights
• The law is owned by the people
• That ownership or authority of the people exists through Jury Independence
• The concept of Jury Independence and Jury Equity must be clearly communicated to the people
• The government's primary role is to uphold the justice system such that the people remain the final arbiter of law
• The King does and must have real prerogative powers, as the Head of State is the one who promises at his Coronation Oath to govern lawfully. How can he do that if he is denied the powers to do it or criticised for being too 'politically involved'!? Therefore let's stop pretending that he doesn't have these powers!

For general reminders / inspiration, may I suggest you watch/re-watch my two interviews with Ben Rubin:

Interview 1
https://www.commonlawconstitution.org/news-and-thoughts/important-discussion-with-ben-rubin-of-pattern-uk-column

Interview 2
https://www.commonlawconstitution.org/news-and-thoughts/interview-2-with-ben-rubin-why-restorative-justice-is-critical

And three further useful resources would be my letter to Brian Leveson:
https://www.commonlawconstitution.org/news-and-thoughts/william-keyte-writes-to-the-rt-hon-sir-brian-leveson

And the page of references and quotations in support of the genuine Constitutional Rule of Law:
https://www.commonlawconstitution.org/resources/useful-quotations-in-support-of-the-constitution-and-trial-by-jury?c=learning

And the essay 'When is a Facade Not a Facade':
https://www.commonlawconstitution.org/resources/facade?c=essays-and-articles

As I said, our opportunities are fading away to reverse this understanding. They have almost completely air-brushed out many of these notions of the people's authority. Instead, they have managed to cement in place the idea that adult suffrage reigns supreme - which to the sleepy masses (and still many in the freedom movement) remains the way the rule of law should operate, instead of testing all law through the full rigorous deliberation of the jury in which approximated 'law' in the form of statute is tested against a real situation of justice.

This is ultimately down to the people showing their passion and understanding. If the numbers aren't big enough and the feelings do not show sufficient steadfastness and fervour, then the changes in attitude and understanding will not occur.

We could make a difference in a surprisingly short time if we put our minds to it and showed some spine. We have to try for our children's generation.