Should we Trust the State to Tell us About the Constitution?

I wrote this in response to a discussion on social media about what is said in the Cabinet Manual 2011 regarding Magna Carta 1215. Namely, in item 5 of the Introduction to the Manual, as follows:

Constitutional matters and practices may include:

• statutes, such as Magna Carta in 1215; the Bill of Rights and Scottish Claim of Right Act in 1689; the Acts of Union; the various Acts extending the voting franchise; the Parliament Acts in 1911 and 1949 limiting the powers of the House of Lords; the European Communities Act 1972; the Human Rights Act 1998; the Representation of the People Acts; and the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Acts of 1998 and 2006 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998;

• the Royal Prerogative, which is the residual power inherent in the Sovereign, and now exercised mostly on the advice of the Prime Minister and Ministers of the Crown; 2 Introduction
• judicial decisions, for example, Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593; In re M [1994] AC 377; Jackson v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 made by the Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords), the Court of Appeal and the High Court (in England, Wales and Northern Ireland) and the Court of Session in Scotland;
• conventions, rules of constitutional practice that are regarded as binding in operation but not in law; and
• European and international law, both of which inform and influence the UK’s constitution.
  
  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cabinet-manual 

The point being made in the social media post and subsequent discussion was that the manual was listing Magna Carta as one of many historical documents and statutes that are important in our ‘unwritten constitution’ as well as conventions etc. The post described Magna Carta as a ‘long-superceded document’.

I felt that the thrust of the post and subsequent discussion was to put consideration of Magna Carta in the same ‘pot’ as ‘Strawman’, Birth certificate fraud, UCC and the like, and to gently dissuade people from considering the importance of Magna Carta or from considering the material of anyone talking about the principles written within the document. I have recently noticed an uptick in people conflating these topics in order to deflect from the importance of our Trial by Jury, and also, I believe, with a view to bringing people back into the fold of the political religion of left/right politics. I am not saying nobody should pay attention to our current political regime, I am not even saying that nobody should vote, but rather that we should understand there will be no solutions found within continuing to participate unconsciously in the left/right dialectic.

Anyway, I asked the following question (which I have slightly tidied and expanded here), which went unanswered.

Do you think we should trust the ‘Cabinet Manual’ as an authoritative source of what is and is not law? Especially in light of the inversion of the constitution by parliamentarians from 1688 onwards. That inversion paved the way for the full immersion of the people in the religion of left/ right politics…. Which is what I call the ‘overlay constitution’.

The overlay constitution is said to be changeable by parliament, which, the overlay constitution claims, is sovereign. The overlay constitution purports to validly weaken its own checks and balances… it has weakened and then decimated the Lords by statute, weakened the power of the King by statute and ‘conventions’ which are not all written down and which lead to statements (which are taught to lawyers in a perpetuating cycle of nonsense) like… the King can refuse royal assent, he just wouldn’t, because of convention. It has instigated a whip system to force Mps to vote in ways which go against their consciences.

If working as it claims to work (leaving aside that there are higher-up puppeteers), the overlay constitution supports the collectivist mob rule of allowing the majority to decide the behaviour of the minority. It claims a separation of powers which does not exist, and which should not exist. It is a facade, which has allowed for the propulsion towards a state which bears no resemblance to Truth.

You are right to call out the nonsense of the strawman concept and the black/ white type conspiracy which is claimed by that narrative. But it is the principles contained in Articles 39 and 40 Magna Carta, supported by the Coronation Oath (not the illegal statutory version which elevated parliament) which is the basis of the true constitution—which reflects Truth, or Natural Law. Emporer Conrad said almost exactly the same as Article 39 some 150 years prior to Magna Carta. The central piece is the people deciding the justice of their community. It is the aspiration we should strive for. Without it, we always cycle back to tyranny.

I suggested that people read the following article which further explains what I am getting at here: “When is a Facade not a Facade?”

https://www.commonlawconstitution.org/resources/facade

For further information on this topic, please see this excellent series on 17th Century history from TheRealMagnaCarta1215 on You Tube:

https://www.commonlawconstitution.org/the-glorious-revolution-and-the-bill-of-rights