As we all know Democracy means a privileged few ruling and having power over the unprivileged many. The landed and property owning classes – the business elite and the old remnants of aristocracy of class privilege and of course topped off with a monarchy of parasites.
Today all Political Parliamentary Parties play that game of loyalty to the monarch or in deed to parliament itself. Over hundreds of years the rich and powerful have been at war wresting more of the monarchs powers for themselves.
Parliamentary privilege is no different from the privileges held by the monarch – further that the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty broadly means that Parliament has the right to make or unmake any law, and no person is allowed to override or set aside the law of Parliament. This is the power of all monarchs – and this is the power that parliament has copied for itself.
1. Parliament is the supreme law making body and may enact any laws on any subject matter.
2. No parliament may be bound a predecessor or bind a successor.
3. No person or body including a court of law may question the validity of law.
This means that parliament is above the law – much in the identical way of monarchs. All that has happened is one powerful group of people have copied the same powers of another.
It is to be noted that Magna Carta 1215 threw out these principles of supreme power and being above the law – to which now parliament claims for itself. Just like king John parliament rejects Magna Carta 1215 as it would threaten its sovereignty.
Instead of living under the dictatorship of monarchs we now live under the dictatorship of parliament. Indeed it is a dictatorship to which we are obliged to vote for every 4 years in which gains that are made by one parliament are quickly abolished by the next:
Acts of Parliament override the law of the judges.
There are two limits to Parliamentary Sovereignty:
External: the people may disobey or resist the laws of Parliament Internal:
limitations arising from the moral feelings of those who sit in Parliament (i.e. members of our Parliament wouldn’t legislate laws against a specific race today because the members themselves consider it morally wrong)
These ideas were set forth by AV Dicey (Albert Venn Dicey 4th February 1835 to 7th April 1922 died aged 87) It has been said that Dicey’s concept lacks support from precedents, and is inherently fallacious because the nature of ‘sovereign’ power is contrary to the idea of the Parliament. “Sovereign” applies to monarchs in Common Law and all presidents – The Rule of Law aims to prevent the exercise of arbitrary or tyrannical power. It became popularised by AV Dicey, who described it through three main tenets:
1. A man can only be punished if it was proved in court that he breached a law.
This means that the Sovereign cannot punish people arbitrarily.
2. No man is above the law, and everyone is equal before the law.
This means that the law applies to everyone in the exact same way regardless of social, economic or political status.
3. The Constitution (the law) is the result of previous judicial decisions determining the rights of private persons.
This means the constitution is not the source of the law, but the consequence of inherent rights. We don’t derive our rights from the Constitution; the Constitution is the result of our rights.
A further explanation is provided by WI Jennings (Sir William Ivor Jennings, KBE, QC, FBA was a British lawyer and academic. He was a prominent educator who served as the Vice Chancellor of University of Cambridge and University of Ceylon. Born: 16 May 1903, Bristol – Died: 19 December 1965, Cambridge – Educated Queen Elizabeth’s Hospital, Bristol Grammar School):
Rule of Law means a limitation of power on every authority, except perhaps a representative legislature.
A sovereign or any person acting on behalf of a state can only exercise a power as long as he can authorise his act through an existing law.
Equality before the law is flawed – many legislations apply only to special classes, minor’s have different laws.
Bill of Rights – Charters Magna Carta 1215 do not give give derived rights these Rights or Charters are a direct result of our affirming our rights. We can by affirming our rights resist and disobey all Statute Laws of parliament as was done at the time of 1215 where those in power – the War Lords disobeyed king John in open armed rebellion to his rule.
In fact parliament had raised it’s own army February 1645 that it would be more successful against the king’s army who always always threatening the new ruling elite. The Battle of Marston Moor, had been a major victory for Parliament but not totally decisive in the sense that Charles could recover from it. As we see people form armies to usurp power from one group of people to another and this principle is still in force to this day.
Power is always taken – never given. Parliament gain it’s power from armed rebellion against the monarchs – and essentially acquired the exact same rights and privileges and if we wish to usurp power it is through armed rebellion.
We in armed rebellion do not wish to form a mirror of the old ways – we do not wish to duplicate and just give our rebellion a new name. We do not wish to create the same servitude and bondage we do not wish to continue as bonded slaves serving the masters of old or the new masters of commerce. What we want is a Socialist Republic.