British History, Culture & Sports, History of Freedom, Heroes, Inventors, Brits at their, English country scene

tội cá độ bóng đá qua mạng | All Posts

"Out of doors political activity"

The weather in much of Britain is wet today. A good time, perhaps, to revisit this meditation from Glenn Reynolds on Anglo-American outdoors political activities -

Traditionally, Anglo-American political philosophy allowed for what Gordon Wood called "out of doors political activity" - behavior that was extralegal, but not exactly unlawful, in response to overreaching by authorities. Pauline Maier's excellent book, From Resistance to Revolution, documents this during the colonial and revolutionary eras, but it actually persisted for some time afterward. The thinking was that government officials couldn't always be checked via law, because they controlled the law and its administration - thus the need for citizens to (in the words of the Tennessee Supreme Court) "keep in awe those who are in power." The out-of-doors activity wasn't necessarily violent: generally, property was targeted first (think Boston Tea Party), and efforts against officials were generally designed to be embarrassing or humiliating rather than seriously dangerous.

Via Anne Palmer and the Times we received the news that "a violation of the fundamental procedural rights of the accused” will be implemented by the EU. In the near future Brits can be convicted in their absence by foreign EU courts without the right to face their accuser in person and defend themselves.

This basic right, which was held by even the ancient Roman citizen, will be trashed.

The Liberty Timeline suggests what gross infringements of their freedoms used to make Brits angry enough to take to outdoor activities. What outrageous overreaching by government does it take to make Brits valiant and defiant today?

Comments (2)

Anne Palmer:

Sadly, some of the people have fallen into the cleverly laid trap. It is, if they know they have done wrong and are guilty, easier to pay an on the spot fine, it 'saves a lot of hassle. However, somepeople, even if they dispute the on the spot fine and believe they are innocent still 'choose' to pay the fine "and have done with it".

This leads to what is happening now.

Courts are closing, and the wonderful system we had here in the UK will become the Corpus Juris system of the Continent. Please read up on Corpus Juris.

As for having foreign police here (helping to control our borders, as suggested -and we are sending some of our forces into France first, please note) they will be coming here either to 'help' or perhaps take part in an arrest, I am not sure as yet.

However, all our forces (at the moment) swear allegiance to the Queen (CROWN) and through the Crown, the sovereignty of all the people in this land. You can only therefore be arrested here in this land by those whose allegiance is to the Crown. (This will change if you let it happen.) If we do not fight for the RIGHTS as laid down in our Constitution - and even though our government may have signed up to this, YOU the people have not had your say on such a great, massive Constitutional change such as this, it is time you did.

If you do not fight for your Rights as held in your Constitution, you will lose them. As the hard person I am, I would add that if you do not fight for them, you deserve to lose them. Many before you have given their very young lives to preserve them for YOU.

What is in the Declaration/Bill of Rights and Magna Carta, that makes me, along with so many more people, so want to keep them? Our Bill of Rights 1688/9 makes clear, "That excessive bail ought not to be required; nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. These are from our Constitution, the law above the law, the foundations upon which all other laws are or should, be built.

Clause 29 Magna Carta makes clear that "for a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a Royal Court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood". See also Clauses 39 and 40.

The Bill of Rights holds the Oath of Allegiance all so swear, Parliament did not make these laws of which I write even though the present-day Parliament believes it can do anything it likes, by implied repeal which is actually cheating. Parliament can undo anything it does but what it may not do is to repeal our long standing Magna Carta nor the Declaration of Rights/Bill of Rights because Parliament had no hand in either.

If you have done something against the Law here in your own Country yet what may be deemed to be wrong in the eyes of a court abroad, then the procedure should be that a British person is tried by a British Judge who sits in from the Royal Coat of Arms and applies the law of this Land, here in the UK.

I question that our Government can ratify Treaties over our Constitution and which they themselves cannot repeal -and that is why the Government are bringing forth a new written Constitution and new Bill of Rights and upon which the people will have a vote as long as they accept both and thus destroy their very own Magna Carta and Bill of Right 1688/9.

This is not a done deal, it cannot be a done deal and it must not be seen to be a done deal. It is not in any Treaty yet it is of great Constitutional Significance
because it is again YOUR VERY own Constitution.

There are other protections held in Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, read
up on them, read and know them well. Do not let them go so easily.

Sandra Hurt-Norris:

Exactly right. This is why "normal" Americans will always reject the notion of being tried by an international court rather than the laws of the land. This eats away at the freedoms that our ancestors earned for us. On a personal note, it puts my back up to think someone in Brussels would have the gall to sit in judgement over any American citizen. No objection to an American being tried in a local court for breaking a law while there. There is a enormous difference in local court vs. being hauled before an international court.

kỹ thuật chơi thắng bài baccarat_game bài casino_keo bet365

(Please do give us your name or the name you write under in the form below and your URL if you have one. Your comment may take a little time to appear. Thanks for waiting.)