Constitutional law deals with how a country is governed. It is a collection of rules about rules. A constitution has a Head of State - Elizabeth II  in England and three branches.

The Legislature makes laws. The Executive enforces them and the Judiciary decide whether laws have been broken and how offenders should be punished. The Executive is also called the Administration.

In Her Majesty's Government it consists of Her prime minister, other ministers and their departments. They are more or less separate; this is called the #Separation Of Powers. The Wikipedia's explanation might be right.

The political form is one thing. The reality is another. One major player is the Civil Service. Anyone who doubts this should read Yes Minister by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn. It was the favourite television programme of the then British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.

England and other countries which use the Common Law are different. They have a fourth branch, the Jury, the twelve good men and true who come together once to decide whether the law and facts justify a conviction. Juries are detested by the other three branches because they cannot be manipulated so easily. They are paid very badly which blocks one obvious route. Another method is concealing the truth from them. The law regarding evidence is another branch of law which is messy. Lawyers like it that way.

American Constitution
Was written down. This is a virtue. It was written at one time so it hangs together. It is a good one, which is why it is being systematically abused by the American government, a dangerous band of criminals.


Peers Petition The Queen Regarding European Usurpers
The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Masserene and Ferrard, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell and Lord Ashbourne were imbued with the spirit of the ancient Charter, thrust on King John in 1215. In accordance with the Charter's Clause 61 [ See the English Translation ], the famous enforcement clause, the four presented a vellum parchment at Buckingham Palace, declaring that the ancient rights and freedoms of the British people had to be defended.

The clause, one of the most important in the Charter, which was pressed on King John at Runnymede, allows subjects of the realm to present a quorum of 25 barons with a petition, which four of their number then have to take to the Monarch, who must accept it. It was last used in 1688 at the start of the Glorious Revolution.

The four peers, who were all thrown out of Parliament in November 1999, proved they had that quorum by presenting Sir Robin Janvrin, the Queen's private secretary, with the petition signed by 28 hereditaries and letters of support from another 60. In addition, they claim the support of thousands of members of the public.

They say that several articles in the Treaty of Nice agreed by Tony Blair in December will destroy fundamental British liberties. The Queen has 40 days to respond. Under the Magna Carta's provisions, if the Sovereign does not observe the Charter the people may rise up and wage war on her, seizing castles, lands and possessions until they have redress.
They did this in 2001 after the House of Lords was screwed by Blair in 1999. The Queen failed us - again. See the next one.


Peers Petition Queen And Not Before Time
PMFJI, I have just noticed this post about the Barons Petition in 2001.

I was one of the researchers for the Magna Carta Society which started this project.

To answer the question about the status of the Peers, they represent the common law rights of property owners in our constitution.

To answer the question about how they gained their property, the god of battles decided in their favour in 1066 and they took over administration of The Realm according to common law principles. That was lawful. [ The Common Law came after William the Bastard, didn't it? - Editor ]

Here is a link to my Blog about the petition:

Regarding the outcome of the petition, Elizabeth Saxe-Coberg-Gotha did not change her measures within 40 days and until The Barons Committee say otherwise lawful rebellion is authorized.

Regards, John H.
Wrong in detail, sound in sentiment.


Separation Of Powers ex Wiki
The separation of powers, often imprecisely and metonymically used interchangeably with the trias politica principle,[1] is a model for the governance of a state (or who controls the state). The model was first developed in ancient Greece. Under this model, the state is divided into branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that the powers of one branch are not in conflict with the powers associated with the other branches. The typical division of branches is into a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary. It can be contrasted with the fusion of powers in a parliamentary system where the executive and legislature (and sometimes parts of the judiciary) are unified.

Separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.


Errors & omissions, broken links, cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever; if you find any I am open to comment.
Email me at Mike Emery. All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep it private, use my PGP KeyHome Page

Updated on 06/11/2016 20:02