swarb.co.uk

Tortus · Joined: 15 Jul 2006 Posts: 23

Before you roll your eyes Theycan'tdothat, you might consider the following:

With regards to the text you have quoted, it is precisely here, that you so misunderstand the Bill of Rights:

This portion of the act is referring to the Monarchy as head of State and Government; not the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is that, a Minister of the Government and it is the Monarch who still formally appoints the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister therefore is still subserviant to the Monarch who reigns supreme. The whole reason for the Bill of Rights was to limit the power of the Monarch which is why we have a constitutional monarchy and not absolute.

I'll put it into layman's terms for you. The Monarch still has the power to dissolve Parliament and rid herself of a Prime minister she didn't like although this would create somewhat of a Constitutional crisis. This is why HM Queen, during the speech states "My Government". It's interesting stuff isn't it?

You'll also be aware, that it is the 1829 Catholic Relief Act that states a Prime Minister cannot be Catholic, not the Bill of Rights which is why the Bill of Rights has not been repealed in any way, shape or form.

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 34

Thank you Tortus!
I wondered if someone would pick up the baton. If theycantdothat cares to go back on my last thread he will find, now,
coloured things too, showing he already had most of his answers.
Tony
_________________
Tony

Tortus · Joined: 15 Jul 2006 Posts: 23

I have enjoyed reading your posts Tony. I truly wish I had the dexterity with which you write. In fact I am much the wiser as a result.

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 34

Thanks for this.

Nice to see someone else understands what I have said without repeating it the required
three times.

Tony
_________________
Tony

cogito ergo doleo · Joined: 13 May 2006 Posts: 174

_________________
Intelligence is knowing that a banana is a herb. wisdom is not boring everyone else about it.

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 34

'Verbum satis sapienti', repeating it, is?
_________________
Tony

theycantdothat · Joined: 17 Oct 2005 Posts: 417

The key words in the passage I quoted are:

or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same

The PM exercies prerogative powers.

Are you also saying that today no Catholic can be PM? Would have surprised Ian Duncan Smith.

In fact the Catholic Emancipation Act only makes it illegal for a Catholic PM to advise the sovereign on matters concerning the Church of England.

Tortus · Joined: 15 Jul 2006 Posts: 23

I shall try my hand at brevity since it appears that those who at one time, were calling for it; are now substantiating their arguments with much vigour and at length.

I quote the Duke of Wellington Hansard XXI [N-S.], 41-58

"My lords, in the Bill of Rights, there are some things permanently enacted, which I sincerely hope will be permanent; - those are, the liberties of the people; the security for Protestantism of the person on the throne of these kingdoms, and that he shall not be married to a papist.

I need not interpret anything; the Bill of Rights is very clear, it always has been and so it remains. Only those who have created the conflict need attempt to justify the meaning.

theycantdothat · Joined: 17 Oct 2005 Posts: 417

But what is the relevance of the sovereign being a Protestant to parking fines?

dls · Site Admin Joined: 10 Apr 2005 Posts: 2789

I am glad you asked that because I was just worrying that this was yet another thing I was puzzled at.

Tortus · Joined: 15 Jul 2006 Posts: 23

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 34

Dls, comment; I compliment you on your posts elsewhere they are cogent and show experience when you are in control. I didn't expect you to return here, without reconciling a former error, things we ALL do in haste. I don't think you are puzzled at all, merely a busy person without requisite time for THIS thread, that requires reading at a level beneath the surface. Until you reconcile your contradiction, I think any return is tinged with adverse scrutiny in a now sceptical continuance and participation.

The relevance of protestantism was introduced by theycantdothat in the first place, trying, and failing to demonstrate that there is NO distinction between 'de jure' and 'de facto' and arguing that 'and' means 'or', 'or' means anything one fancies, and that words now are like jellied eels so perhaps it's better he answer that for himself, while at the same time returning to page 2, and looking at the
red/blue bits where answers to questions he continues to raise as IF they were new, were already given more than twice now. The problem is, does he read answers or acknowledge points previously raised before moving on, clearly not, since moving on, he continues to drown in that sea I mentioned on page 2, in red. Do try and pay attention to what has been said more than three times. When I said, - I don't say things more than twice -, I had in mind a particular class of cogent perception.

I think no interlocutor here, save ONE with perception and clarity (not myself) , has the depth to recognise the issue without their being clouded by emotion and propositions that appear like rebuttal just for the nonce.

The question is, has anybody got a serious NEW question on the horizon? Can anyone reconcile a contradiction without failing in self esteem?
_________________
Tony

theycantdothat · Joined: 17 Oct 2005 Posts: 417

Here are some new things:

The Bill of Rights says:

That jurors ought to be duly impannelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders

Section 1 (1) of the Juries Act 1974 (as amended) reads as follows:

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every person shall be qualified to serve as a juror in the Crown Court, the High Court and county courts and be liable accordingly to attend for jury service when summoned under this Act if-
(a) he is for the time being registered as a parliamentary or local government elector and is not less than eighteen nor more than seventy years of age;
(b) he has been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for any period of at least five years since attaining the age of thirteen;
(c) he is not a mentally disordered person; and
(d) he is not disqualified for jury service

Does the 1974 Act override the Bill of Rights?

The Bill of Rights says:

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void

Now you want “fines” to mean fines of all description whatsoever whatever they may be called. So let us apply the same to “forfeitures”. Leases are regularly forfeited by landlords for non-payment of rent and breach of covenant; they can do this without recourse to the court. This is a common law right, but is recognised by statute; see for example Section 146(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925:

A right of re-entry or forfeiture under any proviso or stipulation in a lease for a breach of any covenant or condition in the lease shall not be enforceable, by action or otherwise, unless and until the lessor serves on the lessee a notice-
(a) specifying the particular breach complained of; and
(b) if the breach is capable of remedy, requiring the lessee to remedy the breach; and
(c) in any case, requiring the lessee to make compensation in money for the breach;
and the lessee fails, within a reasonable time thereafter, to remedy the breach, if it is capable of remedy, and to make reasonable compensation in money, to the satisfaction of the lessor, for the breach.

Would you argue that no lease should be forfeited without a court order?

The Bill of Rights says:

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by the law.

How do you feel that provision fits in with modern gun laws? Do you think that there should be different gun laws for Protestants and non-Protestants?

The Bill of Rights says:

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.

Do you think that a newspaper should be prosecuted if it questions the proceedings of Parliament?

Now as to the question of “and” and “or” here is a little conundrum for you. This is the text of the Sermon on the Mount:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted.

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the land.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me.

Are you blessed if you comply with only one, or do you have to comply with all of them to reach that state? What is the state of someone who hungers and thirsts for righteousness, but is not meek? Is the "and" between "hungers" and "thirsts" definitely to be be construed as conjunctive, so that if you simply hunger for righteousness, but fail also to thirst for it, you cannot be blessed?

Tortus · Joined: 15 Jul 2006 Posts: 23

Even though you have completely ignored Tony's post, you are trying aren't you? I shall use...Olive

brev·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (brv-t)
n.
The quality or state of being brief in duration.
Concise expression; terseness.

"I need not interpret anything; the Bill of Rights is very clear, it always has been and so it remains. Only those who have created the conflict need attempt to justify the meaning."

Tortus · Joined: 15 Jul 2006 Posts: 23

What do you think Tony? shall we oblige?