A constitutional question for some constitutional activists

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 09 April 2021 12:42.

The Coronation Oath Act of 1688, as it appears on statute

Having seen the front page illustration to the British Constitution Group website, making a big song and dance about how “The People Retain Authority over their Government”, our close friend John Standing thought he might ask a question of these lawyerly folk. Here it is:

Dear Sirs,

May I, as a lay person in matters of British Constitutional law, ask why you hold the view that “the people” are sovereign, yet quite evidently from the illustration which graces your website you don’t mean the indigenous people of this land but anyone from anywhere who has been able to acquire citizenship. I suspect that you have confused “the people” with British nationality or perhaps even the electoral roll. Allow me to explain.

First, you are right that the primary constitutional documentation shows the people to be sovereign, and the same documentation and likewise The Bill of Rights 1689 and, by implication, the 40+ Representation of the People Acts from 1832 onward show that people to be the final source of authority (which is only ever lent to elected representatives, never given). But the person of the sovereign is not a fluid as the demos is. It has an identity specified in the Coronation Oath Act of 1688; and that identity is “the people of this Kingdome of England” and by extension Wales and, with the Acts of Union, Scotland. Note that the specification here is “people” not of course “subjects” or “citizens”, and “the people of”, not “a people in”. Words used in founding constitutional documents are definitive, not descriptive; and this document defines the people of England in the year of 1688 as separate and distinct from any other, including the peoples of the Dominions, and thus they can only remain, sovereignhood being transmitted by succession by descent.

Once a people is identified as the sovereign, therefore, then sovereign it must remain unless it consents to the contrary; for its ethnic person is constitutionally inviolate. There is no power in the land (not the monarch, not the executive, not parliament, not the judiciary) and no novel legal instrument (not, for example, the Nationality Act of 1948) which can constitutionally force change upon or replace the sovereign, or meddle with the rule of succession by descent. For such would be a usurpation. To be doubly clear, neither government nor parliament can constitutionally possess the power of usurpation. If either does take that power to itself it does so unconstitutionally, and the sovereign has the constitutional recourse to all necessary action to defend itself.

If you have a contrary argument as to why immigrant populations which the sovereign people has never consented to accept but which, on the contrary have been coerced upon the sovereign people with extreme governmental prejudice against any and all dissent, can themselves be sovereign then I would be most interested in hearing it.

Yours sincerely,

John Standing

Tags: Law

Comments:

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 09 Apr 2021 21:57 | #

A perfect statement by Mr. Standing and nothing of the resource that I’ve brought to bear runs in opposition to this inquiry, but on the contrary, enhances its realization.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Apr 2021 22:10 | #

Thank you, Daniel, and welcome back to your old home. It seems to me that the assertion of the indigenous people’s sovereign right over the political servant is a precondition for the servant’s curation of its distinctive identity, culture, and genome.

All your posts and comments remain in tact, and will continue to do so.

Posted by Thorn on Fri, 09 Apr 2021 23:23 | #

Did anyone respond to your query?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:13 | #

Here is the response ...

From: jrgw@████████
To: “majorityrights@btinternet.com” <majorityrights@btinternet.com>; “info@hardwickalliance.org” <info@hardwickalliance.org>
Sent: Friday, 9 Apr, 21 At 18:24
Subject: Re: The sovereign people

Dear Mr Standing,

This may come as a shock to you but all people in the world our sovereign. Every single living breathing human-being with a soul is born as a sovereign being with God-given rights. All 7.9 billion of us! We all have an absolute right to enjoy Common/Natural Law where you are innocent until proved guilty; where you have the right of habeas corpus; and you are only tried by your peers. We are all born, without any exception at all, to be free, happy and prosperous.

Now, you may have the ambitions of the late dictator of Uganda, General Idi Amin, when he deported every asian from ‘his’ country, but we certainly don’t hold such ambitions. Speaking for myself, when I see another human-being, I’m not bothered about their colour or culture as long as they are law-abiding, peaceful and friendly to other fellow human-beings.

You are clearly worried about this idea that we are no longer a ‘white’ country (you might want to look how many ‘black’ people fought in Nelson’s navy) but, speaking personally, I’m not. Following the logic of your argument, maybe you should contact the indigenous native Americans to encourage them to start the process of removing all the immigrants/settlers from the United States. We realise that there has been a huge amount of deep state skulduggery with such things as the Kelergi Plan to use immigration as a weapon to destabilise countries, but the bottom line is that we are all human-beings and must be treated as such.

Those immigrants/people who were invited and encouraged to come to the UK to live; have raised their families here; have served gallantly in our armed services and the police service; and have contributed hugely to our economy and to our local communities. And ‘they’, along with ‘us’, have all been the victims of an appalling global economic system that we are working to expose and collapse.

I don’t know how you think you are actually going to remove these millions of people from the UK who have made their homes here, but may I humbly suggest you stop wasting your time. Instead of thinking about ‘putting the clock back’ to what you clearly perceive as ‘the good old days’, you should work to defeat the planned Great Reset, the completely fake Green New Deal and the onward surge towards an Orwellian Global Technocracy.

I suggest you please read this https://hardwickalliance.org/articles/the-peoples-strategy/introduction/ .

Our collective ambition is simple - to inspire the process of restoring/introducing Common/Natural Law to the whole world - a world that fully embraces sovereignty to every living breathing human being. We are all the victims of the deep state and we must all work together to defeat it.

Yours sincerely

Justin █████████

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:21 | #

This is the response to the response, sent at 18.19 hrs ...

Dear Justin,

Thank you for taking the trouble to reply to my email. I have to say, I think it more likely that you might be shocked to learn that we are not, in fact, Americans. You are, it seems, imputing universalistic aspects of the Jeffersonian project which is America, which aspects do appear in America’s founding constitutional documents, upon the founding documents of our nation; and this is a very obvious and lackadaisical error.

There is nothing in our founding constitutional documents which speaks of the rights of Man as the subject of Enlightenment philosophy. The Bill of Rights was written almost half-a century before Thomas Paine was born. The founding documents speak, therefore, not of a notional liberal individualism or of a universalist egalitarianism but of the deliverance of the sovereign English people from, on the one hand, the unjust dictates of political authority and, on the other, the political ambitions of the Catholic Church. There is nothing which speaks of the possession of a “soul”, nothing which speaks of “every human being in the world”. Common Law is not Natural Law, and anyway Common Law is not Constitutional Law, nor is Constitutional Law founded in Common Law, unless you are looking at a founding which is reactionary and attenuates John Lilburne’s condemnation of it as “a Norman yoke”. In which case you must look for your lodestar to the Anglo-Saxon will to a free and fitting, ethnically particular life in, to quote the Levellers’ Manifesto, “this Common-wealth the land of our Nativity”. In that events we can both agree with Lilburne that Constitutional Law, as he sought to frame it in his time, ie, as “An Agreement Of The Free People of England”, has its roots beyond the Common Law in the essential nature and person of his people.

For your philosophical elucidation, the definitive founding of English Constitutional Law with the Glorious Revolution ... that is to say, law for “the people of the Kingdome of England” rather than for the ruling elites of the day, or anybody else ... is precisely that of this movement towards the shared life-interests of the people of the land. It tends always to greater recognition for the shared interests of the people and greater restraints against the abuse of power; for the abuse of power and the elitism it births is always and inevitably indisposed to the singularity and will of the people and thus politicks to render them fragmented and weak.

Manifestly, then, no contrary dynamic tending to the people’s security and good can afford a like service to foreign peoples colonising the land (most especially given that those foreign peoples needs must by their presence effect, over time, the very fragmentation and weakness which abusive elites seek). The separation of coloniser and colonised is absolute while the colonised sustains its existence. It cannot, therefore, be one with the coloniser. Its life-interests are inherently contrary to those of the coloniser. In human history the interests of the coloniser tend to be aggressive, expansive, resource-based, perhaps genocidal, certainly conquest-based and perhaps imperialist; while by contrast the interests of the colonised tend to be defensive, existential, preservational, liberational. The founding documents of the constitutional canon were not written to serve both parties. The thought of serving the interests of a coloniser had occurred to no man of constitutional law in 17th century England - not even John Locke, who effectively invented individualism - and did not even do so in the process of passing into law the post-war British Nationality Act, when no one thought the demographic position even of, say, 1968, when Powell made his fateful intervention, could come to pass in this land. The fact that, today, you personally are enworlded and enculturated in a time of such extraordinary abnormality and, accordingly, obediently roll out the universalist tropes you have internalised, is, of course, tragic and depressing. You obviously think you are the eponymous liberal individual. It isn’t true.

I have to tell you, also, that Habeas Corpus is the basis of the requirement for due judicial process, as subsequently codified in the Bill of Rights. As an ancient guarantee for a person under ex cathedra restraint it does not and cannot imply a world consisting of nothing but individuals.

For clarity, the human fundamental of peoplehood and relation predates Habeas Corpus by tens of thousands of years. It is a fact of human evolution. So you see the same relational dynamic throughout human history and throughout history in these islands. It was not mysteriously abolished overnight by Henry II, and the English were not turned into a loose collection of alienated and self-absorbed individuals. If that is the best argument you have against my two-letter commendation for identity and kind in the English Constitution ... that inoffensive, deadly little word “of” ... then you have no argument at all, do you?

I would add that whether or not colonisers are born in the land they colonise is immaterial to the colonisation itself. Likewise whether they served in the armed forces is of no moment. It is not even immediately material that we indigenes are a dying people, which we are. That is not the spur in this discussion between us. All that is at issue is the identity of the sovereign. What follows for your group, if you cannot stand up your case, is the choice between nationalism and liberalism, particularism and universalism, truth and deception, courage and cowardice.

I think you have a way to go, but I also think you won’t want to be a coward.

Kind regards,

John S

Posted by Thorn on Sat, 10 Apr 2021 18:41 | #

Both a very impressive and gentlemanly try on your part, GW; but you’re dealing with a brainwashed liberal who’s convinced himself he is both morally and intellectually superior to you.

This little paragraph says it all:

“Now, you may have the ambitions of the late dictator of Uganda, General Idi Amin, when he deported every asian from ‘his’ country, but we certainly don’t hold such ambitions. Speaking for myself, when I see another human-being, I’m not bothered about their colour or culture as long as they are law-abiding, peaceful and friendly to other fellow human-beings.”

You see when he read your letter a thousand red flags went up in his brain. He’s been conditioned to think anyone who defends and/or wants to preserve native WHITE populations—even in their own homelands—as a thinly disguised white-supremacist .. or even a Nazi. Of course part of this Justin dude’s mission is to snuff out any vestiges of what his philosophy deems as white-supremacism.

I know you don’t need me to tell you are dealing a person deeply steeped in the “woke” cult. Nothing can pernitrate such a mindset. Nothing you say can change his thinking bc he put himself in a class above you. Or so he thinks. But we both know in reality he’s a deluded sanctimonious pompous ass. He’s a fool, plain and simple.

Unfortunately the upper middle-class/professional class is over-loaded and bursting at the seams with the Justin types - namely “white liberals.”

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 10 Apr 2021 22:51 | #

Justin seems to be part of some Christian, green, constitutionalist, anti-globalist clique busily advocating for the pre-Holmesian interpretation of Common Law. The anti-globalists have the whole WEF/UN Agenda 21/30 thing down pat. But they are reactionaries, and don’t really ask why King Klaus & Co are so dedicated to turning the human future into one of communistic mass enslavement. They may quite like the communist part, of course. They certainly do not like the ethnic implications of the argument for a free and sovereign life. But if anyone from anywhere can be sovereign what’s the meaning of sovereignty? As you see in that passage you quote, the answer, if it can be articulated at all, is just fatally lightweight, airy-fairy, feel-good nonsense. And these are the best of the liberal throng!

Posted by Thorn on Sat, 10 Apr 2021 23:23 | #

But they are reactionaries, and don’t really ask why King Klaus & Co are so dedicated to turning the human future into one of communistic mass enslavement.

That immediately made me suspect that the org Justin belongs to is funded by people who have exactly that agenda but like to control both sides of the argument, and specifically the ethnic and racial argument.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 11 Apr 2021 21:56 | #

As of 23.00 hrs BST Sunday evening there has been no further response from young Justin. But maybe he’s humble enough to accept that he doesn’t have the answers, and has handed the job to his guv’ner. Harder they fall.

Posted by Thorn on Sun, 11 Apr 2021 23:15 | #

GW, in Justin’s mind, he slam-dunked you and won the argument.

White liberals (the Biazuo) are the weirdest f’ing creatures on the planet!!!!!!

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 12 Apr 2021 00:02 | #

The rough translation from Mandarin is “White liberal,” and it is definitely not a compliment.

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 12 Apr 2021 06:04 | #

DanielS , was your Mandarin vocab knowledge a result of an arm full of Sinovac ?

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 12 Apr 2021 12:36 | #

No, was yours?

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 13 Apr 2021 22:10 | #

No . Sleeping Dictionary when I worked in Taiwan.

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 18 Apr 2021 05:15 | #

One of Idi Amin’s strengths was , as a Muslim , to persuade the innumerate financier of his Military Coup , Libya’s Ghadaffi , that Uganda had a ( persecuted ) Muslim community .

Todays UK Establishment is a Leftist version of that , at least at local Govt. level.