Parliamentary Sovereignty

[fotheringsmirth]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone here is aware of the legal doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. It states that laws handed down by Parliament are the highest law in the country and superior to common law. Along with the seperation of powers it's probably the most important doctrine in matters of UK constitutional law, yet nobody here seems to mention it. Discuss.

Parliamentary sovereignty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parliamentary sovereignty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Parliamentary sovereignty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Ian2day]

Originally Posted by fotheringsmirth

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone here is aware of the legal doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. It states that laws handed down by Parliament are the highest law in the country and superior to common law. Along with the seperation of powers it's probably the most important doctrine in matters of UK constitutional law, yet nobody here seems to mention it. Discuss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty

I've mentioned about parliament being a sovereign entity before.

[fotheringsmirth]

And said what?

[Ian2day]

Originally Posted by fotheringsmirth

And said what?

I can't remember. Try the search button. Athough saying that I wouldn't hold out any hope of all my posts being found. As some have a habit of vanishing...

[grannymoose]

True sovereignty comes from knowing divine law through the removal of the abilty to create a victim.
sovereignty is not man made law nor can a man claim to be sovereign without the supreme authority granting it.
Parlament hides behind this, like little children walking in lines with sweeping brushes pretending the road sweepers.

Judges and parlament know that the least we know about this the better to where it gives them the upperhand in controlling a human being into making them believe they are less worthy and beneath them., thus a human being loosing all rights and becoming confused as to what they are and what rights they truly have.
I would like to see parlament explain what true sovereignty is.

read about George Washington. He could not tell a lie. Notice they did not say he would not tell a lie. What is the difference? He couldn’t. he was sovereign.

also ever wondered why the Supreme Court cannot remove the Ten Commandments from the court building, it is because they know that to do that would mean they would not be a Supreme Court. They have been removing the Ten Commandments from State Houses and small courts left and right because they know where real power comes from.

[fotheringsmirth]

Originally Posted by grannymoose

True sovereignty comes from knowing divine law through the removal of the abilty to create a victim.
sovereignty is not man made law nor can a man claim to be sovereign without the supreme authority granting it.
Parlament hides behind this, like little children walking in lines with sweeping brushes pretending the road sweepers.

Judges and parlament know that the least we know about this the better to where it gives them the upperhand in controlling a human being into making them believe they are less worthy and beneath them., thus a human being loosing all rights and becoming confused as to what they are and what rights they truly have.
I would like to see parlament explain what true sovereignty is.

read about George Washington. He could not tell a lie. Notice they did not say he would not tell a lie. What is the difference? He couldn’t. he was sovereign.

also ever wondered why the Supreme Court cannot remove the Ten Commandments from the court building, it is because they know that to do that would mean they would not be a Supreme Court. They have been removing the Ten Commandments from State Houses and small courts left and right because they know where real power comes from.

Nothing to do with UK Parliamentary Sovereignty, which is a legal doctrine in the United Kingdom which states that laws Parliament hands down can only be overturned by Parliament itself. Also, that any previous common law is overriden by the statute. It's not just an abstract concept, but one that anyone who knows anything about the law realises that it's how things are. It's pretty much the first thing you learn in any Public Law course and underrides all constitutional law in the UK. So for people to go around suggesting that individuals can declare themselves sovereign when in the UK it is Parliament alone that is sovereign, is obviously misguided.

[pleasuredome]

Parliamentry Sovereignty is a legal concept and within the constraints of the Laws of the Realm. it has nothing to do with a man declaring soveriegnty.

[john white]

you should read that wiki entry more carefully fotheringsmirth

History

The origins of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty are controversial. Some claim that in England it originated in the early 16th century, when the parliament asserted the supremacy of statute over the Church. Others argue that originated in the 17th and 18th centuries when Parliament asserted the right to name and depose a monarch. Another classic exposition was that of Albert Dicey, in his book Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885):

Parliament... has... the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament. Parliament is not bound by its predecessor.

This is in contrast with the de facto right an English jury has had since at least the trial of William Penn in 1670 to judge the law according to its conscience and if necessary return a verdict contrary to the law prescribed by parliament in what is known as a perverse verdict (see jury nullification). A similar right was established in Scots law after the trial of Carnegie of Finhaven in 1728 where the jury brought in a Not guilty verdict instead of finding the accused Proven or Not proven according to the law.

The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy may be summarised in three points:

* Parliament can make law concerning anything.
* No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament).
* A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is the supreme lawmaker.

Parliamentary supremacy is blamed by contemporary legal historians for the failure of English law to develop due process in the American sense (that is, a mechanism for protecting the human rights of individuals from being arbitrarily infringed by the government)

Now consider that in relation to the Lisbon Treaty

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear

Lisbon is immediately unlawful, Parliament has outstripped it's authority

The contract with the governed is broken, the deal is off

Parliamentary Sovereignty no longer applies, as Parliament itself is outside the law.

Therefore all human beings (men and women) have the absolute right to assert their sovereignty and resist tyranny by any and all means necessary

We are starting with the peaceful and non-violent and by God, lets pray that works

[fotheringsmirth]

Originally Posted by john white

you should read that wiki entry more carefully fotheringsmirth



Now consider that in relation to the Lisbon Treaty

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear

Lisbon is immediately unlawful, Parliament has outstripped it's authority

The contract with the governed is broken, the deal is off

Parliamentary Sovereignty no longer applies, as Parliament itself is outside the law.

Therefore all human beings (men and women) have the absolute right to assert their sovereignty and resist tyranny by any and all means necessary

We are starting with the peaceful and non-violent and by God, lets pray that works

Technically speaking, the EU doesn't 'bind' Parliament, but Parliament agrees to accept ECJ decisions, etc. The Lisbon Treaty is just that - a treaty, which is agreed upon by member states, so Parliament agrees to that as well. Parliamentary sovereignty isn't challenged because in future, Parliament could decide to not go along with EU legislation, rulings and treaties and face the costs of either a) penalties or b) removal from the Union. At the moment, however, Parliament agrees to be bound. There is a problem with the sovereignty of the member state, but it's not a negation of Parliamentary sovereignty and it certainly doesn't give individuals rights to declare themselves sovereign and have that recognised by any significant legal authority.

[john white]

Originally Posted by fotheringsmirth

Technically speaking, the EU doesn't 'bind' Parliament, but Parliament agrees to accept ECJ decisions, etc. The Lisbon Treaty is just that - a treaty, which is agreed upon by member states, so Parliament agrees to that as well. Parliamentary sovereignty isn't challenged because in future, Parliament could decide to not go along with EU legislation, rulings and treaties and face the costs of either a) penalties or b) removal from the Union. At the moment, however, Parliament agrees to be bound. There is a problem with the sovereignty of the member state, but it's not a negation of Parliamentary sovereignty and it certainly doesn't give individuals rights to declare themselves sovereign and have that recognised by any significant legal authority.

Lisbon might be called a "treaty" but we all know it is a constitution, and the only way out of the EU, if not done very soon, is with the total beggerment of the country: if that was even possible. In theory all soviet states could "opt" to leave the soviet union. LOL yeah. Clearly Lisbon DOES bind future parliaments, unless parliament felt particularly like wrecking the country economically. We have lost control of regulation of the currency and the economy. The only good news on that front atm is that copenhagen failed to deliver direct taxation powers to the EU, so now the push will be for a Tobin tax on transactions to fund bank bailouts via the IMF. The EU state desperately needs direct taxation powers

To this we can add the absolute unlawfulness of the signing of lisbon itself, when no party had any mandate to legislate sovereignty out of the country. Not only has parliament abandoned it's own legitimacy by the nature of what it signed, it signed it unlawfully. Remember the referendum the people were denied by deceit?

If you wish to cowtow to unlawful enslavement, then by all means go ahead. Keep yourself small, try not to attract attention to yourself, try not to break laws you didn't know about and have no defence to, who knows, you might make it through, and then you can be properly grateful when others get your freedom back for you

[yozhik]

Originally Posted by fotheringsmirth

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone here is aware of the legal doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. It states that laws handed down by Parliament are the highest law in the country and superior to common law. Along with the seperation of powers it's probably the most important doctrine in matters of UK constitutional law, yet nobody here seems to mention it. Discuss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty

An interesting stance, but alas, one that defies logic.

1. Parliamant is a construct; a legal fiction. It is a product of man and therefore can not be greater than man, for the created can not be greater than the creator.

2. Parliament passed a law giving parliament sovereignty? Cool. So how exactly does THAT work? I dare say Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe and any other tyrannical despot dictated the exact same superiority. A superiority which never had consent of the governed.

Have you, as a man, ever agreed to parliament being the omnipotent being?
That flies directly in the face of a 'democracy', or at least the commonly held misconception we have been given. A 'democracy' [theoretically] places the pwer in the hands 'of the people'; the politicians are but mere elected servants and a single voice of the collective cries from within the community.

All power [sovereignty] comes from the electors; not the elected.

Parliamentary sovereignty is a non-sensical concept designed by the elite for the elite.

[yozhik]

Originally Posted by fotheringsmirth

it certainly doesn't give individuals rights to declare themselves sovereign and have that recognised by any significant legal authority.

Very true.

Nothing 'gives individuals rights'.
If by 'individuals' you were referring to men and women, then it needs to be corrected that men and women have rights.

There is no 'giving' ... certainly not from a fictional entity like a 'Parliament' that can [allegedly] declare itself above the law.

The more you actually stop to think of the claim, the more ludicrous it becomes.

[yozhik]

Originally Posted by fotheringsmirth

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone here is aware of the legal doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

Might be more relevant to come here asking if anyone recognises it, rather than being simply aware of it.
I'm aware of scat and watersports as sexual fetishes that exist; I don't recognise them as being relevant to me.

[fotheringsmirth]

Originally Posted by yozhik

An interesting stance, but alas, one that defies logic.

1. Parliamant is a construct; a legal fiction. It is a product of man and therefore can not be greater than man, for the created can not be greater than the creator.

2. Parliament passed a law giving parliament sovereignty? Cool. So how exactly does THAT work? I dare say Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe and any other tyrannical despot dictated the exact same superiority. A superiority which never had consent of the governed.

Have you, as a man, ever agreed to parliament being the omnipotent being?
That flies directly in the face of a 'democracy', or at least the commonly held misconception we have been given. A 'democracy' [theoretically] places the pwer in the hands 'of the people'; the politicians are but mere elected servants and a single voice of the collective cries from within the community.

All power [sovereignty] comes from the electors; not the elected.

Parliamentary sovereignty is a non-sensical concept designed by the elite for the elite.

1. Your own personal opinion of Parliament as a legal fiction is irrelevant, because what matters is how the judiciary and executive act. The legal system in the UK acknowledges that Parliament is sovereign. Despite your own personal opinions on the matter (I have reservations with the idea), it is still a simple fact of the United Kingdom's legal system that Parliament is sovereign.

2. You misunderstood. Parliamentary sovereignty isn't a law, it's a doctrine, which accords it greater power. It wasn't written up by Parliament itself, but if you read Dicey then that's pretty much where it all came from. It underlies all court decisions in matters of public law and the basic structure of the imperfect UK democracy.

Furthermore, this 'consent' you refer to has been grossly misunderstood. It's not the kind of consent you need to provide before you have sex with someone, i.e. individual consent. It's consent of the governed through various means, but the main two are: 1) democratic elections (say whatever you want about the voting process, but they provide consentin UK constitutional law) and 2) passive consent, which is derived through staying in the realm. If you want to withdraw consent, you can leave the country. Furthermore, there is the chance of rebellion. But there is nothing embedded in the system that lets you 'opt out' of it as you believe.

[fotheringsmirth]

Originally Posted by yozhik

Might be more relevant to come here asking if anyone recognises it, rather than being simply aware of it.
I'm aware of scat and watersports as sexual fetishes that exist; I don't recognise them as being relevant to me.

Whether you recognise it or not is meaningless: the courts do and if you're placed up in front of a judge and claim that you aren't bound by statute it is this very doctrine that will make him/her laugh at you.

[somethinganonymous]

Parliament is NOT sovereign. it is sovereign in name only, as in, fiction. just as the queen is not a sovereign, but a sovereign in name.

[fotheringsmirth]

Originally Posted by yozhik

Very true.

Nothing 'gives individuals rights'.
If by 'individuals' you were referring to men and women, then it needs to be corrected that men and women have rights.

There is no 'giving' ... certainly not from a fictional entity like a 'Parliament' that can [allegedly] declare itself above the law.

The more you actually stop to think of the claim, the more ludicrous it becomes.

It's not a claim, it's the way things are. Parliament doesn't declare itself above the law, in fact quite the opposite. There are paths like judicial review, the Ombudsman, etc. that citizens can use to express grievances with the state - all of which have come from acts of Parliament.

The idea that rights shouldn't have to be 'given' just demonstrates a real misunderstanding of history and philosophy. In the historical sense, it was always the practise of ancient civilizations, governments, tribes, etc. for all individuals to give up their rights to an authoriity of some sort. That was the default position and was accepted for a very long time. The 'granting' of rights, therefore, is an acknowledgment that this shouldn't be the default position and realising that certain rights cannot be taken away by government, which is why the government themselves grant it. If there were no grant, it would be assumed that they belonged to the state because people are authoritarian and dictatorial by nature to make things easier for the powerful. Instead, what happens is that there are safeguards put in place through legislation that grant people rights that governments can't take away from them.

Philosophically speaking - it took a long time for people to realise that they had rights. Only in the past 10,000 years or so have human beings been seriously considering the fact that as individuals they have rights. So therefore, it's necessary to right them down, because once again they are not the default position, whether you like it or not.

[pleasuredome]

Originally Posted by fotheringsmirth

But there is nothing embedded in the system that lets you 'opt out' of it as you believe.

lol

is the system you're refering to the one that is based on "dieu et mon droit"?

[somethinganonymous]

Originally Posted by fotheringsmirth

1. Your own personal opinion of Parliament as a legal fiction is irrelevant, because what matters is how the judiciary and executive act. The legal system in the UK acknowledges that Parliament is sovereign. Despite your own personal opinions on the matter (I have reservations with the idea), it is still a simple fact of the United Kingdom's legal system that Parliament is sovereign.

2. You misunderstood. Parliamentary sovereignty isn't a law, it's a doctrine, which accords it greater power. It wasn't written up by Parliament itself, but if you read Dicey then that's pretty much where it all came from. It underlies all court decisions in matters of public law and the basic structure of the imperfect UK democracy.

Furthermore, this 'consent' you refer to has been grossly misunderstood. It's not the kind of consent you need to provide before you have sex with someone, i.e. individual consent. It's consent of the governed through various means, but the main two are: 1) democratic elections (say whatever you want about the voting process, but they provide consentin UK constitutional law) and 2) passive consent, which is derived through staying in the realm. If you want to withdraw consent, you can leave the country. Furthermore, there is the chance of rebellion. But there is nothing embedded in the system that lets you 'opt out' of it as you believe.

the legal system acknowledges parliament as sovereign because, just like the parliament, the legal system is fiction. Man is above parliament if the State consents. Man created the parliament. Fiction does not own the Man, fiction owns the person.

[fotheringsmirth]

Originally Posted by somethinganonymous

Parliament is NOT sovereign. it is sovereign in name only, as in, fiction. just as the queen is not a sovereign, but a sovereign in name.

It's sovereign in law. The real irony of this Freeman thing is the claim that one is not bound by statute, but by common law. Yet statute is only given force THROUGH common law. Acts of Parliament are completely meaningless until they become interpreted by the judiciary, which means that they are, by definition and custom, given force at common law. Unless you want to argue that all cases which interpret Acts of Parliament are somehow invalid because you say so.