Clarifying Terms

No comments

Guest post by Supertradmum

I am concerned that citizens of the United States on both sides of the political divide do not understand what is the rule of law.

For centuries, in any democracy or even in monarchies, the rule of law was an understood level of principle in which gentlemen or gentlewomen trusted each other to follow the laws of the land in order to govern the people.

Here is a basic definition of the rule of law. “the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws.”

In America, this restriction is the written Constitution. In Great Britain, the restriction is the common law constitution which is based not only on principles, but on historical judgements made for centuries, which is called rule of law by precedent.

Politics aside, the rule of law transcends political intents and actions. In other words, no person is above the law, not even the President or the Prime Minister.

Citizens of the United States, who have not studied world history, think all governments run like that of the States, which is a unique federal system, which does not exist anywhere else in the world. This federal system involves a balance of the three areas of government, Elected Representatives and Senators, called the Legislative Branch, the Executive and the Judicial.

This is not the organisation for most democracies in the world. In Great Britain, for example, the Prime Minister is not an elected position, but the leader of the party which has the most members in Parliament. This Prime Minister does not have the same rights of the Executive Branch of the United States. In fact, the Prime Minister is the SECONDARY power, not the primary power in British governmental organisation. The PRIMARY power of governance is Parliament. This is a huge and important difference between the USA system and the British system.

The reason why the Parliament is the primary level of real governance is that Parliament is elected and the Prime Minister is not. In fact, when Theresa May stepped down, only and I mean ONLY, the members of the Conservative party, could vote for the new leader of the Conservatives, then the majority government, but not now, with a minus 45 seat minority. Only 160,000 people could vote for Boris Johnson. He is not a representative of the people of Britain.

Now, a minority government means that the Conservatives do not have the majority to pass laws in Parliament. A minus 45 seat is huge deficit for any government. In addition, to this scenario, in today’s Supreme Court huge and correct decision that Boris had unlawfully porogued Parliament, a decision based on centuries of British Constitution precedence type of law. I followed all the proceedings and it was clear that for hundreds of years, the primary authority of government was and is Parliament and that Boris Johnson illegally porogued Parliament. I attach today’s legal decision for those who want to look at the reasons for this decision. The Supreme Court decision was not based on politics but the rule of law.

We have a Prime Minister, who for his entire life, has tried to push against the rule of law. If this man was a doctor, he would have years ago been forbidden to practice medicine for his machinations and lying. Even this weekend, accusations of conflicts of interests dealing with a woman he allowed to break commercial conventions in London when dealing with her and seeing her privately, were denied by him six times despite corroborating evidence. The man is a known liar, and as some of the more bold women Ministers of Parliament and political commentators have noticed, anyone who has lied to a succession of women, (remember, he is not divorced from his second wife while living with a woman in Downing Street), and lies concerning details about Brexit before the vote, now proven false, will continue lying.

Some people spend their whole life pushing the rule of law aside for their own desires, arrogance and ambition. Thankfully, the Supreme Court stopped this process of walking over the rule of law. Someone had to stop him and two brave female MPs brought the case to the lower courts and finally won the highest court of the land’s decision. This is not a decision about Brexit, but about the rule of law regarding the Prime Minister and Parliament’s relationship with each other. The proroguing occurred because Boris did not want Parliament to do its job looking a legislation and passing legislation, doing their job. “Parliament has not been prorogued,” as the Court stated, and will be sitting tomorrow at 11.30 am.

No individual can place himself or herself above the law. There is a song, “I fought the law and the law won.” It only remains that Boris resigns, as he also lied not only to Parliament but to the Queen regarding the porogation.

By the way, if any Americans are watching the media, when the British uses the term, “government,” it means only the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. By the way, one ex-Cabinet member, has said that the Cabinet was not given the reasons for the poroquing. It seems it was a one or two man decision, which is the definition of a tyranny.

(In the Commonwealth countries there are 33 different constitutions which can be affected by this court decision.)

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf