The Rule of Law

The crowned portcullis, symbol of the Parliame...

The crowned portcullis, symbol of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is a comment from Daniel Hannan‘s Telegraph blog this morning. It is in reference to Parliament doing the right thing and cutting what they are going to give the EU. In truth, they need to withdraw but still, that’s a good start. Good for them.

Anyway, this comment, unusually for a comment in a Brit paper,  has a whole lot of truth in it, for Britain, for Europe, and for us as well.


Today 08:11 AM

“The House of Commons discharged its ancient, elemental role to the letter. MPs are there, in the first instance, to approve or deny the taxes which the executive wants to raise. ”

As is the House of Lords, but denying the House of Lords its proper Constitutional role, is somehow, ‘ok’. Same with what has been done to the Monarchy and its Constitutional role.

Well, it isn’t ‘ok’ and we are going to continue having problems (likely increasing problems), until our Constitutional structure is rebuilt (because that’s what happens with all the alternatives, that really are alternatives to the Rule of Law, problems increase until collapse, which more often than not, becomes violent collapse).

The bottom line, and inescapable obstacle to the Rule of Law, the real elephant in the room in Europe, is the EU.

If those in High Office and positions of responsibility in our Country (and the other Nations across Europe), are incapable of comprehending the inexcusable risks and very real dangers they have presented to the People by their willful association with this lawless State (which is emphatically what the EU now is, and NOBODY, no matter their means or position in Society, is safe in such an environment – as exampled by the treatment of the leaders of Greece and Italy), then they need to get out (whether they jump voluntarily or are pushed), and let adults back in the room.

No Agreement, Treaty, Arrangement, Contract, Property, Right, Liberty, Freedom, or anything else, is worth the paper it is written on, by a lawless State, let alone its ‘word’.

No Nation across Europe has time to sustain the damage that can be done to them between now and the day a referendum can be held. The only answer is to kick the EU out, and kick it out NOW!

Forget ‘negotiating’ a withdrawal, or the sham of a ‘Free Trade‘ arrangement, it will not be worth the waste of breath or the paperwork involved.

Cameron, and the rest (of whatever Party or Public Service), you have duties and responsibilities to the People of Britain, their Constitution, their Bill of Rights, their Common Law, and their Rule of Law.

Start abiding by them.

Or else.

Read the article, it’s quite interesting MPs have remembered what they’re there for – that’s the real significance of the vote to cut the EU budget

Emphasis mine.

That is the bankruptcy of moral relativism laid bare. If the law applies to me but not to thee, it is an unjust law and the just action is oppose it by any, repeat any, means necessary.

The rule of Law, not Men, is a primary foundation of a free society.


Dr. Hawkins is right here. But even if you want to use mere common law the right goes back to Anglo-Saxon England and probably further.

I said this in a post a while ago about it:

Not incidentally, the mark of the freeman is the right the duty to bear arms (sometimes literal and sometimes symbolic) In other words; being a citizen in this society carries with it the duty to defend it. This is the origin of the Militia in the 2d Amendment to the US Constitution. In another peculiar twist, tax bills had to start in the Commons. And remember, these are all codifications of hereditary rights.

Originally posted on John Malcolm:

By AWR Hawkins, Ph.D. | May 4, 2012 | The Daily Caller

A recent article in The New Yorker titled “American Battleground,” by Harvard’s Jill Lepore, has been gnawing at me ever since I critiqued it last week for The Daily Caller. As I wrote then, it is a convoluted piece of quasi-academic work that is intended to make gun owners question the founders’ position on private gun ownership and, if possible, open 21st-century American minds to the idea of more gun control.

Lepore does this via subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on the Second Amendment throughout the article. By attacking the Second Amendment, she hopes to somehow convince us that we really don’t have an individual right to keep and bear arms. Rather, we were only intended to have a right to form militias to use guns in that capacity when emergencies arise.

In an attempt to prove her point…

View original 403 more words

%d bloggers like this: