The Constitutional Consolidation Act 2014, another Act by Parliament passed through American Politicians. I guess they forgot to share it. The Consolidation Of The United States Constitution, in one Act of Parliament the existing statutory provisions of a constitutional nature, together with a codification of common law principles, parliamentary practice and constitutional conventions, essential to the working of the government of the United Kingdom and its relationship with its citizens.Jul 10, 2014


“A New Magna Carta” Part 2: The Constitutional Consolidation Bill

Posted on

The House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has launched a public consultation on whether or not the United Kingdom needs a codified constitution. In order to jumpstart the debate, it has published a report that suggests three possible routes toward codification: a Constitutional Code, a Constitutional Consolidation Bill, or a full-fledged Written Constitution. Last week, I discussed the Constitutional Code. Today, I’ll focus on the Constitutional Consolidation Bill.

The Constitutional Consolidation Bill is basically a more complex version of the Constitutional Code. It takes all the disparate statutes and conventions that presently make up the British constitution and brings them together in a single Act of Parliament.

The Bill begins on a bizarre note. Clause 2 essentially quotes the Act of Settlement 1700 (12 & 13 Will. 3 c. 2) verbatim. For example, clause 2(2) repeats Part I in all its archaic glory:

Whereas in the First Year of the Reign of Your Majesty and of our late most gracious Sovereign Lady Queen Mary (of blessed Memory) An Act of Parliament was made intituled [An Act for declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and for settling the Succession of the Crown] wherein it was (amongst other things) enacted established and declared That the Crown and Regall Government of the Kingdoms of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging should be and continue to Your Majestie and the said late Queen during the joynt Lives of Your Majesty and the said Queen and to the Survivor And that after the Decease of Your Majesty and of the said Queen the said Crown and Regall Government should be and remain to the Heirs of the Body of the said late Queen And for Default of such Issue to Her Royall Highness the Princess Ann of Denmark and the Heirs of Her Body And for Default of such Issue to the Heirs of the Body of Your Majesty.

I’m not sure why the Act of Settlement is quoted verbatim like this. Since everything else is written in contemporary language, including parts of the Act of Settlement makes the Constitutional Consolidation Bill seem a bit like Frankenstein’s monster. Also, the use of the eighteenth century text is a bit awkward since it refers to “the Popish Religion” and “the Kingdoms of England France and Ireland”! Instead of just copying and pasting, it seems like it would be more prudent to translate these provisions into modern language.

The bigger problem with the Constitutional Consolidation Bill is that it frequently seems like it was written by the Terrible Trivium. For example, clause 7(1) states that “[t]he Prime Minister may agree that a minister in any of the categories can be known by a ‘courtesy title’ reflecting the job the minister has been asked to do, for example ‘Minister for Europe’. A courtesy title has no legal or constitutional significance.” I fail to see why the practice of giving ministers courtesy titles needs to be enshrined in the constitution since, as the Bill itself points out, they lack legal or constitutional significance.

Similarly, clause 9(5) states that, when a minister wishes to make an oral statement in the House of Commons, he or she should provide “15 copies of the statement and associated documents should be sent to the Chief Whip’s Office at least 45 minutes before the statement is to be made.” That sort of administrative provision seem entirely out of place in a constitutional document. That is hardly a timeless principle that should be enshrined in the law!

But the most absurd example of this obsession with trivialities is probably clause 75(1): “[w]hen Her Majesty comes publicly to the House, the Lords shall be attired in their robes or in such other dress as may be approved by Her Majesty, and shall sit in their due places.” I’m all for parliamentary robes, but I think the idea of writing them into a constitutional document is patently ludicrous. These are ‘things indifferent’ that have no place in a constitutional document.

Many of these trifles arise because, in its quest to be comprehensive, the Constitutional Consolidation Bill draws heavily on texts such as the Cabinet Manual and the Standing Orders of both Houses of Parliament. But as we have seen, this approach leads to problematic results. A constitutional document shouldn’t try to prescribe every single facet of the government’s existence. There are many things that are best left to the changing judgment of the times.


Rep. Rangel, Charles B. [D-NY-13] (Introduced 06/25/2015)
Committees: House - Judiciary
Latest Action:

07/09/2015 Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.  (All Actions)

H.R.2939 - Enforce Existing Gun Laws Act114th Congress (2015-2016)

The Rule of Law, Islam, and Constitutional Politics in Egypt and Iran

The Constitution of Medina (دستور المدينة, Dastūr al-Madīnah), also known as the Charter of Medina (Arabic: صحيفة المدينة‎‎, Ṣaḥīfat al-Madīnah; or: ميثاق المدينة, Mīthāq al-Madīnah), was drafted by the Islamic prophet Muhammad shortly after his arrival at Medina (then known as Yathrib) in 622 CE[1] (or 1 AH), following the Hijra from Mecca.

Constitutionality of Amended Version of the Indian Land Consolidation Act

A s am en d ed , th e In d ian L and C o n so lid atio n A ct should su rv iv e a co n stitu tio n a l ch a lle n g e u n d e r the
T a k in g s C la u se o f the F ifth A m en d m en t b ecause it d o es no t co m p letely abolish b o th d e s c e n t and
d ev ise o f In d ia n trust lands.
C o n sisten t w ith the D ue P rocess C lause, th e am en d ed A ct m ay be ap p lied o n ly to th o se allottees g iv e n

Our Outdated Constitution

via Defining Ideas (Hoover Institution)
Thursday, June 2, 2016

Views: 121

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Just so you know... the UK did not have a single written document or compulation of documents by which they were governed until this Act was passed..  The UK had been governed by a hodgepodge of laws, regulations and compacts including Magna Carta ... going back hundreds of years... before being consolidated in this singular act of Parliament 

The 'Constitutional Consolidation Bill' is basically a complete compilation of the UK's Constitutional Code. It takes all the disparate statutes and conventions that presently make up the British constitution and brings them together in a single Act of Parliament.

This is a GOOD THING not a conspiracy to enslave England and somehow the United States.  I often wonder where some individuals get their reasoning... and frame of reference.  What's wrong with taking hundreds of years of legislation, regulatory statutes, and conventions ... and consolidating them in one act that everyone can read and understand?

I am curious, why are Americans so concerned with Britain or European union, we have a crisis in America I would rather spend time considering America. America first at the rest I don't give a rats behind.
Absolutely none of this means a thing to most at TPCC. If any want to be a subject to the crown there are many places to move in the British empire. This is America.

Constitutional Consolidation Act Of The 2nd Amendment Of The Constitution, under a Magna Carta places the Gun Right of Americans under the authority of the British Empire.

Constitutional Consolidation Act Magna Carta Of a ISIS Islam Faith, written into law by Congress in a ongoing attempt to spread Democracy of the King World Wide

More confusion... the UK is not the United States... there is no act or bill before Congress to adopt a the Magna Carta or too revise or change our Constitution.  Stop reading things into this that are not there.

Sometimes Ronald, you can be such a dumb dumb.


Coming from someone who's opinions are always the same as daddy's   ;o)))))))))))))))

Nice of you to drop in Marilyn,

 How are you doing / Are you getting out and doing any power walking yet, I would hate to see all that intelligence of yours be wasted on a box of donuts ;o))))))))))))))) 

Showing your intellectual superiority again?  You continue to PROVE what a pathetic spoiled little brat you are.  Why don't you and Chelsea go on a shopping spree?

Constitutional consolidation Act is exclusive to the United Kingdom it has nothing to do with United States of America.

A emergency, oh that thing with Comey and Trump, yep seen it its just media, Congress pretending they are doing their job , And Ms. Dee felt it important enough to share her concerns over the EU UK UN Agendas, seeing how Steve and Dee write policies here, for the Tea Party Command Center, I do not see where anyone else has a say so over their policies.

 Trump is now the target in this Congressional Hearing, Comey turned the tide against Trump, and..........

Trump need to keep his mouth shut.

President Trump Warns FBI's Comey by Tweet, Threatens to Stop Press Briefings- YouTube

other related news-

President Trump Warns FBI's Comey by Tweet


This sounds like David Icke stuff, he thinks Queen Elizabeth is a shape shifting reptilian space alien. We all have our own opinion on many topics we all can disagree respectfully and wish to do so. Col. you are so right treaties do not supercede our constitution. When the declaration of Independence was written and signed by members of the Continental Congress under the Articles of confederation the colonies were severed from England and King George. Our Present Constitution was signed unanamously in 1787. The Magna Carta has absolutely nothing to do with the United States of America and any treaties signed with those nations still using part of old English law must understand that our Constitution does not validate any agreements unless it first passes Constitutional muster. Treaties do not override or supercede the Constitution of the United States of America period.


Not when the Obama Administration  passed it through Legislation here in America, under the concepts of a Treaty, Hey man I did not write these policies, and I did not do this, this government did:




Breaking:  FBI Admits Comey Leaked Memos 
 That Were Classified   Material! 

The FBI turned over the Comey memos to Congress today after missing their deadline earlier in the week.

Congressional leaders threatened to impeach deep state leaders if they continued to stall on the memos.

Fired FBI Chief James Comey wrote about the memos in his book and leaked the documents to reporters last year. Congress has not yet had a chance to look at the memos — Until tonight.


Meaning Fired FBI Chief James Comey leaked CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS TO THE PRESS.

From the report:

From the DOJ to Congress:

Therefore, pursuant to your request, we are providing the requested memoranda in both the redacted and unredacted formats for your convenience. Consistent with your request, we are providing an unclassified version of the documents redacted to remove any classified information.

The DOJ wrote Congressional leaders this evening.

page 2

Hannity: Good news for Trump, crushing blows for the left

GOP Congressional Leaders Nunes, Gowdy And Goodlatte Release Statement On Comey Memos

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Ca.), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) issued a statement on the memos later tonight.

The House chairmen note that the memos prove that fired Director Comey never felt obstructed or threatened from his relationship with the president.

And… former Director Comey leaked at least one of these memos for the stated purpose of spurring the appointment of Special Counsel.

The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence published the statement tonight:

Today House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Ca.), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) issued the following statement:

“We have long argued former Director Comey’s self-styled memos should be in the public domain, subject to any classification redactions. These memos are significant for both what is in them and what is not.

Former Director Comey’s memos show the President made clear he wanted allegations of collusion, coordination, and conspiracy between his campaign and Russia fully investigated. The memos also made clear the ‘cloud’ President Trump wanted lifted was not the Russian interference in the 2016 election cloud, rather it was the salacious, unsubstantiated allegations related to personal conduct leveled in the dossier.

The memos also show former Director Comey never wrote that he felt obstructed or threatened. While former Director Comey went to great lengths to set dining room scenes, discuss height requirements, describe the multiple times he felt complimented, and myriad other extraneous facts, he never once mentioned the most relevant fact of all, which was whether he felt obstructed in his investigation.

The memos also make certain what has become increasingly clear of late: former Director Comey has at least two different standards in his interactions with others. He chose not to memorialize conversations with President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, Secretary Clinton, Andrew McCabe or others, but he immediately began to memorialize conversations with President Trump. It is significant former Director Comey made no effort to memorialize conversations with former Attorney General Lynch despite concerns apparently significant enough to warrant his unprecedented appropriation of the charging decision away from her and the Department of Justice in July of 2016.

These memos also lay bare the notion that former Director Comey is not motivated by animus. He was willing to work for someone he deemed morally unsuited for office, capable of lying, requiring of personal loyalty, worthy of impeachment, and sharing the traits of a mob boss. Former Director Comey was willing to overlook all of the aforementioned characteristics in order to keep his job. In his eyes, the real crime was his own firing.

The memos show Comey was blind to biases within the FBI and had terrible judgment with respect to his deputy Andrew McCabe. On multiple occasions he, in his own words, defended the character of McCabe after President Trump questioned McCabe.

Finally, former Director Comey leaked at least one of these memos for the stated purpose of spurring the appointment of Special Counsel, yet he took no steps to spur the appointment of Special Counsel when he had significant concerns about the objectivity of the Department of Justice under Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

As we have consistently said, rather than making a criminal case for obstruction or interference with an ongoing investigation, these memos would be Defense Exhibit A should such a charge be made.”


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service