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: 126

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:




Clinton Donor And Tax Cheat Tied To Russia

“Do as we say, not as we do.”

That seems to be the slogan for Hillary Clinton and her political allies, and it’s especially apt in light of new information about one of Clinton’s largest campaign donors.

While the left is still trying to attack President Trump and his family over unproven business dealings and largely debunked connections to Russia, a new report indicates that it was Hillary Clinton’s team who were doing those exact things.

“Fox News has learned that one of the top donors to the ‘Hillary Victory Fund’ (HVF) in 2016 was a Los Angeles-based attorney who is alleged to have misused company funds to create his own $22 million real estate portfolio,” that outlet reported on Thursday.

“He has also been considered by California to be one of the state’s biggest tax cheats, and allegedly has ties to the (Russian) Kremlin,” Fox continued.

The man’s name is Edgar Sargsyan. His deep pockets greatly benefited Clinton’s campaign, with contributions of at least $250,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund in 2016.

He was also in charge of an elite fundraising dinner to benefit Clinton, where donors paid $100,000 per couple just to attend the ritzy event. But in true Clinton fashion, the money apparently went missing.

Sargsyan is now “being sued by his former company for allegedly diverting those funds to start his own real estate company,” according to Fox.

Now, people are asking hard questions about Clinton’s buddy Sargsyan, including whether his contributions were part of a pay-to-play scheme and if he had shady connections to foreign governments.

“Nobody gave to the Hillary Victory Fund out of the goodness of their heart or some generalized desire to help 33 random state parties,” pointed out attorney Dan Backer from the Committee to Defend the President.

“They did so to buy access and curry influence — something the Clintons have been selling for nearly three decades in and out of government,” he continued.

Trying to buy political influence is sadly common, especially when it comes to the Clintons. What is raising more red flags than normal, however, is the evidence that Sargsyan is no run-of-the-mill campaign donor.

“The really scary question is, what did this particular donor with this strange web of connections hope to buy for his quarter-million dollars?” Backer asked Fox News.

That web of connections is strange indeed.

The Committee to Defend the President is now alleging that SBK, a major Sargsyan-linked company “is an investment firm that is affiliated with United Arab Emirates president, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, and its international affiliate has business interests in Russia,” according to Fox.

“Among its dealings was a bid to finance $850 million for a major bridge project to connect Crimea with Russia,” the group claims.

“He worked for SBK, and SBK appears to have bid on some Crimean/Russian bridge project,” Backer said. “That’s usually an indicator of political favor and connections.”

It raises several chilling questions: Was Sargsyan paying a quarter million dollars to Clinton for political favors, and — more disturbingly — was that money actually from sources in Russia in order to smooth the way for its construction plans?

Nobody knows for sure. What is clear, however, is that there is a pattern of dirty money surrounding the Clintons, with the “Uranium One” and “Clinton Foundation” scandals just two of the most well-known examples.

“It reinforces how fast and loose the Clinton machine was when it came to ‘Hoovering up’ these megadonor checks, not just from questionable Hollywood and Wall Street elites but potentially from foreign influence peddlers using who knows what money,” Backer told Fox News.

“It reinforces the need to take a long hard look at not just the unlawful money laundering process, but the way in which they were solicited as well,” he continued. “The Clintons have never shown a great deal of concern for whomever it was cutting the checks — whether it’s foreign influence peddlers or Hollywood smut peddlers like Harvey Weinstein.”

If those claims are even partially true, then America dodged a bullet in November of 2016 — and it’s worth keeping the pile of foreign-connected Clinton scandals in mind the next time the left tries desperately to tie Donald Trump to Russia. Perhaps they should look in the mirror.


Washington Post Compares
Jeff Sessions To Slaveholder’

The Washington Post compared Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “slaveholders” after he quoted the Bible on Thursday while discussing his department’s policy of prosecuting all illegal immigrants who cross the border.

Sessions made the statement during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

WaPo ran a story entitled “Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families” by general assignment editor Keith McMillan and religion reporter Julie Zauzmer on Friday.

Rather than detailing the statistics Sessions cited in the speech that explain the immigration policy, the story quoted John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.

“This is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern way of life made,” Fea said.

Sessions spent much of the speech discussing the numbers behind current immigration policy, including separating families at the Southwest border.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said.

“Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

“The previous administration wouldn’t prosecute aliens if they came with children,” Sessions said.

“It was de-facto open borders if you came with children. The results were unsurprising. More and more illegal aliens started showing up at the border with children.”

Sessions laid out the numbers in the speech.

“In 2013, fewer than 15,000 family units were apprehended crossing our border illegally between ports of entry in dangerous areas of the country,” he said.

“Five years later, it was more than 75,000, a five-fold increase in five years. It didn’t even have to be their child that was brought, it could be anyone. You can imagine that this created a lot of danger.”

The U.S. has the “opportunity” to fix its broken immigration system now, Sessions said.

“I believe that’s it’s moral, right, just and decent that we have a lawful system of immigration,” he said. “The American people have been asking for it.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service