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: 118

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

It is customary for Presidents to sign proposed treaties in advance of a senate vote requiring 67 senators in the affirmative, no such vote has ever been taken.

And also Philip,

 Your talking about stuff like this, and again I did not write this Time Magazine did.

Historical Origins of England Connected to Human Sacrifices:

History of England

The name "England" is derived from the Old English name Englaland, which means "land of the Angles". The Angles were one of the Germanic tribes that settled in Great Britain during the Early Middle Ages. The Angles came from the Angeln peninsula in the Bay of Kiel area (present-day German state of Schleswig-Holstein) of the Baltic Sea. The earliest recorded use of the term, as "Engla londe", is in the late ninth century translation into Old English of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People. The term was then used in a different sense to the modern one, meaning "the land inhabited by the English", and it included English people in what is now south-east Scotland but was then part of the English kingdom of Northumbria. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recorded that the Domesday Book of 1086 covered the whole of England, meaning the English kingdom, but a few years later the Chronicle stated that King Malcolm III went "out of Scotlande into Lothian in Englaland", thus using it in the more ancient sense. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, its modern spelling was first used in 1538.

The earliest attested reference to the Angles occurs in the 1st-century work by Tacitus, Germania, in which the Latin word Anglii is used. The etymology of the tribal name itself is disputed by scholars; it has been suggested that it derives from the shape of the Angeln peninsula, an angular shape. How and why a term derived from the name of a tribe that was less significant than others, such as the Saxons, came to be used for the entire country and its people is not known, but it seems this is related to the custom of calling the Germanic people in Britain Angli Saxones or English Saxons to distinguish them from continental Saxons (Eald-Seaxe) of Old Saxony between Weser and Eider rivers in Northern Germany. In Scottish Gaelic, another language which developed on the island of Great Britain, the Saxon tribe gave their name to the word for England (Sasunn); similarly, the Welsh name for the English language is "Saesneg".

An alternative name for England is Albion. The name Albion originally referred to the entire island of Great Britain. The nominally earliest record of the name appears in the Aristotelian Corpus, specifically the 4th century BC De Mundo: "Beyond the Pillars of Hercules is the ocean that flows round the earth. In it are two very large islands called Britannia; these are Albion and Ierne".[22][23] But modern scholarly consensus ascribes De Mundo not to Aristotle but to Pseudo-Aristotle, i.e. it was written later in the Graeco-Roman period or afterwards. The word Albion (Ἀλβίων) or insula Albionum has two possible origins. It either derives from a cognate of the Latin albus meaning white, a reference to the white cliffs of Dover (the only part of Britain visible from the European mainland) or from the phrase the "island of the Albiones" in the now lost Massaliote Periplus, that is attested through Avienus' Ora Maritima to which the former presumably served as a source. Albion is now applied to England in a more poetic capacity. Another romantic name for England is Loegria, related to the Welsh word for England, Lloegr, and made popular by its use in Arthurian legend.

                                         Illuminati Magna Carta

Time magazine has been a rag publication when I was just a child. If two magazines have opposing opinions which to do you find trustworthy. You examine what they say are the facts and research them. They may be that both are wrong. I have made the mistake in my life of trust and article to find out it was untrustworthy. Obama also signed the UN small arms treaty and it has not and will not be ratified. To date no senatoral vote has taken place. To check in legislative status for senate go to US Senate library, likewise for HR resolution status.

Philip, Yes,Time Magazine, but they do a hell of job exposing,

Fascist Bitch Queen' (Islam Magna Carta)- YouTube

Would you like to see the documents for 2015 :)

San Remo's Mandate: Israel's 'Magna Carta' - YouTube

Not really, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, I'm not a British subject. The Magna Carta has had no bearing on our Republic from 1776. Even if a President signed a treaty, (one) it can not according to Art. II sect. 2 of the Constitution can not supercede or nullify any portion of Constitutional Law (two) a proposed treaty signed by the president must acquire a vote of 2/3 of the senate to be ratified. This is not the first time in our history that groups have knowingly or unknowingly suggested that America was part of a treaty when in fact their was no legal standing. Now I'm not suggesting what you post I'm simply telling you that Magna Carta is a big nothing on my opinion
and would love to see more concerned with our nation, it's problems and the restoration. I don't give a damn about Britain, the EU. I am an American by birth and choice 8th generation. We freed this land from the oppression of British rule and a tyrant king we ain't going backwards period.

Look man, believe what you wish, we have documents that show different, so you have a nice day.

What documents... the one's you post are worthless iterations in fantasy. Why waste time posting them? They only prove the ignorance of those posting them.

Not them silly, the ones that are classified, Steve will not allow them here, so, maybe some day we will show you where they are at. After they did their damage.


You're such a sorry liar

Marilyn... This story reminds me of the Dog who ate one's homework. That tale may have worked in grade school, but not for classified Documents.  Everyone knows what happens to a Dog that eats classified Doc's. They have to be sequestered and have anal exams... regularly for leaks.

Like I said,

 They are there, not for your eyes, Hank thinks you are Globalist, and I have seen your statements, most of the time Ronald you have no idea what you are saying.  It becomes so confusing that its like da !






Newsweek’s Headquarters
Raided By The NYPD

The headquarters of Newsweek was raided by the NYPD Thursday morning. Police reportedly took photos of the magazine’s servers.

New York Post reports:

About two dozen NYPD officers and investigators from the Manhattan district attorney’s office raided the offices of Newsweek and its parent company, IBT Media, on Thursday.

IBT Media was co-founded by Jonathan Davis and Etienne Uzac. The IRS placed a $1.2 million federal tax lien against Uzac in December 2017.

The agents were said to be photographing servers in the offices, but not downloading any files at the offices on 7 Hanover Square, according to sources.

Few details have emerged from the raid.

“Looking into reports that the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office @ManhattanDA raided Newsweek/IBT Offices today….sources say police have been there for hours. The DA has declined to comment,” tweeted reporter Avi Asher-Schapiro.

Newsweek is also in the news Thursday after an “insider” told The Wrap editor Jon Levine that the magazine has abandoned journalism for “rage clicks,” in the Trump-era.

“Newsweek was once a premiere media organization and an incredible springboard for young journalists hoping to grow a name for themselves,” the source told Levine.

“The company culture has turned the newsroom into a toxic work environment, while the publication has descended into a content farm for last-resort clickbait,” the source added.


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service