We look to history to find solutions. I suspect many are doing this out of frustration for the direction we appear to be heading in. This whole debate comes out of the growing contempt for our Parliaments, be they state or federal. Who are captured by a party system of deals and counterdeals and a rising disregard for any real imact they are having on Australians. When our parliaments are out of control what true legal recourse do we have and how do we go about it? Serious question! Sadly not enough people have yet been effected enough to see the discomfort it is causing a large portion of us. The beginning of tyranny and loss of fundamental rights, history shows, is always a gradual one with division into groups then suppression of these individual groups as they can be demonised or ridiculed. Addressing their concerns rather than writing them off would be the most appropriate way of nullifying them. Sadly this is not done in parliamentary circles and the usual response is name calling. I realise both sides revert to this and can be equally guilty of ignoring what is seen as legitimate questions. How do we resolve unlistened to frustrations, for that is where we are now.
The fundamental problem here is that there is still the question over whether or not any government has any right or power to take away those certain 'inalienable rights' in the first place. This surely played at least some role in the initial inspiration. It is undoubtedly a driving force behind "give me liberty or give me death". We all have a conscience and we all know instinctively that slavery is wrong. It could well be argued that the current legal system is basically (or has become) an elaborate system of slavery that uses a great deal of deception and enacts tyranny via financial deprivation...like unlawful fines issued in the 'post' by executive arms of the government (as opposed to the judiciary), and forced (and onerous) tax (a form of abuse according to the Family Law definitions). If the government and the people were to sit on the couch of a psychoanalyst for relationship counselling it would be deemed unequivocally as an abusive relationship.
@@wcbbsd So true. When challenged with some of these truths a normie sheep blows a mental fuse because it does not compute with the huge stronghold they've built up in their minds (with help from controlled media) in favour of submission to big government. I watch The Matrix 2-3 times a year. It will never get old because truth never gets old.
They the Australian belligerent grubberment doesn't have. Why because they removed the Australian grubberment away from our Commonwealth queen and made all grubberments departments ABN registered corporations and corporations obey the laws not the Commonwealth of Australia 🦘. So therefore nothing created is. LAWFUL OR LEGAL.
No, not really. The reason you are subject to whatever law Parliament enacts is that you, or your representative are active participants in the process.
I understand that most of the topics being discussed here ultimately rely on the rule of law. I also understand the frustration that leads to people questing for a solution to their dilemas. Our Constitution while not perfect is supposed to be in part a document to limit parliamentry power to certain areas of our lives. We are seeing more and more impositions into our everyday lives and more and more legislation favouring corporations and international bodies or our " mere" rights. (Which I suspect most of us wish we had) My point is we have a problem, which it would appear, that is not solvable by going through the court system. Apart from electing enough people who love Australia as a majority of Australians do what recourse do we have to stop continued abuses of parliament over our (what should be inalienable) rights as people.
What makes you think that the Constitution is there to limit the role of Parliament in your life? Where is the provision that says that? The Constitution establishes a Parliament and entrusts the people to elect their representatives to enact laws that bind the people. It is a democracy. If the people don't want representatives who make particular laws, they can choose not to elect them. Ultimately, it is a matter for the people.
@@constitutionalclarion1901the government isn't held to the same standards as you or I, or it's representatives. If we were all held to the same standards then yes to your answer.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 the whole document is about the division of powers between federal and state. As a federation of states, it lays out the areas which each part is able to make laws about. The overeach of section 51 and the foriegn affairs abilities has seen this area of law used to circumvent state powers and to also introduce international law into our lives. For example the potential handing over of pandemic responsibilties to the WHO as they see fit, to me is tantamount to treason. As you said it is our representatives who are constitutionally responsible for our laws, to hand these decisions over to a foreign group? We saw some of this with the signing of the Lima Agreement, where we were encouraged to shut down our industries in favour of supporting third world industrial development. We were never asked and the slow destruction of our industry from that point co incided with its intentions. Putting other countries first in this manner rather than just helping them or encouraging them in their own development is not in the long term interests of our country. The original spirit of the reasons behind our constitutional development have been usurped in this manner to our detriment. I realise our states constituions are alterable without referendum, but as the size of a population increases, control of representatives becomes more and more unweildy and further disconnected from their population. I agree that the constitution probably has no written clauses over individuals and limitations, but it certainly has re the states. In spirit I still contend that we have still seen abuse of original and expected intention, with the best interests of our population not the first priority. If I had the choice I would remove via election a majority of those currently in parliament who serve their party first and foremost and their electorate a poor second. But that is indeed only my opinion
@@constitutionalclarion1901 at best, i think you're very ignorant about how the world actually works, however it's more likely you're a puppet deliberately spreading propaganda amongst the low conscious. our rights don't come from a piece or any government. how can the people give the government the ability to engage in certain acts , when the individual, as a singular unit does not bear that capacity. case closed!
@@constitutionalclarion1901 if one is meant to rely on the 1900 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution (perhaps just more legal scribble), where in the "Constitution" does it say "political parties"? How is voting 49 vs 51 reflective of what society truly wants (especially if everyone has been programmed through the statist education system to believe this is what democracy is?). If we go back further the meaning of Democracy is made up of ‘The People Rule’ from the Greek words Demos (the people) and the verb Kratein (to rule). The concept had its birth in the early Athenian Constitution - but specifically in what were known as Exousia Rights in which the people were the final arbiter of law. This was less about the voting of people into office (although that was a feature too), it was primarily about the people having the right, power and even duty, to judge independently the justice of legislation. The people do this in each and every situation that comes before them in a court of conscience. In the English law tradition, this authority of the people over its own ‘government’ later took the form of what we call Judicium Parium - Common Law Trial by Jury - in which the people decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused and, simultaneously, judge the statute that brought the defendant into court. Also available, was the ability to privately prosecute those legislators who bring harmful legislation onto our being (how about that for accountability!). Seems to me that some kind of huge obfuscation has occurred over 100's of years, whereby the slow eroding of our knowledge, self-sovereignty, self-governance and our individual rights (my rights end where yours begin) has been manipulated out of existence. There are alot of lawyers in politics and serving as public servants! What a great way to keep the obfuscation alive!
As I understand it, Magna Carta 1215 was a Charter that laid down in writing the principles of Natural Law. Under Natural Law the people are sovereign under the creator and any government stands under the people. Any amendment to this Charter asserting that parliament is sovereign would be breaking Natural Law and true Common Law.
@@imoovabull6042 The Australia Acts didn't actually alter anything in the relationship between the Commonwealth and the UK, it dealt solely with the relationship between the States and the UK, bringing them in line with how the Commonwealth had already existed since the Statute of Westminster 1931, (adopted here in 1942). Section 3 of the Australia Acts for example, is verbatim to section 2 of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. The ability to govern our own affairs actually goes back much further, for example, the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, and then Federation in 1901. Another crucial point in time is the Balfour Agreement at the 1926 Imperial Conference.
@@suecollinson2022 The Magna Carta is our right to a jury which removes power from the judge to be judge and jury. When a judge is both judge and jury it is also known as the Star Chamber of Satan. People say Australia has no Bill of Rights or Magna Carta and quote the Constitution however the original Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 required a Royal seal and referendum to alter yet corrupt politicians used rural road construction grants to bypass the constitution and create a local law bylaw and statutory laws against the peoples referendum vote. In 1988 question 3 Australians voted no to the extortion racket known as local law council law bylaw etc Australia had in place a working system of State and Federal Law / Commonlaw which demands there exist a damaged party for there to exist a crime. As for natural law sovereignty and all that , I personally saw every one whom tried to be free or a free man on the land end up in prison which is HELL. The reason why is because no matter how much law you study , the one factor that every one didn’t consider is that the Judges are all corrupt. Credit is the root cause of poverty and poverty causes crime , therefore having a mortgage, credit card or bank loan increases crime which is in opposition to justice. Not one judge sort to arrest John Howard for mass murder in his part in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The truth is that there is no justice anymore. It’s a sick game that discriminates against the poor.
I clicked on this thinking it would be dry and boring - but your explanation was perfect. Thank you for sharing this with us. I have now subscribed. Great video .
Same. What an education; and not without it's weight in poetry. [ ...How i understood it. Despite having ducked-under many a law-talk before. This one hit me squarely. Great teacher]
Interesting but much of what she is saying is not accurate. Juries existed in late Saxon times. Indeed King Alfred hanged two judges for going against the decision of the Jury. "Yet the English were very zealous for them [the laws of Edward the Confessor/Common Law] no less or otherwise than they are at this time for the Great Charter; insomuch that they were never satisfied till the said laws were reinforced, and mingled, for the most part, with the Coronation Oath of King William I, and some of his successors." 1 Hale’s History of Common Law, 157 It's also worth pointing out that Magna Carta 1215 was not legislation (statute). The whole point of it was that it was beyond the reach of Parliament and was binding on the King in perpetuity. The Runnymede event was really King John's Trial by Jury - by his peers - who had every right to bring him to trial for his crimes - and had a duty to do so. Remember that King John had breached his coronation oath (which is Constitutional) and had been violent - cutting off people's ears, hands etc. Making families destitute. 1215 Magna Carta was a re-expression of the Constitutional principles of England. Furthermore, the whole point of the Constitution is to limit the power of government - that includes the legislature. You can't have any part of government (any of the 'branches' - or even the King at the time who was the government) writing themselves out of that arrangement of limitation. That would be absurd. Spokes people - such as this dear lady (who I'm sure is lovely) will always deny the inevitability of natural rights. But it's illogical to do so. As Lysander Spooner made quite clear in his essay of 1852, the only legitimate Constitution that can exist is one that simply recognises and upholds the already-existing natural rights of the people - such as MC1215. It's not government's job - or their moral right to 'limit' people's rights. Only the consciences of a jury can judge a man. Anything else destroys the principle of equity - that we're all equal under the law. "It cannot be denied that the practice of submitting causes to the decision of twelve men was universal among all the northern tribes (of Europe) from the very remotest antiquity." p. 32 Crabb’s ‘A History of English Law; or an Attempt to Trace the Rise, Progress and Successive Changes of the Common Law; from the Earliest Period to the Present Time’ She's wrong on much of what she is saying. William Keyte - CommonLawConstitution.org
Try reading a proper book on Magna Carta, such as the book by Aldridge and Judge that I showed you, which explains the role of juries back then - which as I said in the video was about presenting allegations to court, not determining the truth of those allegations.
The phrase "The judgment of his peers" in c. 29 of the Magna Carta did not even refer to "trial by jury". (See Adams and Schuyler, Constitutional History of England, Jonathon Cape, London at 136-7; Forsyth, History of Trial by Jury, 2nd Edition, Burt Franklin, New York, 1878 at pp 91-92; Holdsworth, History of English Law, 6th edition, volume 1 at pp 59-660, 385 48; Holt, Magna Carta, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp 9-10; Howard, Magna Carta Text and Commentary, The University Press of Virginia, at 14; Lyon, Magna Carta, the Common Law, and Parliament in Medieval England, Forum Press, Missouri, 1980 at p 7; McKechnie, Magna Carta, 2nd edition, 1914 at pp 375-379; Windeyer, Lectures on Legal History, Law Book Company, 1938, "Magna Carta" at pp 64-66. Although c.29 traditionally has been thought to embody this fundamental principle, historical analysis reveals that this chapter: "...has had much read into it that would have astonished its framers: application of modern standards to ancient practice has resulted in complete misapprehension" (See McKechnie, Magna Carta, 2nd ed (1914) at 395 as quoted by Toohey J in Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23 at 66). In Jago Toohey J thought it pertinent to note Holdsworth's observation that whilst it was said in the seventeenth century that c. 29 (together with related chapters) embodied the principles of the writ of Habeas Corpus and of trial by jury: "It is not difficult to show that, taken literally, these interpretations are false. Trial by jury was as yet in its infancy..." (See Holdsworth, History of English Law, 7th edition (1956), volume 2 at pp 214-215 cited by Toohey J at p 66. Similarly in Kingswell v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 264, Deane J (in dissent as to the outcome of the appeal) observed that modern scholarship would indicate that much of the traditional identification of trial by jury with Magna Carta was erroneous. For many years after the establishment of the colony of NSW there were no jury trials, with criminal matters being heard by the Judge Advocate and a panel of six military officers. (See Evatt J "The Jury System in Australia" (1936-37) 10 ALJ (Supplement) 49, Bennett JM "The Establishment of jury Trial in NSW" (1956-61) 3 Sydney Law Review 463 and Neale D The Rule of Law in a Penal Colony, Cambridge University Press, 1991.)
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Hello - this must be Anne. Nice to 'meet' you and hello from the UK 🙂 Apologies as I wasn't aware I was addressing you. The problem with this is that the entire establishment of both the UK and Australia - and elsewhere - is swimming with collectivist notions. Our entire mindset that is held largely by the political class is to reject the very notion or idea that the government is limited in its power. Then surely the natural question that would arise is 'Can Government (legitimately) do anything it likes? If the answer to that is yes, then why all the pretence about the 800th anniversary of the Great Charter? Our establishment over here, Anne, thinks a lot of it. What is this 'Rule of Law' you talk about? Surely if there are no limitations other that what the government itself 'pretends' are limitations then we're all in big trouble aren't we? Because ultimately a government could [legitimately] legislate on who lives or who dies! A bit extreme, I realise, but the point still stands. If the answer is 'No' then you would be admitting to some kind of limitation placed upon government - which would mean that there is also a limitation placed on the legislature too. As I said, you can't have government (which was created by man) writing itself into constitutional authority. It doesn't make sense logically! I will indeed have a look at the book you suggest but I suspect that (as I have said) it fails to answer the key question that Spooner put - who is the final arbiter of law? Where does the government ultimately gain its authority or consent if not from the supremacy of the jury? Please don't give 'voting' as the answer to that question! A tribunal of the people was a tradition that existed all over Europe - and even Emporer Conrad of Germany (the Pope at the time) 200 years prior to the 1215 Magna Carta said almost exactly the same thing as article 39 of the 1215... "nemo beneficium suum perdat, nisi secundum consuetudinem antecessorum nostrorum et per judicium parium suorum". No one shall lose his estate unless according to the custom of our ancestors, and the judgement of his peers. But, you notice the use of the word 'et' - 'et' judicium parium suorum - 'AND' the judgement of his peers. No confusing latin word 'vel' in this instance ;-) Blackstone quoted this in his 3rd Commentaries on the Laws of England. And the language of Article 39 is about judgement, Anne. Article 20 also talks about the peers judging. "No cause of consequence was determined without the king's writ; for even in the county courts, of the debts which were above forty shillings, there issued a Justicies (commission) to the sheriff, to enable him to hold such a plea, where the suitors (jurors) are judges of the law and fact." Introduction, p.19, Gilbert's History of the Common Pleas "It is agreed by all our historians that the Great Charter of King John was, for the most part, compiled from the ancient customs of the realm, or the laws of Edward the Confessor; by which they mean the old common law, which was established under our Saxon princes." Blackstone’s Introduction to the (Great) Charters; Blackstone’s Law Tracts, p. 289 Do get in touch if you like - lawandalchemy@mail.com William
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Hi Anne. Thank you for the reply - you didn't address any of the fairly fundamental points I made above. I am always looking at the concept of parliamentary sovereignty - and I chuckle every time! Parliament was never meant to be sovereign under the constitution. Who gave them that right? If you think the 'rule of law' is fundamentally wrapped up in adult suffrage, then you are confirming the statist (or collectivist) views of the establishment - which is that man can determine for others what is best for them. A dangerous place for society to go. This was a distortion brought about the inglorious revolution of 1689. Magna Carta - and its Trial by Jury concept upholds a philosophy of individual rights and non-interference. The important point that for true equity to exist, the citizens must take part in the formation of the laws of their own community. Self-governance. And that law-making process, through Jury Independence, allows 'law' to remain custom, organic and according to conscience - as opposed to a mere crass pre-categorisation or approximation of 'justice'. Under adult suffrage - which has only really existed for 300 years or so, law becomes more about the backing of compliance rather than the backing of justice and morality. Will
What gives a person the right to decide the rights of another? And what kind of person would want to decide what rights another person can have? And who would want someone else deciding what your rights are? 3 very good questions when talking about rights.
Yes, especially if we are all created equal, all have equal right of justice. We are all born with our rights, but some feel it necessary to monopolise justice for their own benefit.
What gives them the right? The law. It isn't just 1 person deciding it, it's many. We have to draw a line somewhere because if everyone could give themselves rights, there'd be obvious clashes.
@@Jonesy1701 yes I agree ,a line should always been formed,however, when the "many" are actually"few" ,law could easily be or become, something more akin to a "dictatorship '? Or beneficial, conflict of "interests",for the "few" that decide upon rights of many...?
@@Jonesy1701 well I'd definitely say various certain small groups in Australia benefit a lot more than average Australian...when you have companies buying our gas at an outrageously cheap price and paying hardly any tax ,then selling it back to us as the most expensive gas in the world....and saying we have shortages.... something funny must be going on? And when various people in parliament get found to be corrupt with no charges laid...that seems a bit suspicious at the very least.. And things like parliamentary privileges ,where you can say whatever you want in parliament, including lying through your teeth to the whole of the nation,with absolutely no consequences and at the same time you and myself would be held accountable....what would you call that?..
Spoken like a true Lawyer. Ever heard of Public vs Private or Blackstones commentaries? Blackstone has a chapter on the absolute rights of a natural person. I noticed that you failed to mention property as one one our absolute rights in you presentation.
Considering she counsels the High Court on constitutional interpretation, and both Commonwealth and State governments on policy matters, it appears you're a little out of your depth here.
For people happening upon this channel randomly, just so you know, Professor Anne Twomey is an international treasure. Great to see you on RUclips Anne!!
For a 'professor' she is really out of touch with the current day situation. The miltary coup led by Whitlam in the early/mid seventies really screwed everything right up. And Hawkes Australia Act in 1986 saw the Original 1901 Constitution thrown in the bin. Then Howard comes along and says that the Constitution doesn't have a Preamble.., They purposely neglected to add the phrase "WHEREAS the People of... under the blessing of ALMIGHTY GOD." That was the 'Preamble' or opening statement in the 1901 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution. You have been living the lie for so long you will fail to see the truth.., "It is easier to fool a man than to tell him that he has been fooled". Don't be fooled 🤔
@@raggedyman6327 Where to start with all this nonsense. First, the preamble that begins 'Whereas the people' is a preamble to the British Act called the 'Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900' (not 1901). The Commonwealth Constitution is set out in section 9 of that Act. It begins with a table of contents. It does not have a preamble. That's why the Howard Government proposed a preamble to be inserted in the Constitution itself back in 1999. The referendum failed, so the Constitution still does not have its own preamble. There was no military coup led by Whitlam. The commander in chief of the military is the Governor-General. So you really think that Sir John Kerr permitted a military coup? And where's the evidence of it? What institutions did the military take over by force of arms? I think there might have been footage of it or a mention of it in the newspapers if it had happened. Seeing we had elections in both 1974 and 1975, we know it did not happen. The Australia Acts 1986 did not alter (let alone bin) the Commonwealth Constitution. I've written a book on the drafting history of every clause and its constitutionality - 'The Australia Acts 1986 - Australia's Statutes of Independence' (Federation Press, 2010). You clearly need to read it.
@constitutionalclarion1901 mate, I wouldn't bother rebutting that intellectual light-weight as it grants them the credibility they don't actually have. Sadly, thanks to US influence, Australians exemplify that observation made by Asimov about public anti-intellectualism. Australians are hostile to further education and academics. They have conflated democracy with freedom of expression to mean all views are created equal. As such, gun-toting, salad-fearing, atlas-shy, book-averse and waistline-bereft monolingual cooker Davo thinks his mere feel-pinon is as good as a subject matter expert's facts and evidence.
These videos are absolutely amazing and hit the perfect balance to make the content digestible but still useful. I know it's a honed skill but it still amazes me. Thank you for the new video (:
Is telling an applicant before the courts that their case is not worth considering a valid legal argument? It seems to me the old laws are valid when it suits, and invalid when they want something different. Who they are, and the interpretation of the law or the ruling desired, seems to be flexible. I guess I'm referring to the power of the courts to consider and be influenced by "unusual or particular circumstances." If it is true that Australian States and the Commonwealth can conveniently ignore parts or all of the Magna Carta and legally introduce new laws, contrary to the Magna Carta and other British Law Precedents and Principles of law, then new laws enacted, automatically supersede the Magna Carta and British Law. The Magna Carter and old British Law can be ruled obsolete and irrelevant. One can't have it both ways. An excellent explanation of the legal position, I just don't like Australians not having the protection of a good Bill of Rights. I'm 80 years of age, and have no idea of the laws in our Constitution. Thank you for educating us.
It's not a matter of 'conveniently ignoring' laws. The fundamental rule is that a later valid law impliedly amends or repeals an earlier valid law. Only one small part of Magna Carta ever became law in Australia, and can be (and has been) overridden by later laws. There is nothing new about this. It is how the system of law has worked in Australia and the United Kingdom for centuries. It is not a matter of discretion for the courts or anyone else.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I got that. My complaint is that the law often works against us. Like abolishing cash, my right to hold and use my assets. Censorship, my right to say what I believe to be the truth. My right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I managed fine without all of the modern security and surveillance, passports, visas, ID cards, mobile phone computer controllers. Birds born in cages do not understand freedom. I'm a cranky old man missing the wonderful world of my post WW2 childhood. Thank you for your reply,
@@bobjuniel8683I am on your side Bob,we are being shackled by ever more laws and rules by a government that uses its constitutional powers,such as Part V- POWERS OF THE PARLIAMENT,51. The parliament shall,subject to this Constitution,have power to make laws for the peace,order,and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to( insert just about anything they want) a bloody long list of things.Of course they can make these laws ad nauseam without tripping up with as there is no formal bill of rights to impede there onslaught.
@@constitutionalclarion1901With respect,as I enjoy your talks,they don’t have to ignore laws they make them up as they are empowered to do under the Australian constitution.The have no bill of rights written down in detail to trip them up.
@@constitutionalclarion1901bollocks, the constitution specifically states that state laws not in agreement with/against the constitution are void and stand below the constitution.
I have also seen litigants in American courts try to rely on Magna Carta as well as the defunct Articles of Confederation (the predecessor of the U.S. Constitution) to challenge various laws. A pro se litigant did try to request trial by combat in a divorce case. If I recall correctly, the opposing party requested that the court order a mental health evaluation of that party.
I wonder what the Articles of Confederation would help with, but it's a strange one since it seems it was never formally abolished, just ignored after the passage of the US Constitution.
@@braytongoodall2598 The Posse Comitatus believed a perfidious change occurred during the Civil War, and subsequently, only recognised the first twelve Amendments as legally binding - the “Organic Constitution” - the Constitution and Bill of Rights, minus all succeeding amendments. The very controversial Thirteenth Amendment had ended slavery in 1865, and the Fourteenth Amendment enshrined the notion that “all persons born or naturalized” were U.S. citizens whose rights “could not be abridged”. Therefore, they distinguished between so-called “14th Amendment citizens” who are subject to federal and state governments, and themselves, who they saw as “12th Amendment citizens” or “Organic Citizens” which later began to be known as "Sovereign Citizens". Depending on the particular variety, they also referred to themselves as "State Nationals" or "Free Inhabitants" under Article 4 of the Articles of Confederation.
@braytongoodall2598 Various crackpot theories about how the right to interstate travel means state governments cannot require individuals to have driver's licenses or to register motor vehicles.
@@ChuJungyin 'Crackpot' Theories --- So who decides what is a 'crackpot theory' ? Can we take it - that you're a specialist in the field of crackpot theories ------ 😉🙂😊
The late, great P J O’Rourke pointed out that the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights was similarly deficient, since it did not protect his undoubted rights to shoot an assault rifle while driving at high speed and getting his wiener sucked without spilling his cocktail.
In fact, they are, but not to the extent that you may practice them to the detriment or harm of others. If you do that, Magna Carta protects the right of the victims to haul you before a jury of your peers, where you would be dealt with according to the community's definition of the law, not the definitions of a remote group of bureaucrats whose main interest in the proceedings is their personal financial reward.
The question still remains - who altered the agreement Was it changed with the consent of the people the charter intended to protect Or was it changed by administrators of a corporation
@@mshepherd324 I've no idea what your 'gotchya moment' is. The answer remains obvious from the video. The 1297 Magna Carta has been altered over the years by Parliaments enacting later laws. The Parliaments are elected by the people. They are not the 'administrator of a corporation'. That's the answer - it's hardly controversial.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Altered by parliaments .. not the people as per the original intent of the document from the start.. seems to be common theme with govts. They assume power for others because they were privileged to be elected and trusted but change agreements anyway without consent.
Show the act that gives license to apply any of these ideas of Magna Carta in Australian state or federal written law?What a dog’s dinner we have for law mongers to feast on in this over governed colony.
How far do you want to go back? The 16th century, where Sir Edward Coke had enacted of bills of attainder without trial and statutes contrary to Magna Carta without any suggestion of their invalidity, or Sir Robert Garran, writing The Annotated constitution of the Australian Commonwealth, in 1901, stating that Magna Carta "may guide but cannot bind the British Parliament, which may repeal them at any time." and the ability to repeal Magna Carta here in Australia, that "no constitutional limitation is imposed on the plenary power of a colonial legislature." or Sir Samuel Griffith, the first Chief Justice of the High Court, and arguably the principal drafter of the Commonwealth Constitution, speaking in Chia Gee & Ors v Martin (1905) that “The contention that a law of the Commonwealth is invalid because it is not in conformity with Magna Charta is not one for serious refutation.”?
Governed Colony? Is that how you view your fellow man, your friend, family, neighbour? How did you come to see this, other than through an inherent hatred toward those that enrich your very existence, yourself included? Self loathing perhaps.
@@WhitePositive Steven Spiers does not have answers in relation to current reality, hence he gets so frustrated. Most of the concepts, such as the "1919 sovereignty" idea, came from the 1990's ITR "concealed colony" publication, and have already been rejected by the courts.
@@WhitePositive Steven Spiers is as identically misconceived as you had inevitably found out the "International Tribunal for Natural Justice" is, in encouraging you to sign a "treaty" to offset your rent. These ideas cause harm, as they done to you, now finding yourself in a $13,000 debt.
@@chrismulhearn7903lol, you think people can't survive without big daddy gov :) Gov holds back, regulates, taxes, extorts, violates man and property daily.
This is sickening. I just txt my mother and I was telling her about the Magna Carta and now RUclips is showing me videos about the Magna Carta which shows our phones are compromised by the Australian Signal Directorate ASIO and Five Eyes. We have no privacy anymore.
@@balanced-shez8226 I know. I watched documentary films after 911 telling me all this would happen and now I see it happening. I traveled around Australia for ten years trying to wake people up. I told my mother all the things that are happening now 15 years ago. I watched documentary films like Wake up call , State of Mind , Loose Change, The culling of our water, The ring of power , The dimming, Police State 1,2,3&4 etc….
@@danejames7098 having a private conversation too my mother and then seeing my conversation on RUclips. It goes beyond settings. It is an invasion of privacy and has nothing to do with what I watch on RUclips. My encrypted txt message was seen by a third party and then that third party has used it on my RUclips search. If I watch surfing I get surf videos. I never watch or talked about law or the Magna Carta 1215 on RUclips. There is no reason for me to be seeing a video about the Magna Carta in Australia and after just talking about it in a private conversation with my mother. It is like seeing your bank details on RUclips. I turned off all location sharing history keeping all that a long time ago.
@@owenbruce4120 If only the Judges, Lawyers and Politicians spoke the truth. I watched many people study the law in an attempt to be free only to end up in prison. They all expected the Judges to be honest. Sovereignty, Free man on the land all that sort of stuff. I remember when we were free in Australia. Now a dog can’t be a dog. I learned about the statutory extortion racket 40 years ago when my father a realestate agent sold our holiday house at Lake Eildon to the inventor of Stackhat whom made a deal with a politician to outlaw riding a bike without a helmet. To force an adult to wear a helmet on a bicycle is no different than to force a surfer to wear a life jacket. Now we see signs on beaches that say no parking between 11pm and 5am which implies that we are children. I personally used the Magna Carta / Trial by Jury in a case where the police were trying to prosecute me for assault when I was defending myself from an attacker so I requested a Trial by Jury. If you don’t plead guilty in court you face a 25% extra sentence and because I requested a Jury I was facing 2 years prison if found guilty. Luckily for me the prosecution had no witnesses against me and the matter was dropped. Since we are being honest here I just want to add , those stuck in the mental health system have no rights at all. Everyone complained about the lock downs and vaccines however they were abusing mental patients way before COV19. See The marketing of madness, the untold story about psychotropic drugs.
Your clarification of the Magna Carta related to Australia, explains to me and many others how the then Queensland Premier Peter Beattie was able to Bulldoze Forced Amalgamations on Queenslanders despite displeasure , when it was actually a Fait Acompli . It would be interesting if you had or have any comments on the Brigalow Commission related to the rumour that Queensland was apparently converted into a Body Corporate style, then split up and registered in America?.
I do not consent to youtube to collect and/or sell or partake thereof, of my data or any persons under my stewardship. In addition as a Free and Sovereign individual I do not consent to the Victoria Police, NSW Police, Australian Federal Police, or Wright Get Debt Recovery Services to read my comments or store and repost my comment for a court of law. And that was my impersonation of the kinds of people who need to watch this video, but wouldn't understand it anyway
That's why the government should use our next referendum (and all previous) for the purpose of amendments to the constitution outlining actual rights for us serf slaves. Freedom of speech for one which is not a right of australians. Two the right of assembly and three free and open travel within australia and its states and territories. etc. Etc. Both of these were made incredibly important after experiencing and witnessing the events of the past few years when our thinly veiled rights were literally taken away for the sake of false claims and propaganda... and the profit of billionaires and corporations. And the increase in control of the public mentally and physically through the abuse of power by our police.
Unfortunately, I can't imagine any government proposing another constitutional referendum in the foreseeable future. Australians had the chance to vote for constitutionally enshrined freedom of speech (among other things) in the Post-war Reconstruction and Democratic Rights constitutional referendum in 1944. The referendum wasn't successful.
@@mindi2050 There were also rights in the 1988 referendum, including the extension to the States of freedom of religion, trial by jury and just terms compensation for compulsory acquisition. But it received the approval of only 31% of the people. All previous attempts to achieve a bill of rights in Australia have failed. While there are arguments about why this is, one of the greatest concerns seems to be about transferring power over rights to unelected judges. The recent controversies in the Untied States would probably exacerbate this concern.
I don’t know if it is true but I once read a story of a returned service man from war who traveled from NSW to Perth to see his girl friend.He was charged as a soldier for AWOL but the judge gave verdict from the constitution that there is free trade and intercourse between states and dismissed the charge.Probably a good yarn from the time but not true.
@@josephstratti52 This probably relates to the story of the trip by Dulcie and Ada from Sydney to Perth, purportedly to see Dulcie's boyfriend before he went off to war. It's a great story and I've done two videos about it: Dulcie's Story: ruclips.net/video/puB16MbfVs8/видео.html and Ada's story: ruclips.net/video/x0VA3HAo9Lo/видео.html. It's likely the story that you heard is either a mixed-up re-telling of the trip by Dulcie and Ada, or it may have been a flow-on effect from the finding of the High Court in the case of Gratwick v Johnson.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 stare decisis (precedent) is not Common Law, Trial by Jury (with 12 peers) is. The Democratic Constitution has, at its heart, the mechanism of Trial by Jury and Jury Independence which is how the people identify these crimes through conscience. The Jury is the final arbiter of law independent of any ‘government’ legislature or state paid ‘judge’. The Jury is the judiciary.
Thank you for clearing up some mixed information and confusion I've had about this. But it seems it leaves Australia as a country with no true bill of rights. Very little of our 'law' refers to common law or law of the land. It's mostly maritime, corporate or contract law.
As part of the "uninitiated in the law", it seems to me that the reason that so many people have a misconception of the law is the feeling that "their rights" are gradually being taken away. In other words, the adminsitrative state is intruding more into their lives. This situation is being influenced by "alternative" or "independent" media, sourced both here in Australia, but mainly from North America. In hindsight, should we have had a Bill of Rights, similar to what is enshrined in the USA Constitution. The other piece of news, from the USA, is that the US Supreme Court has overturned "The Chevron Deference", which was a previous ruling that the current USA "administrative state was built on". Would I be correct in understanding our political systems, that an Australian state or federal department can only operate through parlimentary legislation and regulations? If a department issues instructions for particular action does that mean that the courts can be used to challenge instructions, perhaps regulations, and legislations? I am hazy on this subject. Thank you for your attention.
To the channel owner, perhaps consider expanding on one very crucial point made in your video, if a statute appears to suppress a fundamental right, in interpreting that provision, the courts apply the 'principle of legality of statutory interpretation' - Courts will only accept the right is suppressed if there is unambiguous and clearly expressed intent by parliament to suppress a particular right. PJB v Melbourne Health VSC 327 [2011], Bell J explains this interpretation by the courts. A very good judgment to read and explains judicial review of a government decision whether judicial decision or a decision by a govt department or non govt organisation carrying out a government function.
Magna Carta was also used in the pre Cole v Whitfield interpretation of s 92, because it referred to the rights of merchants in international trade (as well as the Act of Union); and I seem to remember that Sir Maurice Byers QC used it to justify a particular use of the defence power in s 51.
I wanted to return to a comment made by N. Meegan but those comments have been deleted. If there is any truth to your 'expertise or credibility' on all things constitutional, why the need to muzzle open debate?
It may also be that Meegan has deleted her own comment, after confirming the information I gave in the last reply, that the Magna Carta provides that the word of a woman can't be accepted.
Yes, there's a long debate about whether the principles said to derive from Magna Carta were really an encapsulation of the common law. Certainly, many would now be regarded as common law rights. But to be clear, the common law is always overridden by any inconsistent statute, assuming it is clear that this is what is intended (see the principle of legality).
The phrase due process of law first appeared in a statutory rendition of Magna Carta in 1354 during the reign of Edward III of England, as follows: "No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law."
Great video. I read Australian Act, Chameleon Crown, and Veiled Sceptre books through uni (but have lost time to keep up in the professional world). I appreciate your efforts to enlighten the public on how the constitution works and dispelling myths - of which there are many more topics to be worked through in future videos. That being said, some more jurisprudentially pricklier topics I would love to see addressed are as follow. Although I appreciate addressing these items may be leveraged by crack pots. These are: to what extent is the Sovereign’s prerogative to award honours and change the name of his royal household and titles an imperial power (rather than a power exercised by the divisible crown in each jurisdiction) - and what does that lingering imperial dimension say about the Commonwealth Realms? How does the prerogative of mercy fit into the Australia Acts - is it a power in respect of the State or, as some case law has it, a power reserved to the person of the monarch - and if so, has each state appropriately extended that power to its governors / does state legislation adequately make up this gap? How do we look back at Charles II’s trial - how would political justifications for those events fit into Charles III being subject to the same process (would the legal analysis be different between 1640’s and 2020’s)? In Veiled Sceptre and other works there is a strong expose on convention and the political neutrality of monarchs (typified by Elizabeth II) - how are those conventions being challenged by Charles III’s far more political role in the areas of climate and other issues - what are the risks and does his approach sit well with the last 50+ years commentary on the justification of monarchy resting on political neutrality - what does this mean for future monarchs if Charles is reinventing the wheel? A side point, it’s great to see you deal with these tricky points. I would have hoped Griffith CJ and others didn’t same when dealing with ‘silly’ arguments. I think, in hindsight, it was a disservice for judges and magistrates to be dismissive of crack pots’ arguments. Not because those arguments have merit - but because these judicial officers really should have taken the trouble to provide decent answers. That would have gone further to help the public. For example, a judge saying the law is not invalid because Victoria was supposedly someone’s bastard because “too hard to give you a real answer, get out of my court” is a bit weak from our judicial system officers. Even if Victoria were not lawfully Queen, a better answer would involve elements of political reality, de facto results, that directly call out crack pot arguments and say “we can’t just upturn the system because Victoria may have been illegitimate - it’s been 100+ years, real politics, the law must be valid from a practical perspective”. We apply similar analysis to Charles II’s trial - the arguments about the King had abdicated because he was against King-In-Parliament or whatever Cromwellian nonsense should be called out as, legal crackpottery. The reality is a political movement took control of England and dumped the Charles. It wasn’t legal - doesn’t mean it wasn’t valid. I think element of real politics is missing from our public education, which is why reversion to legal principles alone don’t work when those principles can’t supply all the answers - principles are really just agreed upon conventions that we agree to give legal status too - they’re not objectively true - there’s a dimension to our legal system that is internally incoherent from a historic perspective - but the answer to dealing with crack pot arguments should be found in that , and not in overstretching and contorting legal principles (as some have done). Sorry for the long message!
Yes, I agree that it is very frustrating that the early High Court was so dismissive of some arguments that it gave no reasoning. The one that annoys me most is the Federal Roads case, re grants under s 96 of the Constitution, where counsel (a young Robert Menzies) gave some good arguments that were dismissed by the Court without giving reasons. Those reasons would be really valuable today, so it is a great shame they do not exist. I can sympathise a bit with the lower courts, which hear variations on crackpot arguments all the time. Even though you know the argument is wrong, it actually takes quite some time to dig up all the authorities and details and set it all out. It would be really hard to do when you have a busy workload. I find it hard enough to find the time to do it for these videos, as I have other real work to do. But I am trying, because it's important that there is something accessible out there - even if most adherents to particular views will still refuse to believe me.
I think it was the Supreme court of the United states said “anyone who hires an attorney is an incompetent ward of the state and nothing you do or say will have any force or effect. I think that corpus jurisdiction secundum says the same thing
Yes, the RUclips algorithm has deemed me worthy to see your video and so here I am. I'm curious to know your thoughts about the recent voice referendum in Australia and the American elections going on right now. Thank you, Clarion.
There are lots of old videos on this channel about the various arguments that were being made during the Voice referendum, so you can watch them at your leisure. As for the US election, I find it interesting but as it is not an area within my particular expertise, I won't be doing commentary on it. Best to stick to one's knitting, as they say.
Hi there. Are there any mechanisms or processes in our system to garbage collect or clean up laws , or is that a purely political process prone to the whims and ideologiea of the government of the day?
Yes, there have been processes in different jurisdiction to go through laws (and more commonly, subordinate legislation, such as regulations) to weed out the old irrelevant stuff. New South Wales has done this for a long time. There's still some old UK laws (eg re treason) which have been kept, but that is largely for what the NSW Law Reform Commission describes as 'sentimental reasons'. The Imperial Act Application Act 1969 (NSW) got rid of all the old British laws, except for certain listed ones that were preserved for one reason or another (which was all explained in a report of the NSW Law Reform Commission). Of course, some jurisdictions have done this better than others.
@@skeetabomb if you read the Bill of Rights 1688 (UK) it states on a couple of occasions that royal prerogative is illegal? Interesting that parliament replaced the coronation oath's requirement for the Head of State (King or Queen)'s regal authority (royal prerogative) to be illegal? Is this how parliament self-appointed it's own sovereignty? Isn't that treason? How is the Head of State to protect the rights of the people, the laws of the land (legem terrae), without the ability to assent or not to repugnant legislation? Herein lies the problem of excessive legislation, unchecked and with no accountability (by authentic Trial by Jury). Or perhaps here lies the beginning of no law at all (rendering all following legislation null and void).
@@skeetabombThe idea that a small group of individuals has any right to grant itself rights (via a Bill or any other scribble on parchment) that as individuals they do not possess is absurd.
Probably more relevant to Australian law was the 1493 Document of Discovery which shows how discriminatory the basis of our legal system is and how it established a rigid class system based on inequality to maintain control and economic power. That hopefully should set the cat amongst the pigeons.
Thanks for this. As always Prof you have an astonishing ability to accessibly convey complex issues and concepts with meaning and an applied context. And, if I can use a biblical reference, you have the patience of Job in answering the array of sceptics set out below, respect for engaging with them. They are akin to Griffle and the little people in Narnia's Last Battle, defining themselves by not accepting what is before them.
Thanks. I'm afraid my patience is not infinite, and I should probably be more patient than I am. Often I write a reply and then just delete it on the basis that it ultimately won't help anyone. My general aim is to be helpful, rather than engage in battles with people, but it is sometimes hard to sustain that position.
It's expected. When people have belief as opposed to well-grounded evidence in law for their conclusions, if presented with an opposing view they generally retreat into denial due to cognitive dissonance, or attack the person saying it.
That's a tricky one. 'Received' law is British law that formally became part of the law of a colony upon its settlement or at a later date. Not all British law transferred across, as some of it concerned essentially local British matters (eg re the Church of England, or parish poor laws). Only those laws 'suitable' for the circumstances of a colony were received. The expert on this is Bruce McPherson, and his book on it is excellent, if you are interested in the issue.
Anne…not sure of the following as a Constitutional issue but would you consider having a crack at the following “Why do we have a system that permits people who have been elected as a party member to simply choose to remove themselves from that party and become an Independent. How is that a reflection of our electoral system?”
I'm pretty sure I've already done a video about people defecting from parties and whether that can give rise to disqualification. It goes through the various policy arguments about it too. Ahh, here it is: ruclips.net/video/XynwigYWv7E/видео.html.
Thanks I appreciate the clarity after seeing fringes suggesting otherwise. Also nice to know what still stands wrt Denying people right to Justice which I experienced after very violent assault causing full thickness laceration to scalp at crown after being dragged by hair to fall onto top of my head which could have permanently impaired me or killed me..by person left in same state housing unit above me for 11 years subsequent while I was gaslight as mentally ill despite trauma diagnosis not paranoia which led to force fed tranquilsers/antpsychotics, making me an even softer target for a mob of Maori's who personify snitched get stitches, after I tried to complain about their attempted forced entry to "bash" me for daring to try and have some privavcy by placing a small can lounge under my kitchen window which made it harder to stand at my window looking and listening in. State Housing forums on violence against women by drug addicts is sickening.. I saw many victims like me facing forced psychiatric drugging when seeking justicw, my case is on Hansard Qld Parliament inquiry into victims of violence , same name, and Disability Royal Commission , though they seem not to make that public despite my requests to name and shame enablers.
What’s the point in the rule of law if the legislature can, as you suggest, make any law they like? If nothing binds the legislature then they could pass a law to put themselves above their law… where is the constitutional constraint?
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Ah - well, I thought that is what you would say, and so I had a look at your written constitutional document (not mine, I'm in England, so it's not something I'm familiar with), but I couldn't see much real reference to rights, and so it was difficult to see what the constitutional constraint would be. The document made reference to the Queen being able to refuse royal assent to legislation - presumably this in accordance with her coronation oath - to protect the law of the land -... England (which brings back in the principles set out in Magna Carta 1215).... otherwise, I could not see by what criteria the document was saying the Queen had the right to refuse royal assent. Anyhow, since there were no answers on the face of the document itself I had a look at your video about covid 19 and rights in Australia. In this, you confirmed that there is no Bill of Rights in the Australian constitution.... and that the framers of the written document had decided to leave decisions over what rights are to the elected representatives. You said that the elected reps can make statutes that override fundamental common law rights, as long as they are specific that this is what they are doing - if they are not specific, then the courts will interpret the statute as if it were not striking out fundamental rights - because the courts protect against the unintentional striking out of fundamental rights - but, it seems, there is little the courts can do to protect against the intentional striking out of fundamental rights... for that, you suggest the remedy for the people is to show their displeasure at the ballot box in the next election of the representatives. This is problematic for me because, what you seem to be saying is that the people are bound by these statutes for the remainder of the term of office of the elected reps - so the people would be required to put up with these statutory 'laws" for that period. What if the law was, for example, all children under the age of 12 must be kept indoors, or all males who work with young people must be castrated... you seem to be suggesting that the people must abide by these 'laws' (you say that rights that are implied under the constitution can be protected by the courts - but even then, not necessarily if there is a good reason to do with protecting of other rights for the infringement of the 'constitutional right" - to be decided by a state paid Judge, presumably). so at the end of the term of office, what if the majority of people decide to keep the politicians who made the statute- are you saying that it's right for the majority to decide to infringe the rights of a minority? - in other words, the mob can rule - look at what the majority went along with in Nazi Germany for example. Even if the politicians who had framed the legislation in question were voted out, there is no guarantee that the next incumbents would repeal that legislation. At the and of the covid 19 video you sum up by saying that rights have to be balanced and sometimes individual rights have to be set aside for, effectively, the greater good. This is pure collectivism and not what makes a legitimate constitution. There is, effectively, no remedy for the individual according to your analysis. In fact, your circular reasoning is exhausting.
In the United Kingdom, where you are, there is a doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, which means Parliament can make any law it likes and a court cannot strike it down. In the UK, almost all of Magna Carta has been overridden by statute, as I explained in the video. In Australia, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is tempered by the Constitution. A court can strike down the validity of a law if, for example, it breached constitutional implications, such as the separation of powers, or fell outside the power of the Commonwealth Parliament. The distribution of powers across the federal system also helps prevent tyranny. The system provides greater protection for rights than in the United Kingdom.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 yes, I know about the flawed doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.. I was not suggesting that the current situation in the UK is any better than the situation you have described. Neither prevents tyranny, for the reasons I set out above, but which you did not address. Please ignore the lines through my text above - I've no idea why the lines are there.
I am dismayed at the governments attitude towards the constitution. Government got lawyers to word it so no one can understand it (Unlike the U.S. constitution)and in 1961 the constitution was removed from the Australian Schools curriculum. Your government doesn’t want you to know about your rights because it’s easier to take them from you using safety as an excuse. Government is not your friend.
What "rights" might they be? There are only 5 express rights and one implied right in the Commonwealth Constitution, so it's hardly anything to write home about.
Ah yes you are probably quite correct, however sounds like an American thing. That is why It doesn’t sound good to me. Otherwise an excellently informative piece on this interesting part of our history.
Really? Why can't it tell you not to incite violence? Why can't it tell you not to instruct terrorists on bomb-making? Why can't it tell you not to say things that undermine a fair trial? Why can't it tell you not to threaten to kill people or engage in a conspiracy to commit a crime?
The Article 61 of the Magna Carta "Lawful Rebellion" theme has become popular in pseudolaw constructs in various countries, for example here in Australia, Wayne Glew often cites Article 61 of the Magna Carta as some justification, as did a group of British peers who urged the Queen in 2001 to block the UK’s signing of the Treaty of Nice, and recent years Canadian Jacqueline Robinson (aka Jacquie Phoenix) claimed Article 61 puts her outside the courts authority. Graesser J addressed her assertions in AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 489 and on the same basis in AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 790: "Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta has nothing to do with the rights of individual persons, but instead only granted a counsel of 25 barons the authority to seize King John’s castles, lands, and possessions in the event of a dispute between the barons and the king. Worse, when King John died in 1216, so did the provision of the 1215 Magna Carta that "Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion" adherents claim creates their extraordinary status. These modern Magna Carta rebels have therefore mustered over 800 years too late."
Which “ queen “, bc “ apparently “ there’s 2 😂 1 “ magically “ appeared on “ paper “ + there’s actual footage of a “ principality “ that swore an “ oath “ 2 “ it “ 😂 Our highest 🦘 court sits under the “ authority / jurisdiction “ of a “ mythical “ foreign 🦭, 👀 4 yr self, my reply will be gone if I mention the name.
I don’t think that judge could have read article 61 properly… because it commanded all the people to stand with the barons and distress and distrain the king… it was said to be in perpetuity… so cannot be repealed… tbh whether A61 was there or not, the people still have the right to demand that their king uphold the common law articles of MC… otherwise, what would be the point in those principles. It all comes down to whether one believes that the state has legitimate authority over the people… the answer is no.. though the state will have de facto authority if enough people believe it.
@@louweazel7894 That is like saying "everything in the Bible is true because it says so right here in the Bible". Reality, and historic record, shows a different story. As stated in Flowers v State of New South Wales (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 887 (at 62-66): "The first of the Magna Carta, otherwise titled Magna Carta Libertatum, of 1215 was a charter of rights agreed to by King John in which the rights of barons were prescribed. It was annulled. The original Magna Carta contained cl 61 which was a limited form of parliament, being 25 barons representative of the peerage. The annulment of the Magna Carta was confirmed by the Pope. The Magna Carta was reissued in a different form in 1216 by Henry III. The second of the Magna Carta was significantly different. It contained only 42 clauses, compared with 63 clauses in the original document. The Magna Carta was issued a third time in 1217, in a version that differed further from the original and differed from the second of the Great Charters. The Magna Carta was issued again in 1225. The last version of 1225 differed only slightly from the third version in 1217."
@@auspseudolaw all articles of Magna Carta 1215 which uphold an individual's rights remain in force. Whenever one hears a claim that this or that body of people has authority, one must always question "From whence does that claimed authority derive; what is it's ultimate source?" If followed to it's ultimate source, it will not be in the pronouncement of some legislative council, nor of a renowned jurist, but it will finally rest with what the community decides voluntarily is the common law, and will be in accord with natural law.
@@lockedonarticle6179 Get back to me when you have a court judgement in your favour. Until then, you're talking shit and wasting everyone's time, including your own. Stamping your feet won't change legal reality.
Interesting , however when politicians make up laws and legislation to suit themselves for there own person gain , I'd have to say Australia really doesn't have any laws to begin with , just saying .
I think your missing the point on the only real interesting thing about the Magna Carta being the King is also subject to law. Because what that implied is "Equality under the law" for everyone. that was the big take from the Magna Carta, so much so its the main reason the British colonisation worked so well, French, Spanish, Germany colonisation did not take this premise to the new colonies, and the ppl never felt they ever belonged to something greater. where as under British rule, they did. Natives where not so much subjugated but at the very least treated as equal to the king under the law that was brought upon them. Sure there are aberrations, but for the main part, that is the case. And we see the British colonies thrived, and non British ones die.
I find it curious that British law was not received into New South Wales until 1828. I find it curious, since parliamentary democracy in NSW started in 1824. We are in the bicentennial year of that first democratic government. So what was the legal basis of any legislative actions of those first representatives during the first four years of democracy? Just two days ago I stood by the old table that represents the first table around which the first representatives sat in 1824 in the Rum Hospital. I was the only one there. Australians need to gain more reverence for that humble beginning of our democracy, and the value of that building that is the oldest physical connection we have to the beginnings of our democracy, and the replacement of the proclamations of a Governor, with laws passed by elected representatives. It is no coincidence that the person who made the Tenterfield Oration that lead to Australian Independence from Britain, sat, as Premier, in the chamber in the room next door to where that first parliament sat.
Because of uncertainty about the application of some UK statutes, particularly the ones that had been amended since 1788, legislation was enacted to give an official date so that it was clear what legislation had been received by that time. Yes, there's a lot of interesting history in the NSW Parliament. They also do some quite good talks for the public on it - and I do recommend that people attend. There's an interesting secret staircase beneath the floor of the Jubilee Room too!
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I hope you don't mind me asking questions. I am currently doing academic research into the Colonial development of the Australian cultural identity. The Mitchell Library Special Collections has become my second home of late. I have most recently been looking into Barron Field, Supreme Court Judge 1817-1828 and poet of sorts. It was his 1819 book of poetry that drew me to him. Your reply has made me wonder, in that period of the first parliament, between 1824 and 1828, was Field questioning the legality of the acts of those first representatives, requiring that British law be officially received? What was his role, and do you know anything about the interaction between the Supreme Court, the Governor, or authorities back in London, and the first acts of that those first representatives were passing prior to 1828?
The concept originates in the US Posse Comitatus who believed that the Federal Government was usurped by a British conspiracy around the time of the 13th Amendment (that ended slavery), and the 14th Amendment (that introduced federal US citizenship), replacing the original “de jure” American government with an illegitimate, tyrannical “de facto” THE UNITED STATES. It was contended that the Federal Government was a trading corporation, a “British ship in dry dock in Washington DC.” who used a form of British Maritime Admiralty law to contract away the American people’s God-given rights. For these “organic citizens”, the US was peopled by two nations, there was a republic where whites enjoyed unalienable rights superior to those held by people of colour and Jews. The latter were denizens of a separate quasi-nation, a “corporation” created by the 14th Amendment, and all the while, legitimate Americans were also “tricked” into adopting this inferior legal status. The “corporate US government” concept was also adopted by Australian pseudolaw adherents, and repackaged to suit localised arrangements, with the belief that Australia is a foreign corporation registered on the US Security and Exchange Commission. There is also the fact that all government departments have an Australian Business Number (ABN) which adherents claim proves their corporate status. Consistent with the US school of thought, it is believed to have replaced the original de jure “Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia”, with an illegitimate, tyrannical de facto ”AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT”, with a paper Queen and a corporate seal.
@@Chase_Telemetric We are all constrained by reality. Find freedom where you can and be smart about recovering freedoms you have given away or had stolen by others.
@@MarginalFarming - I am convinced that anyone who views themselves as completely free is either delusional or using a definition of free that is open to debate.
Of course section 118 of the Constitution provides "Full faith and credit shall be given, throughout the Commonwealth, to the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of every State.".
Americans are justifiably proud to belong to the first modern nation to be governed by a written constitution even if they had two goes to get it right. Unfortunately because Americans view the US constitution as part of their national identity, it has become for them, and by imitation for countries such as Australia that adopted a written constitution. It has become a symbol, like a flag rather than a working document. Because it is a symbol people believe they can impose any meaning they like upon it. They can’t. A constitution is simply a law about who gets to make laws and, in the broadest sense, how those laws are to be implemented and enforced. Like any law it is a bunch of words that have to be interpreted to be understood. It is not whatever any given person wishes it to be.
Sir Edward Coke, in "The Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Law of England" (at 36-38) had: "...described parliament's power as "transcendent and absolute", not confined "either for causes or persons within any bounds" while he contemplated the enactment of bills of attainder without trial and statutes contrary to Magna Carta without any suggestion of their invalidity, as Dawson J pointed out in the High Court in Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [1996] HCA 24 (at 12).
In Victoria, if a law is non-existent, then relies on UK law. I recall when I was a kid, there was some legal argument about livestock on the road. The law in use was 500 years old. I think there are probably few examples of this now.
I'm not sure I see how someone could be charged under a "non-existent law" to begin with. Perhaps rather, the "500 year old law" was adopted previously by the state legislature, (which makes it part of Victorian law), or the court referred to previous jurisprudence from English common law that was 500 years old?
Not sure which books you mean, but when it comes to legal books, the specialised bookstores have all gone. There's a small number of legal books in the large Dymocks on George Street. Otherwise, best to order them online from the publisher or through a large online bookseller.
Has anyone constructed a crime story where reference to (presumably chapter 29 of) the Magna Carta *could* relevant to a decision? That is, is there any modern possibility that a case might not be determinable fully by later legislation? I'd suppose it to be an entertainingly winding path?
I was contacted recently by someone writing a crime story set in colonial New South Wales that turned on a legal twist - but it was not based on Magna Carta. The problem with doing those kinds of novels is that you really need to get the law right! At least this author was checking with experts to ensure that he did.
Magna Carta isn't legal it's Lawful which is higher and then there's God. However, if you say it doesn't have much context in todays world, can't we say the same thing about the Treaty of Waitangi in NZ, that it was only for it's 'time' and should be archived?
The very first form of parliament was actually a result of the Magna Carta. As said in Flowers v State of New South Wales (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 887 (at 62-63): "The first of the Magna Carta, otherwise titled Magna Carta Libertatum, of 1215 was a charter of rights agreed to by King John in which the rights of barons were prescribed. The original Magna Carta contained clause 61 which was a limited form of parliament, being 25 barons representative of the peerage."
Changes to the Commonwealth Constitution require a referendum under section 128, and there are some "entrenched" provisions in a couple of state constitutions that likewise require referendum, but other than that, changes are regularly made by the parliaments through ordinary legislation.
Magna Carta is just a statute, like others that can be changed by later statutes. The changes are penned (or, at least, passed) by the elected representatives of the people.
@@Chase_Telemetric Not ratification - that's a technical term used with respect to a treaty process. Statutes (at the Commonwealth level) require royal assent.
The Magna Carta was originally a treaty So the royal assent is for statutes as you said But the statute was not created with consent of the people it intended to protect was it ?
So, if we are still a colony (officially), how are we accepted as a member of the United Nations when their charter states that " to be accepted as a member, a nation must be a republic or an independent state", and accepted as a "quasie" republic???
The states ceased to be colonies at Federation. The Commonwealth never was a "colony" at any time, but rather a "dominion" of the British Empire, which was collapsed in 1926 as a result of the Balfour Agreement, brought into law with the Statute of Westminster 1931, adopted in Australia in 1942.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 So, what is our official political status? According to the USSEC we are a corporation, registered in the early seventies by the Whitlam administration ???
@@beklerken1 No, the SEC registration is for a country, not a corporation. Every country in the world that has corporations intending to trade shares on US markets is required to register their financial situation, as the strength of their currency is what gives those corporations their value. It is an anti-scam practice that has existed since the Security Exchanges Act 1934 (US). No. At the time, a dominion was, (as already stated) a subordinate of the British Empire, which changed as a result of agreements at the 1926 Imperial Conference. There was no referendum required under section 128 of the Constitution of the Statute of Westminster adoption, because nothing in the Constitution was altered.
Hi Professor Twomey, so I imagine the situation regarding the old Bill of Rights of 1689 would be similar to this? I had read in years gone by this Bill of Rights was also quoted by some folks in the same way as Magna Carta guaranteeing certain inalienable rights.
It is also provided for in the same part of the Imperial Acts Application Acts of the states. In Port of Portland Pty Ltd v State of Victoria (2010) 242 CLR 348, the High Court considered the force of the principles enunciated in the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 (Vic), which includes the Bill of Rights 1688. Section 3 provides that the transcribed enactments "shall continue to have in Victoria … such force and effect, if any, as it had at the commencement of this Act". French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ said (at 13) that "...the preferable view is that these provisions in the Victorian statute at best serve only to reinforce what are settled constitutional principles". In Antunovic v Dawson (2010) 30 VR 355, Bell J considered the relevance of the Bill of Rights 1688 in a contemporary context. His Honour said (at 50): "The rights and liberties in the Bill of Rights restricted the powers of the sovereign, specified and confirmed the responsibilities of Parliament and declared certain fundamental freedoms of the people. The focus of these rights and liberties is mainly on the relationship between the sovereign, the Parliament and the people, rather than on the rights of the people as such. The rights are mainly civil and political in character." These two decisions were discussed in Living Word Outreach Inc v Deputy Sheriff of Victoria [2014] VSC 454 (from 48): "It follows from what was said in the above cases that the provisions of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 are not to be understood as being capable of striking down provisions in other statutes. Rather, the principles there enshrined lay the groundwork of the constitutional framework and find expression in more specific principles."
Question pls 🙋🏻♂️ If one was found innocent; after trail and that person has been removed from say, a house or land holding, as in bailed to an other residence. Once Innocent, Could the law, keep one from returning to said owned home or land holding, legally purchased. As in, a domestic dispute case of a spouse trying to take a house and family in the form of spite and resentment. Could one use the innocent plea of the free man to not lose property or rights there of, In the Magna carter resolve. To legally return to home and have property re instated. If that makes Sense.
Yes, any current State law overrides any right in Magna Carta. If there is an existing law that removes a person from their home, then calling on Magna Carta will do absolutely nothing to help. One person tried to 'secede' from the State as well as calling on Magna Carta. He lost.
(39) No free-man shall he seized, or imprisoned, or dispossessed, or outlawed, or in any way destroyed; nor will we condemn him, nor will we commit him to prison, excepting by the legal judgment of his peers, or by the laws of the land. [Trial by Jury with 12 peers! - how many foreclosures from summary judgements are unlawfully pushed through these administrative tribunals?] Nulli vendemus, nulli negabimus, aut differimus rectum aut justiciam. (40) To none will we sell, to none will we deny, to none will we delay right or justice. ["sell" - puts lawyers' livelihoods out of commission doesn't it? - no wonder Magna Carta 1215 is down-played at every chance you get!]
There was no trial by jury in 1215, as pointed out in the video. Perhaps you should watch it. One's peers were only used as one way of bringing the matter to court. Decisions on conviction were made by trial by ordeal or trial by battle. Perhaps you ought to read a little more about the feudal law in which Magna Carta applied before suggesting that it should override current law.
That's lame 🤦♂️ I have read the documents pertaining to why it was annulled, maybe you should also. There are pictures depicting one of the men at the Kings table with a dagger in his hand. It was a Papal Bull and the Roman Catholic Church held King John in fear of His life if he refused to sign it. Being a Christian King, once King John was in the sanctity of His own realm He denied the Romans, which led to the denouncing of Magna Cartas relevance and further persecutions from Rome.
@@raggedyman6327 I believe it had alot more to do with the first Chancel of the Temple Church built by the Knights Templar. The Chancel, or Chancery, of the Crown Inner Temple Court (now known as the bankers and attorners from the independent City of London). Australia is controlled and manipulated by this private foreign power and our unlawful Federal Australia Government is their pawn broker. The bankers and Bar Attorneys in the U.S.A. are a franchise in oath and allegiance to the Crown at Chancery - the Crown Temple Church and its Chancel located in Chancery Lane - a manipulative body of elite bankers and attorners (aturner - to transfer allegiance of a tenant to another lord) from the independent City of London who violate the law in Australia/America by imposing fraudulent "legal" - totally unlawful - contracts on the Australian people. The banks Rule the Temple Church and the Attorners carry out their Orders by controlling their victim's judiciary. The old British "Crown" has long ago passed to the "Crown" Temple in Chancery. It's an ancient power game!
It is a hard mother f**ken fact of life that whitefella dominate and assert Crown rights over Australia. No one these days had a hand in its creation, we inherited the current Crown system from our ancestors. To answer your question, military force - applied by Imperial Great Britain to the then existing fractured population of Australian blackfellas. Invasion has been going on for millenia, an invading force conquers the local inhabitants and asserts their claims by force proclaiming they are in charge and sets up their own system of government. Britons and Picts in Scotland themselves were invaded by Romans and Normans and others predating the Romans. Unfortunately for the Aussie Blackfellas at the time of Governor Phillip, they simply had no military answer for a modern invading empire. Whole of Australia is still legally Crown Land and administered by whitefella created courts. Though Eddie Mabo was able to prove his family ownership of his land predated Crown Land. So sad that Eddie passed away before his case was won. I am a white fella, a fifth generation Aussie, I can see the injustice suffered by the blackfella. But there is no going back to the prewhite fella days.
In Flowers v State of New South Wales (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 887 (at 62-66): "The first of the Magna Carta, otherwise titled Magna Carta Libertatum, of 1215 was a charter of rights agreed to by King John in which the rights of barons were prescribed. It was annulled. The annulment of the Magna Carta was confirmed by the Pope. The Magna Carta was reissued in a different form in 1216 by Henry III. The second of the Magna Carta was significantly different. It contained only 42 clauses, compared with 63 clauses in the original document. The Magna Carta was issued a third time in 1217, in a version that differed further from the original and differed from the second of the Great Charters. The Magna Carta was issued again in 1225. The last version of 1225 differed only slightly from the third version in 1217."
@@keithad6485 Tea? Never drink that shit unless I run out coffee, which I practically live on. I'm not taking anything about myself seriously here, but I'm talking about your comments, which show you don't have a clue that "the channel owner" advises the High Court and governments in constitutional interpretation, and you hilariously think you can teach her something about "the principle of legality of statutory interpretation" lol. :)
The supremacy of parliament over the common law was recognised with the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and Australia inherited the principle as part of the Westminster system of government.
@@auspseudolaw It might have been recognized by some, but that doesn't make it lawful. It's quite evident both from common law and logic, that no one individual or group is sovereign, but that the ultimate arbiters of law are the people, and that this is done via the process of trial-by-jury, whereby unconstitutional law may be annulled on the spot by juries of the peers of those charged with offences. It cannot be a moral principle to allow 'law' to be determined by majority vote, which is then imposed on a one-size-fits-all approach to justice. Every case must be judged on its merits, and Parliament must ultimately be subject to natural law, or equity before the law ceases to exist.
@@lockedonarticle6179 Again, this is your BELIEF. It is NOT how the law sees this. The High Court has consistently upheld the principle of the Supremacy of Parliament as the highest law-making body in this constitutional structure. You appear to have great difficulty understanding the difference between your beliefs, and the law. A good example of the inherent inconsistency you have is that no Australian court (or any UK court for that matter) can agree your beliefs have validity in law. Try it. You'll find out they are bound by the decisions of the High Court. I have 3000 court decisions to prove this in my encyclopedia. And you have... your opinions.
I was just told of your channel...Could you please explain the Supreme Court of Canada challenges to the Protestant provisions of The Act of Settlement 1700 ...( Rights and Liberties of the subject ) 2015 TESKEY V CANADA (Attorney General) ....The entire Westminster Body Politic System was created by the Bill of Rights 1688 and Act of Settlement 1700...Canadian supreme Court said that the Act of Settlement 1700 is part of the Constitution that is beyond the power of the executive or the Judiciary and is "NON JUSTICIABLE ".....Clause 1 and the "DEFAULT" clause if the King/Government make communion with the Holy See.....Non JUSTICIABLE ...1981 Federal Law review in Australia after 8 members were removed from Victoria's Parliament because they were not "NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS OF HER MAJESTY". "The Act of Settlement 1701 and the employment of Aliens" is the article which said the Act of Settlement 1700 clause 1 is "PART OF THE CONSTITUTION" and "BEYOND THE POWER OF EITHER COMMONWEALTH OR STATE PARLIAMENTS" ...Speeding fines are easy when you understand the reverse onus "evidentiary provisions" of calibration certificates....SA supreme Court Police v Butcher..
I am happy to respond to questions, but you need to write in sentences so that I can understand what you are saying. Just stringing words together and writing them in capitals does not mean anything. If there really is a case in Victoria that holds that the Act of Settlement 1701 is beyond the power of Commonwealth or State Parliaments to alter, then please give its name and citation and I will respond. My guess, however, is that you are misconstruing any such case, if it exists.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Having debated James Bowes for about 8 years, (there's an article of that name in the Index) I can simplify things by getting to the point. He uses your "Keeping the Queen in Queensland" and other works to attempt to prove that Queensland Crown is bound by the Anti-Papal restrictions from before the Emancipation era, including that the Governor cannot be Catholic, and Judges celebrating Red Mass are in breach of their oaths to a Protestant monarch. Also, the "Communion with the Holy See" regarding meetings between the Vatican State and Australian state or federal officials. I've found it a fascinating subject.
@@auspseudolaw love your work Rob .. debating since 2011 . You forgot my early years when I studied Roman law and the UCC now my 8 year depth of knowledge on the Protestant reformation ,the imperial crown and the illustrious bloodline of the House of Windsor/Saxe-Coburg Gotha / Wettin from Saxony the motherland of the Protestant reformation and is the illustrious bloodline of King David and the Davidic Covenant ...lol
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you for your reply and thank you for " Keeping the Queen in Queensland" , sorry for my poorly structured comment. My question is. Did Gough Whitlam making communion with the Holy See in 1973 invoke the "default" clause of rules of succession as set out in The Act of Settlement 1700 and therefore automatically lose all Regal Power Authority and Jurisdiction? Given the ruling in TESKEY V CANADA ( Attorney General ) 2015 the Appellate court said : with respect to the rules of succession, the court while citing to O' Donahue v Canada 2005 , held that the rules were a part of the Constitution.... The court further opined that the changes envisioned by the Perth agreement and assented to in the Succession to the Throne Act , 2013 were properly implemented with respect to process established by the Statute of Westminster. Conclusion: the changes to the rules of succession were themselves part of the Canadian Constitution and thus protected from Charter ( of rights and freedoms) review. Therefore, it would seem that if those provisions of the rules of succession that TESKEY and O'Donoghue deplore are to be changed or removed it will have to be accomplished politically and legislatively through another multilateral agreement similar to the Perth Agreement rather than Judicially through the courts.... The Australian Learned Treatise I was referring to is Australian Federal Law review 1981, volume 12 ,starting at page 212...The Act of Settlement and Employment of Aliens. It is the most definitive review of the different rights and Liberties of ..."Natural Born Subjects" ... Denizens and Aliens . It says at page 214 : covering clause 2 of the Commonwealth Constitution , which provides that provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 extend to Queen Victoria's "heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom" suggests that the statutory provisions which identify those heirs and successors are incorporated by reference into the Constitution Act . If this is so , sections 1 and 2 of the Act of Settlement are in force in Australia and cannot be repealed by either the Commonwealth or State Parliaments.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Now with the Duchy of Lancaster in the news would be a perfect time to do a video on the King in his Body Politic and the King in his Body Natural are indivisible which is why His Majesty King Charles lll has the Duchy of Lancaster.... The case of the Duchy of Lancaster 1561 and that ruling of the King in his Body Politic and Body Politic one and indivisible was just used with transfer to His Majesty King Charles lll. The King has two Capacities, for he has two Bodies, the one whereof is a Body natural, consisting of natural Members as every other Man has, and in this he is subject to Passions and Death as other Men are; the other is a Body politic, and the Members thereof are his Subjects, and he and his Subjects together compose the Corporation..
What Legal System?... The ANZ Bank is not bound to comply & actively involves itself in all maner of criminal activity, yet no System (Legal, Government, or governing) will take action against them.
@@auspseudolaw All I can tell you is: the bodies set to regulate ensure no Justice comes to pass as they suppress & sit on details & documents (with knowledge & support from ALL Sectors of Government & Law! ... Still waiting for communications after months of supplying irrefutable incriminating documents (that the Bank had withheld for well over a decade)!
@@auspseudolaw I have also (besides other post) been advised "the Banks are perceived as the pillars of the current System & therefore are to be maintained before/ above ALL else!"
There is no such thing as the "Universal Commercial Code". There is US legislation called the "Uniform Commercial Code" which has been renamed by pseudolaw adherents to give the impression it is some type of "universal law" applying in every country. Far from it, it doesn't even apply in all the US states, and certainly not in Australia. Two provisions have been adopted in Australia to govern commercial transactions with US companies and institutions, which are of course superseded by our own nations state and federal laws. Article 9 is "Secured Transactions", covering transactions secured by security interests between banks, and Article 3 is "Negotiable Instruments" covering promissory notes, bills of exchange, banknotes, demand draft and cheques, for the purposes of trade with US companies and institutions. Article 9 does not even govern real property security interests, only certain fixtures to real property. Mortgages, deeds of trust, and installment land contracts, which are the principal forms of real property security interests, remain governed by state laws. The closest thing we have to the UCC in Australia is the Personal Property Securities Register but it's not the same thing.
I was one of those people who believed that most laws could be challenged through the existence of the Magna Carta, one because a copy of the Lancashire document was/is on display in Parliament House and two because I thought all law emanated from it concerning human rights for eg no man shall forfeit or be made to forfeit his ass/donkey/horse (goat, whatever, goods or chattels? to settle a debt). I realise my phrasing isn't correct, so thanks so much for your explanation and time. PS I'm wondering if the opposing party in the divorce case mentioned in the comments won hands down?
I have made several comments detailing errors committed in this video, and they've also been deleted. I assure you that the deletions were not self-inflicted. A video rebutting the numerous errors and falsehoods contained herein is required.
I am not aware of any errors in the video (apart from a spelling error in the words of one of the articles of Magna Carta which I put on the screen). I gave the references to the relevant cases and statutes. Anyone can verify them from publicly available sources.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 A number of errors (not necessarily all) will be pointed out in my forthcoming video. Some are errors of fact, and others are errors in thinking , and insofar as they relate to the topic or philosophy of law, errors in law. It needs to be made plain that statutes in no way comprise the entirety of the law, and in fact mostly fall outside of the correct definition, and should properly be referred to as 'legislation', not 'law'. The video will expand on this point, which has been dealt with extensively in other videos of the Locked On Article 61 series.
TopG good info i never got the jab and almost lost all my rights now i want to buy some land and become sovereign is it possible? im thinking if i can fully pay some land off and get the deed then the land is mine and whatever happens on the land is up to me im hoping this is the case i looked through your videos but couldn't see anything on the subject... i don't want to be in the same situation again and not have any land to live on
No. You would merely have a title in Fee Simple, and the state government has power to regulate your actions on that land as much as they like. You cannot "become sovereign" in that way. There is extensive case law on this subject I've covered in published articles.
If your land is in a country, then its laws will apply to you, whether you own the law or not (as will the laws of subnational Parliaments, such as the States).
@@michaelgilchrist6255 I've lived remote. off-grid and mostly self-sufficient for over 4 decades. I often complain because there's no police or emergency services or even presence within 50km, sort of like we live in an anarchist zone. I regularly abuse NSW Police about it, even sent them a "dear john" letter a month ago that I'm dumping their incompetent arses and employing my own security lol. The community here has just about appointed me sheriff because I'm the one they call for help, they're sick of police ignoring their calls. We've survived floods, droughts and frightening 90km/h firestorms completely alone. I've always loved the idea of ceding from the state and forming a micronation, but I know section 123 of the Constitution prevents that. I even sat at the feet of Leonard Casley of Hutt River Province for weeks back in 2006 racking his brain about it.
English law was received in Australia under the Australian Courts Act 1828. Section 24 provided: "Laws of England to be applied in the administration of justice. Governor and Council may declare such laws to be in force and limit and modify them. In the meantime, the courts shall decide as to the application of such laws in the colonies." As McPherson JA noted (at 610) in Bone v Mothershaw [2003] 2 Qd R 600, the common law received in Australia under the Australian Courts Act 1828 was received as a body of common law and not of enacted law, with the effect that the common law so received in Australia in 1828 was not so received as a body of statute law. It meant that English law as it stood in 1828, rather than earlier laws, applied in both New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land. Later English Acts of Parliament did not apply unless they were specifically passed for the colonies, as confirmed by the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865. Australian statute law thus had a firm foundation, but was able to evolve according to its own conditions and needs.
@@auspseudolaw and the powers of the Commonwealth were effectively codified by the adoption of the Constitution - the Constitution sets out the legislative scope the Commonwealth has at its disposal - Chapter III deals with the only right you have section 80 says you have trial by jury - but not nothing about your jury trial being fair
@@Bristolcentaurus And section 80 only deals with indictable offences, not summary offences, leaving parliament free to decide what offences are to be dealt with summarily. Secondly, it applies only to Commonwealth laws, not state laws.
I've been to Runnymede. It's a bit of a muddy swamp and the biggest monument is American. I'm of the view that political gains were very much gained by economic class. Magna Carta was entirely about rights for aristocrats. The middle class, particularly in the UK definition gained their rights, per force via the industrial revolution. Working class rights were largely based in the efforts of the Chartists.
I've been to Runnymede too, and tried quite hard to find my photos so I could insert them in the video, but failed. No doubt I'll find them one day. Yes, the JFK memorial there is the more impressive feature, and a little out of place.
Thank you professor for your explanation of the Magna Carta of 1215. The old saying "it's good to be the King" Let me ask you this: the assent to the Commonwealth Australia Act 1986 relinquished to bonds of English law and judgement of the Privy Council? 🌏🇦🇺
The assent to the Australia Act (UK) and proclamation to the Australia Act (Cth) were actually given by Elizabeth II personally. These two Acts both abolished appeals from the State courts to the Privy Council. Appeals from Commonwealth courts were already abolished by the combined effects of the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals/Act 1968 (Cth) and the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975 (Cth). All other appeals (where a certificate might be granted under section 74 of the Constitution) were terminated by the decision in Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty. Ltd [No. 2] [1985] HCA 27, where the High Court held that it would never again grant a certificate of appeal, stating (at 5): "Although the jurisdiction to grant a certificate stands in the Constitution, such limited purpose as it had has long since been spent. The march of events and the legislative changes that have been effected - to say nothing of national sentiment - have made the jurisdiction obsolete."
@@auspseudolaw did QEII write her name on the first page at the top (Australia Act, 1986)? No signature at the end of the document? No seal? Doesn't this really mean that she has read it, but didn't actually sign (assent) to it? Don't believe there is any such lawful Queen of Australia - who are the policiticians taking their oaths to? If so many politicians are lawyers, do they not realise they are complicit in perpetuating this crime upon the People of our Land, they are supposed to know the law? That would then appear as mens rea - criminal aforethought!
@@rveux9387 I see you have been convinced of the myth about the placement of the Royal Sign Manual, without any evidence, because none exists. I've written a lengthy referenced article on the myth, you should read it. Interestingly, there isn't a single bill ever in history, including the personal assent given in Commonwealth legislation, where the monarch HASN'T placed the Royal Sign Manual at the top of the document. Ever since Isaacson v Durant (1886) when Lord Coleridge CJ overturned Calvin's case and said (at 65-66) that: "...allegiance was due to the King in his politic, and not in his personal, capacity" oaths taken are to the Crown, not the monarch in a personal sense. As explained in Flowers v State of New South Wales (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 887 (from 111): "The allegiance and service to which a judicial officer swears in the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath is allegiance to the monarch, not in his or her personal capacity, but, rather, to the body politic. The allegiance, for example, would not apply to applying or enforcing Canadian law or English law. The Crown as a body politic is “an abstraction”, used in a metaphysical or metaphorical sense. Hence, we speak of the Crown in the Right of New South Wales as a distinct entity from the Crown in the Right of Victoria. As the High Court explained in Re Patterson; ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (at 224), the body politic is a creation of law and, as a consequence, the allegiance would be changed by any validly made law or by a lawmaking authority. The allegiance is to the body politic, being the State as an entity, not the government and not the monarch personally." More recently in Love v Commonwealth [2020] HCA 3 (at 108): "By federation, the Crown to which such allegiance was owed was understood to be the monarch "in his politic, and not in his personal capacity"
@rveux9387 the Monarch or the Viceroy always sign at the top right-hand corner of the document they are assenting to. It's called the Royal sign-manual.
It would be good if the government gave a crap about the constitution or magna carta, these days they seem to do what they like and sure you can fight it but it won't do you much good sitting behind bars, our courts will often follow government agendas, It's disgusting.
Courts apply the law. It won't do you any good relying on Magna Carta in court if you have breached a law enacted since Magna Carta, as later laws override earlier ones. The reason people end up behind bars, in some cases, is that they believe the fantasy that a medieval statute dealing with feudal relationships somehow magically gives them rights to breach current laws. It doesn't. Courts will continue to say so. That does not mean they are 'following government agendas'. They are applying the law, which is their job.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Or perhaps its because they are good people that believe in right and wrong, common sense and real justice, not the system of justice that sets us up for failure.
They all take an oath to The King, "according to law" which is Australian law. Since Isaacson v Durant (1886) when Lord Coleridge CJ said that: "allegiance was due to the King in his politic, and not in his personal, capacity", the allegiance under the oath is to the Crown, not the monarch themselves. The Crown as a body politic is “an abstraction”, used in a metaphysical or metaphorical sense. Hence, we speak of the Crown in the Right of New South Wales as a distinct entity from the Crown in the Right of Victoria. .. The allegiance is to the body politic, being the State as an entity, not the government and not the monarch personally."
Fines are illegal! The Imperial Acts Application Acts states: "All grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction, are illegal and void." This means that all fines are unlawful unless they are proven in a court! Since it was written several centuries ago, "grants and promises" requires a bit of an explanation, though cherry-picking the word “fines” seems to satisfy those without knowledge of the historical context. In short, King James (and King Charles before him) had a habit of “granting or promising” to his mates the wealth of people he didn't like BEFORE they were convicted of treason. To stop this, the Bill of Rights insisted that the Crown can't grant or promise a person's wealth or property to anyone until AFTER the person is convicted. Prior to 1870 a convicted felon forfeited his assets to the Crown. Indeed, the legal definition of a felon is a person whose property has been forfeited to the Crown. Because such grants and promises were later made illegal by the Forfeiture Act of 1870, it hardly matters now what the Bill of Rights did about narrowing the scope of such grants and promises back in 1688. The King of Australia has not granted or promised any fine or forfeiture to anyone - and experts predict he is unlikely to do so during the remainder of his reign. If he ever does it to you though, you should rely on this section of the Bill of Rights to prevent your home or cattle being seized by the Crown and gifted to some Earle or Duke without giving you an opportunity to a fair trial.
pre-dating Magna Carta, there is a scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where King Arthur has a conversation with a couple of muckraking peasants who roundly reject Arthur's proposition that he is their king. Dennis the peasant states they are part of an anarcho-syndicalist commune, and tells Arthur that "strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government", and that he had not voted for Arthur. Which begs the question, which could be the subject of a future video .... were there such entities in the middle ages of self governing communities in Britain where there were no lords or feudalism, and whether these self governed communities were essentially the forerunners of todays "sovereign citizens" ? Serious or humourous ?? I wonder whether Monty Python was onto something here.
While studying Land Law, I actually came across some legal texts that address this very question. There could possibly have been 'allodial' settlements prior to the Norman Conquest; although they were not well documented or attested. Following 1066 *everyone* *everywhere* in the Realm of England was a tenant of the Crown; and therefore subject to the Crown's ultimate authority; there were no self-governing communities. Given that 'The Holy Grail' was putatively set in the 5th century AD, 500 years before the Conquest, then yeah: there could have been some autonomous settlements that were independent of the Crown (although "the crown" in the period between the end of Roman rule and the rise of Wessex, King Alfred, etc is a pretty murky concept).
I think this question is better suited to a historian of the period, but I suspect the real answer is that such communities did not last terribly long when confronted with neighbours that had large armies comprised of people owing duties to their lord. Having said that, I think there is a lot of underlying truth in Monty Python. After all, what did the Romans ever do for us?
@@martinpurcell6126 'Terra nullius' isn't a right, per se; it is the premise that there are no existing rights exercised on that land. There are examples of terra nullius all around the world: the island of Rockall in the Atlantic Ocean, the territory of Bir Tawil between Egypt and Sudan, and Marie Byrd Land in Antartica. In the case of the Australian colonies, between 1788 and 1992 it had been assumed that the land had been terra nullius when colonial settlers arrived and hence, all of Australia ipso facto became Crown land. Obviously Australia was occupied by the Indigenous Australians; but since they didn't appear to exercise land rights in a way the colonists recognised - eg municipal collections of estates in fee simple - the colonisers erroneously assumed no land rights existed. This view was overturned in the 1992 Mabo decision, which recognised that Indigenous Australians had rights to land ("Native title") which had not been extinguished. Obviously, it's a complex area which can't be adequately covered in a RUclips comment; but basically the Mabo decision ended the doctrine of terra nullius in Australia.
@auspseudolaw SovCit types , or American Nationals or Moorish Americans . Cookers means some who " cooks " up conspiracy theories about alien lizard people controlling the world .
@@davidgreen424 It was always a term for someone who cooks up meth, and their brain gets cooked. A derogatory term implying low IQ or a mental health issue. Tom Tanuki who reinvented it a few years ago actually hates that it's misapplied so widely. I can say with certainty after studying all psychology reports on pseudolaw adherents fitness to stand trial, that the beliefs and consequential conduct are not the product of a mental disorder but instead is a form of paranoid political belief: “extreme but subculturally-normative beliefs”, honestly held ideas that have been reinforced in pseudolaw communities, marginal groups with extreme political and conspiratorial beliefs. (See Pytyck/ Chaimowitz for example)
We look to history to find solutions. I suspect many are doing this out of frustration for the direction we appear to be heading in. This whole debate comes out of the growing contempt for our Parliaments, be they state or federal. Who are captured by a party system of deals and counterdeals and a rising disregard for any real imact they are having on Australians.
When our parliaments are out of control what true legal recourse do we have and how do we go about it?
Serious question! Sadly not enough people have yet been effected enough to see the discomfort it is causing a large portion of us. The beginning of tyranny and loss of fundamental rights, history shows, is always a gradual one with division into groups then suppression of these individual groups as they can be demonised or ridiculed. Addressing their concerns rather than writing them off would be the most appropriate way of nullifying them. Sadly this is not done in parliamentary circles and the usual response is name calling. I realise both sides revert to this and can be equally guilty of ignoring what is seen as legitimate questions.
How do we resolve unlistened to frustrations, for that is where we are now.
The fundamental problem here is that there is still the question over whether or not any government has any right or power to take away those certain 'inalienable rights' in the first place. This surely played at least some role in the initial inspiration. It is undoubtedly a driving force behind "give me liberty or give me death". We all have a conscience and we all know instinctively that slavery is wrong. It could well be argued that the current legal system is basically (or has become) an elaborate system of slavery that uses a great deal of deception and enacts tyranny via financial deprivation...like unlawful fines issued in the 'post' by executive arms of the government (as opposed to the judiciary), and forced (and onerous) tax (a form of abuse according to the Family Law definitions). If the government and the people were to sit on the couch of a psychoanalyst for relationship counselling it would be deemed unequivocally as an abusive relationship.
Most people suffer from a form of Stockholm syndrome, infantilism, and wilful ignorance etc etc...
Very well said!
@@wcbbsd So true. When challenged with some of these truths a normie sheep blows a mental fuse because it does not compute with the huge stronghold they've built up in their minds (with help from controlled media) in favour of submission to big government. I watch The Matrix 2-3 times a year. It will never get old because truth never gets old.
They the Australian belligerent grubberment doesn't have. Why because they removed the Australian grubberment away from our Commonwealth queen and made all grubberments departments ABN registered corporations and corporations obey the laws not the Commonwealth of Australia 🦘. So therefore nothing created is. LAWFUL OR LEGAL.
No, not really. The reason you are subject to whatever law Parliament enacts is that you, or your representative are active participants in the process.
I understand that most of the topics being discussed here ultimately rely on the rule of law. I also understand the frustration that leads to people questing for a solution to their dilemas. Our Constitution while not perfect is supposed to be in part a document to limit parliamentry power to certain areas of our lives.
We are seeing more and more impositions into our everyday lives and more and more legislation favouring corporations and international bodies or our " mere" rights. (Which I suspect most of us wish we had)
My point is we have a problem, which it would appear, that is not solvable by going through the court system. Apart from electing enough people who love Australia as a majority of Australians do what recourse do we have to stop continued abuses of parliament over our (what should be inalienable) rights as people.
What makes you think that the Constitution is there to limit the role of Parliament in your life? Where is the provision that says that?
The Constitution establishes a Parliament and entrusts the people to elect their representatives to enact laws that bind the people. It is a democracy. If the people don't want representatives who make particular laws, they can choose not to elect them. Ultimately, it is a matter for the people.
@@constitutionalclarion1901the government isn't held to the same standards as you or I, or
it's representatives.
If we were all held to the same standards then yes to your answer.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 the whole document is about the division of powers between federal and state. As a federation of states, it lays out the areas which each part is able to make laws about. The overeach of section 51 and the foriegn affairs abilities has seen this area of law used to circumvent state powers and to also introduce international law into our lives. For example the potential handing over of pandemic responsibilties to the WHO as they see fit, to me is tantamount to treason. As you said it is our representatives who are constitutionally responsible for our laws, to hand these decisions over to a foreign group?
We saw some of this with the signing of the Lima Agreement, where we were encouraged to shut down our industries in favour of supporting third world industrial development. We were never asked and the slow destruction of our industry from that point co incided with its intentions. Putting other countries first in this manner rather than just helping them or encouraging them in their own development is not in the long term interests of our country.
The original spirit of the reasons behind our constitutional development have been usurped in this manner to our detriment.
I realise our states constituions are alterable without referendum, but as the size of a population increases, control of representatives becomes more and more unweildy and further disconnected from their population.
I agree that the constitution probably has no written clauses over individuals and limitations, but it certainly has re the states. In spirit I still contend that we have still seen abuse of original and expected intention, with the best interests of our population not the first priority.
If I had the choice I would remove via election a majority of those currently in parliament who serve their party first and foremost and their electorate a poor second. But that is indeed only my opinion
@@constitutionalclarion1901 at best, i think you're very ignorant about how the world actually works, however it's more likely you're a puppet deliberately spreading propaganda amongst the low conscious. our rights don't come from a piece or any government. how can the people give the government the ability to engage in certain acts , when the individual, as a singular unit does not bear that capacity. case closed!
@@constitutionalclarion1901 if one is meant to rely on the 1900 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution (perhaps just more legal scribble), where in the "Constitution" does it say "political parties"? How is voting 49 vs 51 reflective of what society truly wants (especially if everyone has been programmed through the statist education system to believe this is what democracy is?). If we go back further the meaning of Democracy is made up of ‘The People Rule’ from the Greek words Demos (the people) and the verb Kratein (to rule). The concept had its birth in the early Athenian Constitution - but specifically in what were known as Exousia Rights in which the people were the final arbiter of law. This was less about the voting of people into office (although that was a feature too), it was primarily about the people having the right, power and even duty, to judge independently the justice of legislation. The people do this in each and every situation that comes before them in a court of conscience. In the English law tradition, this authority of the people over its own ‘government’ later took the form of what we call Judicium Parium - Common Law Trial by Jury - in which the people decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused and, simultaneously, judge the statute that brought the defendant into court. Also available, was the ability to privately prosecute those legislators who bring harmful legislation onto our being (how about that for accountability!). Seems to me that some kind of huge obfuscation has occurred over 100's of years, whereby the slow eroding of our knowledge, self-sovereignty, self-governance and our individual rights (my rights end where yours begin) has been manipulated out of existence. There are alot of lawyers in politics and serving as public servants! What a great way to keep the obfuscation alive!
As I understand it, Magna Carta 1215 was a Charter that laid down in writing the principles of Natural Law. Under Natural Law the people are sovereign under the creator and any government stands under the people. Any amendment to this Charter asserting that parliament is sovereign would be breaking Natural Law and true Common Law.
It's rather obvious then, that you don't understand it, or have ever actually read it, but have a picture in your mind of what you think it might be.
@@suecollinson2022 yoohoo
you need to read the Australia Act 1986. it circumvented all say of British law in Aust Gov affairs.
@@imoovabull6042 The Australia Acts didn't actually alter anything in the relationship between the Commonwealth and the UK, it dealt solely with the relationship between the States and the UK, bringing them in line with how the Commonwealth had already existed since the Statute of Westminster 1931, (adopted here in 1942). Section 3 of the Australia Acts for example, is verbatim to section 2 of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942.
The ability to govern our own affairs actually goes back much further, for example, the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, and then Federation in 1901. Another crucial point in time is the Balfour Agreement at the 1926 Imperial Conference.
@@suecollinson2022 The Magna Carta is our right to a jury which removes power from the judge to be judge and jury. When a judge is both judge and jury it is also known as the Star Chamber of Satan.
People say Australia has no Bill of Rights or Magna Carta and quote the Constitution however the original Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 required a Royal seal and referendum to alter yet corrupt politicians used rural road construction grants to bypass the constitution and create a local law bylaw and statutory laws against the peoples referendum vote.
In 1988 question 3 Australians voted no to the extortion racket known as local law council law bylaw etc
Australia had in place a working system of State and Federal Law / Commonlaw which demands there exist a damaged party for there to exist a crime.
As for natural law sovereignty and all that , I personally saw every one whom tried to be free or a free man on the land end up in prison which is HELL.
The reason why is because no matter how much law you study , the one factor that every one didn’t consider is that the Judges are all corrupt.
Credit is the root cause of poverty and poverty causes crime , therefore having a mortgage, credit card or bank loan increases crime which is in opposition to justice.
Not one judge sort to arrest John Howard for mass murder in his part in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The truth is that there is no justice anymore. It’s a sick game that discriminates against the poor.
I clicked on this thinking it would be dry and boring - but your explanation was perfect. Thank you for sharing this with us. I have now subscribed. Great video .
Thanks. I'm really glad you found it interesting.
Same. What an education; and not without it's weight in poetry. [ ...How i understood it. Despite having ducked-under many a law-talk before. This one hit me squarely. Great teacher]
@@paulpetersen6539 I will try to keep up the standard!
Interesting but much of what she is saying is not accurate. Juries existed in late Saxon times. Indeed King Alfred hanged two judges for going against the decision of the Jury.
"Yet the English were very zealous for them [the laws of Edward the Confessor/Common Law] no less or otherwise than they are at this time for the Great Charter; insomuch that they were never satisfied till the said laws were reinforced, and mingled, for the most part, with the Coronation Oath of King William I, and some of his successors." 1 Hale’s History of Common Law, 157
It's also worth pointing out that Magna Carta 1215 was not legislation (statute). The whole point of it was that it was beyond the reach of Parliament and was binding on the King in perpetuity. The Runnymede event was really King John's Trial by Jury - by his peers - who had every right to bring him to trial for his crimes - and had a duty to do so. Remember that King John had breached his coronation oath (which is Constitutional) and had been violent - cutting off people's ears, hands etc. Making families destitute. 1215 Magna Carta was a re-expression of the Constitutional principles of England.
Furthermore, the whole point of the Constitution is to limit the power of government - that includes the legislature. You can't have any part of government (any of the 'branches' - or even the King at the time who was the government) writing themselves out of that arrangement of limitation. That would be absurd.
Spokes people - such as this dear lady (who I'm sure is lovely) will always deny the inevitability of natural rights. But it's illogical to do so. As Lysander Spooner made quite clear in his essay of 1852, the only legitimate Constitution that can exist is one that simply recognises and upholds the already-existing natural rights of the people - such as MC1215. It's not government's job - or their moral right to 'limit' people's rights. Only the consciences of a jury can judge a man. Anything else destroys the principle of equity - that we're all equal under the law.
"It cannot be denied that the practice of submitting causes to the decision of twelve men was universal among all the northern tribes (of Europe) from the very remotest antiquity." p. 32 Crabb’s ‘A History of English Law; or an Attempt to Trace the Rise, Progress and Successive Changes of the Common Law; from the Earliest Period to the Present Time’
She's wrong on much of what she is saying.
William Keyte - CommonLawConstitution.org
Try reading a proper book on Magna Carta, such as the book by Aldridge and Judge that I showed you, which explains the role of juries back then - which as I said in the video was about presenting allegations to court, not determining the truth of those allegations.
The phrase "The judgment of his peers" in c. 29 of the Magna Carta did not even refer to "trial by jury". (See Adams and Schuyler, Constitutional History of England, Jonathon Cape, London at 136-7; Forsyth, History of Trial by Jury, 2nd Edition, Burt Franklin, New York, 1878 at pp 91-92; Holdsworth, History of English Law, 6th edition, volume 1 at pp 59-660, 385 48; Holt, Magna Carta, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp 9-10; Howard, Magna Carta Text and Commentary, The University Press of Virginia, at 14; Lyon, Magna Carta, the Common Law, and Parliament in Medieval England, Forum Press, Missouri, 1980 at p 7; McKechnie, Magna Carta, 2nd edition, 1914 at pp 375-379; Windeyer, Lectures on Legal History, Law Book Company, 1938, "Magna Carta" at pp 64-66.
Although c.29 traditionally has been thought to embody this fundamental principle, historical analysis reveals that this chapter: "...has had much read into it that would have astonished its framers: application of modern standards to ancient practice has resulted in complete misapprehension" (See McKechnie, Magna Carta, 2nd ed (1914) at 395 as quoted by Toohey J in Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23 at 66). In Jago Toohey J thought it pertinent to note Holdsworth's observation that whilst it was said in the seventeenth century that c. 29 (together with related chapters) embodied the principles of the writ of Habeas Corpus and of trial by jury: "It is not difficult to show that, taken literally, these interpretations are false. Trial by jury was as yet in its infancy..." (See Holdsworth, History of English Law, 7th edition (1956), volume 2 at pp 214-215 cited by Toohey J at p 66.
Similarly in Kingswell v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 264, Deane J (in dissent as to the outcome of the appeal) observed that modern scholarship would indicate that much of the traditional identification of trial by jury with Magna Carta was erroneous. For many years after the establishment of the colony of NSW there were no jury trials, with criminal matters being heard by the Judge Advocate and a panel of six military officers. (See Evatt J "The Jury System in Australia" (1936-37) 10 ALJ (Supplement) 49, Bennett JM "The Establishment of jury Trial in NSW" (1956-61) 3 Sydney Law Review 463 and Neale D The Rule of Law in a Penal Colony, Cambridge University Press, 1991.)
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Hello - this must be Anne. Nice to 'meet' you and hello from the UK 🙂 Apologies as I wasn't aware I was addressing you.
The problem with this is that the entire establishment of both the UK and Australia - and elsewhere - is swimming with collectivist notions. Our entire mindset that is held largely by the political class is to reject the very notion or idea that the government is limited in its power.
Then surely the natural question that would arise is 'Can Government (legitimately) do anything it likes? If the answer to that is yes, then why all the pretence about the 800th anniversary of the Great Charter? Our establishment over here, Anne, thinks a lot of it. What is this 'Rule of Law' you talk about? Surely if there are no limitations other that what the government itself 'pretends' are limitations then we're all in big trouble aren't we? Because ultimately a government could [legitimately] legislate on who lives or who dies! A bit extreme, I realise, but the point still stands.
If the answer is 'No' then you would be admitting to some kind of limitation placed upon government - which would mean that there is also a limitation placed on the legislature too.
As I said, you can't have government (which was created by man) writing itself into constitutional authority. It doesn't make sense logically!
I will indeed have a look at the book you suggest but I suspect that (as I have said) it fails to answer the key question that Spooner put - who is the final arbiter of law? Where does the government ultimately gain its authority or consent if not from the supremacy of the jury? Please don't give 'voting' as the answer to that question!
A tribunal of the people was a tradition that existed all over Europe - and even Emporer Conrad of Germany (the Pope at the time) 200 years prior to the 1215 Magna Carta said almost exactly the same thing as article 39 of the 1215...
"nemo beneficium suum perdat, nisi secundum consuetudinem antecessorum nostrorum et per judicium parium suorum".
No one shall lose his estate unless according to the custom of our ancestors, and the judgement of his peers.
But, you notice the use of the word 'et' - 'et' judicium parium suorum - 'AND' the judgement of his peers. No confusing latin word 'vel' in this instance ;-)
Blackstone quoted this in his 3rd Commentaries on the Laws of England. And the language of Article 39 is about judgement, Anne. Article 20 also talks about the peers judging.
"No cause of consequence was determined without the king's writ; for even in the county courts, of the debts which were above forty shillings, there issued a Justicies (commission) to the sheriff, to enable him to hold such a plea, where the suitors (jurors) are judges of the law and fact." Introduction, p.19, Gilbert's History of the Common Pleas
"It is agreed by all our historians that the Great Charter of King John was, for the most part, compiled from the ancient customs of the realm, or the laws of Edward the Confessor; by which they mean the old common law, which was established under our Saxon princes." Blackstone’s Introduction to the (Great) Charters; Blackstone’s Law Tracts, p. 289
Do get in touch if you like - lawandalchemy@mail.com
William
@@clc-org Have a look at the concept of parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Hi Anne. Thank you for the reply - you didn't address any of the fairly fundamental points I made above. I am always looking at the concept of parliamentary sovereignty - and I chuckle every time! Parliament was never meant to be sovereign under the constitution. Who gave them that right?
If you think the 'rule of law' is fundamentally wrapped up in adult suffrage, then you are confirming the statist (or collectivist) views of the establishment - which is that man can determine for others what is best for them. A dangerous place for society to go. This was a distortion brought about the inglorious revolution of 1689.
Magna Carta - and its Trial by Jury concept upholds a philosophy of individual rights and non-interference. The important point that for true equity to exist, the citizens must take part in the formation of the laws of their own community. Self-governance. And that law-making process, through Jury Independence, allows 'law' to remain custom, organic and according to conscience - as opposed to a mere crass pre-categorisation or approximation of 'justice'. Under adult suffrage - which has only really existed for 300 years or so, law becomes more about the backing of compliance rather than the backing of justice and morality.
Will
What gives a person the right to decide the rights of another?
And what kind of person would want to decide what rights another person can have?
And who would want someone else deciding what your rights are?
3 very good questions when talking about rights.
Yes, especially if we are all created equal, all have equal right of justice. We are all born with our rights, but some feel it necessary to monopolise justice for their own benefit.
What gives them the right? The law. It isn't just 1 person deciding it, it's many. We have to draw a line somewhere because if everyone could give themselves rights, there'd be obvious clashes.
@@Jonesy1701 yes I agree ,a line should always been formed,however, when the "many" are actually"few" ,law could easily be or become, something more akin to a "dictatorship '? Or beneficial, conflict of "interests",for the "few" that decide upon rights of many...?
@@sdjuxu You aren't seriously trying to tell me you think we live in a dictatorship, right?
@@Jonesy1701 well I'd definitely say various certain small groups in Australia benefit a lot more than average Australian...when you have companies buying our gas at an outrageously cheap price and paying hardly any tax ,then selling it back to us as the most expensive gas in the world....and saying we have shortages.... something funny must be going on?
And when various people in parliament get found to be corrupt with no charges laid...that seems a bit suspicious at the very least..
And things like parliamentary privileges ,where you can say whatever you want in parliament, including lying through your teeth to the whole of the nation,with absolutely no consequences and at the same time you and myself would be held accountable....what would you call that?..
Spoken like a true Lawyer.
Ever heard of Public vs Private or Blackstones commentaries? Blackstone has a chapter on the absolute rights of a natural person.
I noticed that you failed to mention property as one one our absolute rights in you presentation.
Considering she counsels the High Court on constitutional interpretation, and both Commonwealth and State governments on policy matters, it appears you're a little out of your depth here.
For people happening upon this channel randomly, just so you know, Professor Anne Twomey is an international treasure. Great to see you on RUclips Anne!!
Thanks. Good to know I've shifted from being a national treasure to an international one!
For a 'professor' she is really out of touch with the current day situation.
The miltary coup led by Whitlam in the early/mid seventies really screwed everything right up. And Hawkes Australia Act in 1986 saw the Original 1901 Constitution thrown in the bin.
Then Howard comes along and says that the Constitution doesn't have a Preamble..,
They purposely neglected to add the phrase "WHEREAS the People of... under the blessing of ALMIGHTY GOD."
That was the 'Preamble' or opening statement in the 1901 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution.
You have been living the lie for so long you will fail to see the truth..,
"It is easier to fool a man than to tell him that he has been fooled".
Don't be fooled 🤔
@@raggedyman6327 Where to start with all this nonsense. First, the preamble that begins 'Whereas the people' is a preamble to the British Act called the 'Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900' (not 1901). The Commonwealth Constitution is set out in section 9 of that Act. It begins with a table of contents. It does not have a preamble. That's why the Howard Government proposed a preamble to be inserted in the Constitution itself back in 1999. The referendum failed, so the Constitution still does not have its own preamble.
There was no military coup led by Whitlam. The commander in chief of the military is the Governor-General. So you really think that Sir John Kerr permitted a military coup? And where's the evidence of it? What institutions did the military take over by force of arms? I think there might have been footage of it or a mention of it in the newspapers if it had happened. Seeing we had elections in both 1974 and 1975, we know it did not happen.
The Australia Acts 1986 did not alter (let alone bin) the Commonwealth Constitution. I've written a book on the drafting history of every clause and its constitutionality - 'The Australia Acts 1986 - Australia's Statutes of Independence' (Federation Press, 2010). You clearly need to read it.
@@danejames7098 I suspect they already are.
@constitutionalclarion1901 mate, I wouldn't bother rebutting that intellectual light-weight as it grants them the credibility they don't actually have.
Sadly, thanks to US influence, Australians exemplify that observation made by Asimov about public anti-intellectualism. Australians are hostile to further education and academics. They have conflated democracy with freedom of expression to mean all views are created equal. As such, gun-toting, salad-fearing, atlas-shy, book-averse and waistline-bereft monolingual cooker Davo thinks his mere feel-pinon is as good as a subject matter expert's facts and evidence.
These videos are absolutely amazing and hit the perfect balance to make the content digestible but still useful. I know it's a honed skill but it still amazes me. Thank you for the new video (:
Much appreciated. I'm really glad to know they hit the mark.
Hear hear
Is telling an applicant before the courts that their case is not worth considering a valid legal argument?
It seems to me the old laws are valid when it suits, and invalid when they want something different.
Who they are, and the interpretation of the law or the ruling desired, seems to be flexible.
I guess I'm referring to the power of the courts to consider and be influenced by "unusual or particular circumstances."
If it is true that Australian States and the Commonwealth can conveniently ignore parts or all of the Magna Carta and legally introduce new laws, contrary to the Magna Carta and other British Law Precedents and Principles of law, then new laws enacted, automatically supersede the Magna Carta and British Law. The Magna Carter and old British Law can be ruled obsolete and irrelevant. One can't have it both ways.
An excellent explanation of the legal position, I just don't like Australians not having the protection of a good Bill of Rights.
I'm 80 years of age, and have no idea of the laws in our Constitution. Thank you for educating us.
It's not a matter of 'conveniently ignoring' laws. The fundamental rule is that a later valid law impliedly amends or repeals an earlier valid law. Only one small part of Magna Carta ever became law in Australia, and can be (and has been) overridden by later laws. There is nothing new about this. It is how the system of law has worked in Australia and the United Kingdom for centuries. It is not a matter of discretion for the courts or anyone else.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I got that. My complaint is that the law often works against us. Like abolishing cash, my right to hold and use my assets. Censorship, my right to say what I believe to be the truth. My right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I managed fine without all of the modern security and surveillance, passports, visas, ID cards, mobile phone computer controllers. Birds born in cages do not understand freedom. I'm a cranky old man missing the wonderful world of my post WW2 childhood.
Thank you for your reply,
@@bobjuniel8683I am on your side Bob,we are being shackled by ever more laws and rules by a government that uses its constitutional powers,such as Part V- POWERS OF THE PARLIAMENT,51. The parliament shall,subject to this Constitution,have power to make laws for the peace,order,and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to( insert just about anything they want) a bloody long list of things.Of course they can make these laws ad nauseam without tripping up with as there is no formal bill of rights to impede there onslaught.
@@constitutionalclarion1901With respect,as I enjoy your talks,they don’t have to ignore laws they make them up as they are empowered to do under the Australian constitution.The have no bill of rights written down in detail to trip them up.
@@constitutionalclarion1901bollocks, the constitution specifically states that state laws not in agreement with/against the constitution are void and stand below the constitution.
I have also seen litigants in American courts try to rely on Magna Carta as well as the defunct Articles of Confederation (the predecessor of the U.S. Constitution) to challenge various laws.
A pro se litigant did try to request trial by combat in a divorce case. If I recall correctly, the opposing party requested that the court order a mental health evaluation of that party.
I wonder what the Articles of Confederation would help with, but it's a strange one since it seems it was never formally abolished, just ignored after the passage of the US Constitution.
@@braytongoodall2598 The Posse Comitatus believed a perfidious change occurred during the Civil War, and subsequently, only recognised the first twelve Amendments as legally binding - the “Organic Constitution” - the Constitution and Bill of Rights, minus all succeeding amendments. The very controversial Thirteenth Amendment had ended slavery in 1865, and the Fourteenth Amendment enshrined the notion that “all persons born or naturalized” were U.S. citizens whose rights “could not be abridged”. Therefore, they distinguished between so-called “14th Amendment citizens” who are subject to federal and state governments, and themselves, who they saw as “12th Amendment citizens” or “Organic Citizens” which later began to be known as "Sovereign Citizens". Depending on the particular variety, they also referred to themselves as "State Nationals" or "Free Inhabitants" under Article 4 of the Articles of Confederation.
@braytongoodall2598 Various crackpot theories about how the right to interstate travel means state governments cannot require individuals to have driver's licenses or to register motor vehicles.
@@ChuJungyin
'Crackpot' Theories --- So who decides what is a 'crackpot theory' ?
Can we take it - that you're a specialist in the field of crackpot theories ------ 😉🙂😊
Maybe in the divorce case the authorities should have given the wife intensive kick-in-the-nuts training and let the battle proceed.
Bit disappointed that my right to drink, speed and have a gun is not protected by Magna Carta!
The late, great P J O’Rourke pointed out that the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights was similarly deficient, since it did not protect his undoubted rights to shoot an assault rifle while driving at high speed and getting his wiener sucked without spilling his cocktail.
At least you realise you have the right to trial by combat or trial by ordeal.
The Bill of Rights 1688 (UK) still applies, and so do the Imperial Acts Application Acts of the various states, which still maintain these rights.
Awwwww. I'm sure there's other means for you to compensate for your insecurities.
In fact, they are, but not to the extent that you may practice them to the detriment or harm of others. If you do that, Magna Carta protects the right of the victims to haul you before a jury of your peers, where you would be dealt with according to the community's definition of the law, not the definitions of a remote group of bureaucrats whose main interest in the proceedings is their personal financial reward.
Nominative Determinism mentioned WOOOOO!
The question still remains - who altered the agreement
Was it changed with the consent of the people the charter intended to protect
Or was it changed by administrators of a corporation
The agreement that was the 1215 Magna Carta was terminated, and all parties to it are dead. The later 1297 Magna Carta was enacted by Parliament.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 so not changed by the people - thanks
We already know the charter was an agreement between kings and rebel barons, and not ordinary folk. But yea definitely a gotchya moment
@@mshepherd324 I've no idea what your 'gotchya moment' is. The answer remains obvious from the video. The 1297 Magna Carta has been altered over the years by Parliaments enacting later laws. The Parliaments are elected by the people. They are not the 'administrator of a corporation'. That's the answer - it's hardly controversial.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Altered by parliaments .. not the people as per the original intent of the document from the start.. seems to be common theme with govts. They assume power for others because they were privileged to be elected and trusted but change agreements anyway without consent.
Show the act that gives license to apply any of these ideas of Magna Carta in Australian state or federal written law?What a dog’s dinner we have for law mongers to feast on in this over governed colony.
How far do you want to go back? The 16th century, where Sir Edward Coke had enacted of bills of attainder without trial and statutes contrary to Magna Carta without any suggestion of their invalidity, or Sir Robert Garran, writing The Annotated constitution of the Australian Commonwealth, in 1901, stating that Magna Carta "may guide but cannot bind the British Parliament, which may repeal them at any time." and the ability to repeal Magna Carta here in Australia, that "no constitutional limitation is imposed on the plenary power of a colonial legislature." or Sir Samuel Griffith, the first Chief Justice of the High Court, and arguably the principal drafter of the Commonwealth Constitution, speaking in Chia Gee & Ors v Martin (1905) that “The contention that a law of the Commonwealth is invalid because it is not in conformity with Magna Charta is not one for serious refutation.”?
Governed Colony? Is that how you view your fellow man, your friend, family, neighbour? How did you come to see this, other than through an inherent hatred toward those that enrich your very existence, yourself included? Self loathing perhaps.
@@WhitePositive Steven Spiers does not have answers in relation to current reality, hence he gets so frustrated. Most of the concepts, such as the "1919 sovereignty" idea, came from the 1990's ITR "concealed colony" publication, and have already been rejected by the courts.
@@WhitePositive Steven Spiers is as identically misconceived as you had inevitably found out the "International Tribunal for Natural Justice" is, in encouraging you to sign a "treaty" to offset your rent. These ideas cause harm, as they done to you, now finding yourself in a $13,000 debt.
@@chrismulhearn7903lol, you think people can't survive without big daddy gov :)
Gov holds back, regulates, taxes, extorts, violates man and property daily.
This is sickening. I just txt my mother and I was telling her about the Magna Carta and now RUclips is showing me videos about the Magna Carta which shows our phones are compromised by the Australian Signal Directorate ASIO and Five Eyes. We have no privacy anymore.
It's about to get a lot worse
@@balanced-shez8226 I know. I watched documentary films after 911 telling me all this would happen and now I see it happening. I traveled around Australia for ten years trying to wake people up. I told my mother all the things that are happening now 15 years ago. I watched documentary films like Wake up call , State of Mind , Loose Change, The culling of our water, The ring of power , The dimming, Police State 1,2,3&4 etc….
@@danejames7098 having a private conversation too my mother and then seeing my conversation on RUclips.
It goes beyond settings. It is an invasion of privacy and has nothing to do with what I watch on RUclips.
My encrypted txt message was seen by a third party and then that third party has used it on my RUclips search.
If I watch surfing I get surf videos.
I never watch or talked about law or the Magna Carta 1215 on RUclips.
There is no reason for me to be seeing a video about the Magna Carta in Australia and after just talking about it in a private conversation with my mother. It is like seeing your bank details on RUclips. I turned off all location sharing history keeping all that a long time ago.
Truth
@@owenbruce4120 If only the Judges, Lawyers and Politicians spoke the truth.
I watched many people study the law in an attempt to be free only to end up in prison. They all expected the Judges to be honest.
Sovereignty, Free man on the land all that sort of stuff.
I remember when we were free in Australia. Now a dog can’t be a dog.
I learned about the statutory extortion racket 40 years ago when my father a realestate agent sold our holiday house at Lake Eildon to the inventor of Stackhat whom made a deal with a politician to outlaw riding a bike without a helmet.
To force an adult to wear a helmet on a bicycle is no different than to force a surfer to wear a life jacket.
Now we see signs on beaches that say no parking between 11pm and 5am which implies that we are children.
I personally used the Magna Carta / Trial by Jury in a case where the police were trying to prosecute me for assault when I was defending myself from an attacker so I requested a Trial by Jury.
If you don’t plead guilty in court you face a 25% extra sentence and because I requested a Jury I was facing 2 years prison if found guilty.
Luckily for me the prosecution had no witnesses against me and the matter was dropped.
Since we are being honest here I just want to add , those stuck in the mental health system have no rights at all.
Everyone complained about the lock downs and vaccines however they were abusing mental patients way before COV19.
See The marketing of madness, the untold story about psychotropic drugs.
I’ve got a misinformed colleague that needs to see this. Thank you for laying it out so clearly without holding back on some of the arcane details.
I hope it's useful.
Good luck to you. Basically anyone that quotes it is a sovereign citizen who live in their own fantasy world.
@tomtech1537 if you’re born in a nation then obviously you must be sovereign
@@Chase_Telemetric And a natural person and not a company 🙃
@@tomtech1537 so you denounce and abandon your sovereignty? - who are you now ?
Your clarification of the Magna Carta related to Australia, explains to me and many others how the then Queensland Premier Peter Beattie was able to Bulldoze Forced Amalgamations on Queenslanders despite displeasure , when it was actually a Fait Acompli .
It would be interesting if you had or have any comments on the Brigalow Commission related to the rumour that Queensland was apparently converted into a Body Corporate style, then split up and registered in America?.
I have an article on it on the Freeman Delusion website. Look for Brigalow Corporation" in the Index.
I do not consent to youtube to collect and/or sell or partake thereof, of my data or any persons under my stewardship. In addition as a Free and Sovereign individual I do not consent to the Victoria Police, NSW Police, Australian Federal Police, or Wright Get Debt Recovery Services to read my comments or store and repost my comment for a court of law.
And that was my impersonation of the kinds of people who need to watch this video, but wouldn't understand it anyway
Australians we have a problem.
ruclips.net/video/kBL-3a3IoA8/видео.html
That's why the government should use our next referendum (and all previous) for the purpose of amendments to the constitution outlining actual rights for us serf slaves. Freedom of speech for one which is not a right of australians. Two the right of assembly and three free and open travel within australia and its states and territories. etc. Etc. Both of these were made incredibly important after experiencing and witnessing the events of the past few years when our thinly veiled rights were literally taken away for the sake of false claims and propaganda... and the profit of billionaires and corporations. And the increase in control of the public mentally and physically through the abuse of power by our police.
Unfortunately, I can't imagine any government proposing another constitutional referendum in the foreseeable future. Australians had the chance to vote for constitutionally enshrined freedom of speech (among other things) in the Post-war Reconstruction and Democratic Rights constitutional referendum in 1944. The referendum wasn't successful.
@@mindi2050 There were also rights in the 1988 referendum, including the extension to the States of freedom of religion, trial by jury and just terms compensation for compulsory acquisition. But it received the approval of only 31% of the people. All previous attempts to achieve a bill of rights in Australia have failed. While there are arguments about why this is, one of the greatest concerns seems to be about transferring power over rights to unelected judges. The recent controversies in the Untied States would probably exacerbate this concern.
I don’t know if it is true but I once read a story of a returned service man from war who traveled from NSW to Perth to see his girl friend.He was charged as a soldier for AWOL but the judge gave verdict from the constitution that there is free trade and intercourse between states and dismissed the charge.Probably a good yarn from the time but not true.
@@josephstratti52 This probably relates to the story of the trip by Dulcie and Ada from Sydney to Perth, purportedly to see Dulcie's boyfriend before he went off to war. It's a great story and I've done two videos about it: Dulcie's Story: ruclips.net/video/puB16MbfVs8/видео.html and Ada's story: ruclips.net/video/x0VA3HAo9Lo/видео.html. It's likely the story that you heard is either a mixed-up re-telling of the trip by Dulcie and Ada, or it may have been a flow-on effect from the finding of the High Court in the case of Gratwick v Johnson.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 stare decisis (precedent) is not Common Law, Trial by Jury (with 12 peers) is. The Democratic Constitution has, at its heart, the mechanism of Trial by Jury and Jury Independence which is how the people identify these crimes through conscience. The Jury is the final arbiter of law independent of any ‘government’ legislature or state paid ‘judge’. The Jury is the judiciary.
Thank you for clearing up some mixed information and confusion I've had about this. But it seems it leaves Australia as a country with no true bill of rights. Very little of our 'law' refers to common law or law of the land. It's mostly maritime, corporate or contract law.
Actually it’s none of that.
As part of the "uninitiated in the law", it seems to me that the reason that so many people have a misconception of the law is the feeling that "their rights" are gradually being taken away. In other words, the adminsitrative state is intruding more into their lives.
This situation is being influenced by "alternative" or "independent" media, sourced both here in Australia, but mainly from North America.
In hindsight, should we have had a Bill of Rights, similar to what is enshrined in the USA Constitution.
The other piece of news, from the USA, is that the US Supreme Court has overturned "The Chevron Deference", which was a previous ruling that the current USA "administrative state was built on".
Would I be correct in understanding our political systems, that an Australian state or federal department can only operate through parlimentary legislation and regulations? If a department issues instructions for particular action does that mean that the courts can be used to challenge instructions, perhaps regulations, and legislations? I am hazy on this subject. Thank you for your attention.
To the channel owner, perhaps consider expanding on one very crucial point made in your video, if a statute appears to suppress a fundamental right, in interpreting that provision, the courts apply the 'principle of legality of statutory interpretation' - Courts will only accept the right is suppressed if there is unambiguous and clearly expressed intent by parliament to suppress a particular right.
PJB v Melbourne Health VSC 327 [2011], Bell J explains this interpretation by the courts. A very good judgment to read and explains judicial review of a government decision whether judicial decision or a decision by a govt department or non govt organisation carrying out a government function.
Yes, I've explained the principle of legality before in other videos, and I think I mentioned it in this one too.
Magna Carta was also used in the pre Cole v Whitfield interpretation of s 92, because it referred to the rights of merchants in international trade (as well as the Act of Union); and I seem to remember that Sir Maurice Byers QC used it to justify a particular use of the defence power in s 51.
I wanted to return to a comment made by N. Meegan but those comments have been deleted. If there is any truth to your 'expertise or credibility' on all things constitutional, why the need to muzzle open debate?
It may also be that Meegan has deleted her own comment, after confirming the information I gave in the last reply, that the Magna Carta provides that the word of a woman can't be accepted.
@@auspseudolaw And what makes you believe that N. Meegan is a Woman?
@@chrismulhearn7903 Rather strange question, I could ask the same. What makes you believe that Meegan isn't?
@@auspseudolawI'm not the one making assumptions. Pseudo...whatever.
@@chrismulhearn7903 I just seen her comment and the thread, it's still up.
In a Historical context it does evolve inherent implications of principles found familiar in Common law.
Yes, there's a long debate about whether the principles said to derive from Magna Carta were really an encapsulation of the common law. Certainly, many would now be regarded as common law rights. But to be clear, the common law is always overridden by any inconsistent statute, assuming it is clear that this is what is intended (see the principle of legality).
The phrase due process of law first appeared in a statutory rendition of Magna Carta in 1354 during the reign of Edward III of England, as follows: "No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law."
Great video. I read Australian Act, Chameleon Crown, and Veiled Sceptre books through uni (but have lost time to keep up in the professional world). I appreciate your efforts to enlighten the public on how the constitution works and dispelling myths - of which there are many more topics to be worked through in future videos.
That being said, some more jurisprudentially pricklier topics I would love to see addressed are as follow. Although I appreciate addressing these items may be leveraged by crack pots. These are: to what extent is the Sovereign’s prerogative to award honours and change the name of his royal household and titles an imperial power (rather than a power exercised by the divisible crown in each jurisdiction) - and what does that lingering imperial dimension say about the Commonwealth Realms? How does the prerogative of mercy fit into the Australia Acts - is it a power in respect of the State or, as some case law has it, a power reserved to the person of the monarch - and if so, has each state appropriately extended that power to its governors / does state legislation adequately make up this gap? How do we look back at Charles II’s trial - how would political justifications for those events fit into Charles III being subject to the same process (would the legal analysis be different between 1640’s and 2020’s)? In Veiled Sceptre and other works there is a strong expose on convention and the political neutrality of monarchs (typified by Elizabeth II) - how are those conventions being challenged by Charles III’s far more political role in the areas of climate and other issues - what are the risks and does his approach sit well with the last 50+ years commentary on the justification of monarchy resting on political neutrality - what does this mean for future monarchs if Charles is reinventing the wheel?
A side point, it’s great to see you deal with these tricky points. I would have hoped Griffith CJ and others didn’t same when dealing with ‘silly’ arguments. I think, in hindsight, it was a disservice for judges and magistrates to be dismissive of crack pots’ arguments. Not because those arguments have merit - but because these judicial officers really should have taken the trouble to provide decent answers. That would have gone further to help the public. For example, a judge saying the law is not invalid because Victoria was supposedly someone’s bastard because “too hard to give you a real answer, get out of my court” is a bit weak from our judicial system officers. Even if Victoria were not lawfully Queen, a better answer would involve elements of political reality, de facto results, that directly call out crack pot arguments and say “we can’t just upturn the system because Victoria may have been illegitimate - it’s been 100+ years, real politics, the law must be valid from a practical perspective”. We apply similar analysis to Charles II’s trial - the arguments about the King had abdicated because he was against King-In-Parliament or whatever Cromwellian nonsense should be called out as, legal crackpottery. The reality is a political movement took control of England and dumped the Charles. It wasn’t legal - doesn’t mean it wasn’t valid. I think element of real politics is missing from our public education, which is why reversion to legal principles alone don’t work when those principles can’t supply all the answers - principles are really just agreed upon conventions that we agree to give legal status too - they’re not objectively true - there’s a dimension to our legal system that is internally incoherent from a historic perspective - but the answer to dealing with crack pot arguments should be found in that , and not in overstretching and contorting legal principles (as some have done).
Sorry for the long message!
Yes, I agree that it is very frustrating that the early High Court was so dismissive of some arguments that it gave no reasoning. The one that annoys me most is the Federal Roads case, re grants under s 96 of the Constitution, where counsel (a young Robert Menzies) gave some good arguments that were dismissed by the Court without giving reasons. Those reasons would be really valuable today, so it is a great shame they do not exist.
I can sympathise a bit with the lower courts, which hear variations on crackpot arguments all the time. Even though you know the argument is wrong, it actually takes quite some time to dig up all the authorities and details and set it all out. It would be really hard to do when you have a busy workload. I find it hard enough to find the time to do it for these videos, as I have other real work to do. But I am trying, because it's important that there is something accessible out there - even if most adherents to particular views will still refuse to believe me.
Stay a slave lil fella. A book told me someone else controls my life so i guess its true!
I think it was the Supreme court of the United states said “anyone who hires an attorney is an incompetent ward of the state and nothing you do or say will have any force or effect. I think that corpus jurisdiction secundum says the same thing
The older saying that "he who represents himself has a fool for a client" rings true here.
Yes, the RUclips algorithm has deemed me worthy to see your video and so here I am. I'm curious to know your thoughts about the recent voice referendum in Australia and the American elections going on right now. Thank you, Clarion.
There are lots of old videos on this channel about the various arguments that were being made during the Voice referendum, so you can watch them at your leisure.
As for the US election, I find it interesting but as it is not an area within my particular expertise, I won't be doing commentary on it. Best to stick to one's knitting, as they say.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thanks.
An excellent and clarifying video! Thanks.
Hi there. Are there any mechanisms or processes in our system to garbage collect or clean up laws , or is that a purely political process prone to the whims and ideologiea of the government of the day?
Yes, there have been processes in different jurisdiction to go through laws (and more commonly, subordinate legislation, such as regulations) to weed out the old irrelevant stuff. New South Wales has done this for a long time. There's still some old UK laws (eg re treason) which have been kept, but that is largely for what the NSW Law Reform Commission describes as 'sentimental reasons'. The Imperial Act Application Act 1969 (NSW) got rid of all the old British laws, except for certain listed ones that were preserved for one reason or another (which was all explained in a report of the NSW Law Reform Commission). Of course, some jurisdictions have done this better than others.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 The Bill of Rights 1688 (UK) is one of those listed as preserved, and is therefore currently in force.
@@skeetabomb if you read the Bill of Rights 1688 (UK) it states on a couple of occasions that royal prerogative is illegal? Interesting that parliament replaced the coronation oath's requirement for the Head of State (King or Queen)'s regal authority (royal prerogative) to be illegal? Is this how parliament self-appointed it's own sovereignty? Isn't that treason? How is the Head of State to protect the rights of the people, the laws of the land (legem terrae), without the ability to assent or not to repugnant legislation? Herein lies the problem of excessive legislation, unchecked and with no accountability (by authentic Trial by Jury). Or perhaps here lies the beginning of no law at all (rendering all following legislation null and void).
@@skeetabombThe idea that a small group of individuals has any right to grant itself rights (via a Bill or any other scribble on parchment) that as individuals they do not possess is absurd.
Probably more relevant to Australian law was the 1493 Document of Discovery which shows how discriminatory the basis of our legal system is and how it established a rigid class system based on inequality to maintain control and economic power. That hopefully should set the cat amongst the pigeons.
I didn't steal this comment, I "discovered" it.
Thanks for this. As always Prof you have an astonishing ability to accessibly convey complex issues and concepts with meaning and an applied context. And, if I can use a biblical reference, you have the patience of Job in answering the array of sceptics set out below, respect for engaging with them. They are akin to Griffle and the little people in Narnia's Last Battle, defining themselves by not accepting what is before them.
Thanks. I'm afraid my patience is not infinite, and I should probably be more patient than I am. Often I write a reply and then just delete it on the basis that it ultimately won't help anyone. My general aim is to be helpful, rather than engage in battles with people, but it is sometimes hard to sustain that position.
I wondered this while watching a few of your posts. Appreciate your years of knowledge.
Here lies a great and mighty king
Whose promise none relies on;
He never said a foolish thing,
Nor ever did a wise one.
Excellent video. Could we have follow up on the 1689 Bill of Rights please?
All you need to know is it has no basis in modern law.
Thank you for your efforts, prof.
You're welcome. I try - but how much actually gets through is debateable.
Anne, you seem to extract the most “interesting” comments.
It's expected. When people have belief as opposed to well-grounded evidence in law for their conclusions, if presented with an opposing view they generally retreat into denial due to cognitive dissonance, or attack the person saying it.
@@auspseudolaw
Facts are truth
ruclips.net/video/5sH-q71jvzw/видео.html
Could you please explain the legal definition of 'received' many thanks
That's a tricky one. 'Received' law is British law that formally became part of the law of a colony upon its settlement or at a later date. Not all British law transferred across, as some of it concerned essentially local British matters (eg re the Church of England, or parish poor laws). Only those laws 'suitable' for the circumstances of a colony were received. The expert on this is Bruce McPherson, and his book on it is excellent, if you are interested in the issue.
Anne…not sure of the following as a Constitutional issue but would you consider having a crack at the following “Why do we have a system that permits people who have been elected as a party member to simply choose to remove themselves from that party and become an Independent. How is that a reflection of our electoral system?”
I'm pretty sure I've already done a video about people defecting from parties and whether that can give rise to disqualification. It goes through the various policy arguments about it too.
Ahh, here it is: ruclips.net/video/XynwigYWv7E/видео.html.
Thanks I appreciate the clarity after seeing fringes suggesting otherwise. Also nice to know what still stands wrt Denying people right to Justice which I experienced after very violent assault causing full thickness laceration to scalp at crown after being dragged by hair to fall onto top of my head which could have permanently impaired me or killed me..by person left in same state housing unit above me for 11 years subsequent while I was gaslight as mentally ill despite trauma diagnosis not paranoia which led to force fed tranquilsers/antpsychotics, making me an even softer target for a mob of Maori's who personify snitched get stitches, after I tried to complain about their attempted forced entry to "bash" me for daring to try and have some privavcy by placing a small can lounge under my kitchen window which made it harder to stand at my window looking and listening in. State Housing forums on violence against women by drug addicts is sickening.. I saw many victims like me facing forced psychiatric drugging when seeking justicw, my case is on Hansard Qld Parliament inquiry into victims of violence , same name, and Disability Royal Commission , though they seem not to make that public despite my requests to name and shame enablers.
What’s the point in the rule of law if the legislature can, as you suggest, make any law they like? If nothing binds the legislature then they could pass a law to put themselves above their law… where is the constitutional constraint?
The constitutional constraint is in the Constitution. Magna Carta is not in the Constitution.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Ah - well, I thought that is what you would say, and so I had a look at your written constitutional document (not mine, I'm in England, so it's not something I'm familiar with), but I couldn't see much real reference to rights, and so it was difficult to see what the constitutional constraint would be. The document made reference to the Queen being able to refuse royal assent to legislation - presumably this in accordance with her coronation oath - to protect the law of the land -... England (which brings back in the principles set out in Magna Carta 1215).... otherwise, I could not see by what criteria the document was saying the Queen had the right to refuse royal assent. Anyhow, since there were no answers on the face of the document itself I had a look at your video about covid 19 and rights in Australia. In this, you confirmed that there is no Bill of Rights in the Australian constitution.... and that the framers of the written document had decided to leave decisions over what rights are to the elected representatives. You said that the elected reps can make statutes that override fundamental common law rights, as long as they are specific that this is what they are doing - if they are not specific, then the courts will interpret the statute as if it were not striking out fundamental rights - because the courts protect against the unintentional striking out of fundamental rights - but, it seems, there is little the courts can do to protect against the intentional striking out of fundamental rights... for that, you suggest the remedy for the people is to show their displeasure at the ballot box in the next election of the representatives. This is problematic for me because, what you seem to be saying is that the people are bound by these statutes for the remainder of the term of office of the elected reps - so the people would be required to put up with these statutory 'laws" for that period. What if the law was, for example, all children under the age of 12 must be kept indoors, or all males who work with young people must be castrated... you seem to be suggesting that the people must abide by these 'laws' (you say that rights that are implied under the constitution can be protected by the courts - but even then, not necessarily if there is a good reason to do with protecting of other rights for the infringement of the 'constitutional right" - to be decided by a state paid Judge, presumably). so at the end of the term of office, what if the majority of people decide to keep the politicians who made the statute- are you saying that it's right for the majority to decide to infringe the rights of a minority? - in other words, the mob can rule - look at what the majority went along with in Nazi Germany for example. Even if the politicians who had framed the legislation in question were voted out, there is no guarantee that the next incumbents would repeal that legislation. At the and of the covid 19 video you sum up by saying that rights have to be balanced and sometimes individual rights have to be set aside for, effectively, the greater good. This is pure collectivism and not what makes a legitimate constitution. There is, effectively, no remedy for the individual according to your analysis. In fact, your circular reasoning is exhausting.
In the United Kingdom, where you are, there is a doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, which means Parliament can make any law it likes and a court cannot strike it down. In the UK, almost all of Magna Carta has been overridden by statute, as I explained in the video.
In Australia, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is tempered by the Constitution. A court can strike down the validity of a law if, for example, it breached constitutional implications, such as the separation of powers, or fell outside the power of the Commonwealth Parliament. The distribution of powers across the federal system also helps prevent tyranny. The system provides greater protection for rights than in the United Kingdom.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 yes, I know about the flawed doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.. I was not suggesting that the current situation in the UK is any better than the situation you have described. Neither prevents tyranny, for the reasons I set out above, but which you did not address. Please ignore the lines through my text above - I've no idea why the lines are there.
I have a very old copy in both Latin and English. Interesting reading.
I am dismayed at the governments attitude towards the constitution. Government got lawyers to word it so no one can understand it (Unlike the U.S. constitution)and in 1961 the constitution was removed from the Australian Schools curriculum. Your government doesn’t want you to know about your rights because it’s easier to take them from you using safety as an excuse. Government is not your friend.
What "rights" might they be? There are only 5 express rights and one implied right in the Commonwealth Constitution, so it's hardly anything to write home about.
The constitution is written in plain English.
Why do you drop the word “the” from “the Magna Carta”? Sounds quite grammatically incorrect to me.
Sometimes words become so common that the definite article is dropped. I think either can be used.
Ah yes you are probably quite correct, however sounds like an American thing. That is why It doesn’t sound good to me. Otherwise an excellently informative piece on this interesting part of our history.
The government has no right to tell you what you can say and what you cannot say
Really? Why can't it tell you not to incite violence? Why can't it tell you not to instruct terrorists on bomb-making? Why can't it tell you not to say things that undermine a fair trial? Why can't it tell you not to threaten to kill people or engage in a conspiracy to commit a crime?
The Article 61 of the Magna Carta "Lawful Rebellion" theme has become popular in pseudolaw constructs in various countries, for example here in Australia, Wayne Glew often cites Article 61 of the Magna Carta as some justification, as did a group of British peers who urged the Queen in 2001 to block the UK’s signing of the Treaty of Nice, and recent years Canadian Jacqueline Robinson (aka Jacquie Phoenix) claimed Article 61 puts her outside the courts authority. Graesser J addressed her assertions in AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 489 and on the same basis in AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 790:
"Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta has nothing to do with the rights of individual persons, but instead only granted a counsel of 25 barons the authority to seize King John’s castles, lands, and possessions in the event of a dispute between the barons and the king. Worse, when King John died in 1216, so did the provision of the 1215 Magna Carta that "Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion" adherents claim creates their extraordinary status. These modern Magna Carta rebels have therefore mustered over 800 years too late."
Which “ queen “, bc “ apparently “ there’s 2 😂
1 “ magically “ appeared on “ paper “ + there’s actual footage of a “ principality “ that swore an “ oath “ 2 “ it “ 😂
Our highest 🦘 court sits under the “ authority / jurisdiction “ of a “ mythical “ foreign 🦭, 👀 4 yr self, my reply will be gone if I mention the name.
I don’t think that judge could have read article 61 properly… because it commanded all the people to stand with the barons and distress and distrain the king… it was said to be in perpetuity… so cannot be repealed… tbh whether A61 was there or not, the people still have the right to demand that their king uphold the common law articles of MC… otherwise, what would be the point in those principles. It all comes down to whether one believes that the state has legitimate authority over the people… the answer is no.. though the state will have de facto authority if enough people believe it.
@@louweazel7894 That is like saying "everything in the Bible is true because it says so right here in the Bible". Reality, and historic record, shows a different story. As stated in Flowers v State of New South Wales (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 887 (at 62-66): "The first of the Magna Carta, otherwise titled Magna Carta Libertatum, of 1215 was a charter of rights agreed to by King John in which the rights of barons were prescribed. It was annulled. The original Magna Carta contained cl 61 which was a limited form of parliament, being 25 barons representative of the peerage. The annulment of the Magna Carta was confirmed by the Pope. The Magna Carta was reissued in a different form in 1216 by Henry III. The second of the Magna Carta was significantly different. It contained only 42 clauses, compared with 63 clauses in the original document. The Magna Carta was issued a third time in 1217, in a version that differed further from the original and differed from the second of the Great Charters. The Magna Carta was issued again in 1225. The last version of 1225 differed only slightly from the third version in 1217."
@@auspseudolaw all articles of Magna Carta 1215 which uphold an individual's rights remain in force. Whenever one hears a claim that this or that body of people has authority, one must always question "From whence does that claimed authority derive; what is it's ultimate source?" If followed to it's ultimate source, it will not be in the pronouncement of some legislative council, nor of a renowned jurist, but it will finally rest with what the community decides voluntarily is the common law, and will be in accord with natural law.
@@lockedonarticle6179 Get back to me when you have a court judgement in your favour. Until then, you're talking shit and wasting everyone's time, including your own. Stamping your feet won't change legal reality.
Interesting , however when politicians make up laws and legislation to suit themselves for there own person gain , I'd have to say Australia really doesn't have any laws to begin with , just saying .
ruclips.net/video/5sH-q71jvzw/видео.htmlsi=014oPKFcLxs28TaX
Bugger, now I'll have to pay my parking fine. Thanks as always.
I think your missing the point on the only real interesting thing about the Magna Carta being the King is also subject to law. Because what that implied is "Equality under the law" for everyone. that was the big take from the Magna Carta, so much so its the main reason the British colonisation worked so well, French, Spanish, Germany colonisation did not take this premise to the new colonies, and the ppl never felt they ever belonged to something greater. where as under British rule, they did. Natives where not so much subjugated but at the very least treated as equal to the king under the law that was brought upon them. Sure there are aberrations, but for the main part, that is the case. And we see the British colonies thrived, and non British ones die.
reference : ruclips.net/video/9mBC873TSEE/видео.html&ab_channel=RichardVobes
I find it curious that British law was not received into New South Wales until 1828. I find it curious, since parliamentary democracy in NSW started in 1824. We are in the bicentennial year of that first democratic government. So what was the legal basis of any legislative actions of those first representatives during the first four years of democracy?
Just two days ago I stood by the old table that represents the first table around which the first representatives sat in 1824 in the Rum Hospital. I was the only one there. Australians need to gain more reverence for that humble beginning of our democracy, and the value of that building that is the oldest physical connection we have to the beginnings of our democracy, and the replacement of the proclamations of a Governor, with laws passed by elected representatives. It is no coincidence that the person who made the Tenterfield Oration that lead to Australian Independence from Britain, sat, as Premier, in the chamber in the room next door to where that first parliament sat.
Because of uncertainty about the application of some UK statutes, particularly the ones that had been amended since 1788, legislation was enacted to give an official date so that it was clear what legislation had been received by that time.
Yes, there's a lot of interesting history in the NSW Parliament. They also do some quite good talks for the public on it - and I do recommend that people attend. There's an interesting secret staircase beneath the floor of the Jubilee Room too!
@@constitutionalclarion1901 So you are saying that the 1828 date is merely the official affirmation of what was de facto in place already?
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I hope you don't mind me asking questions. I am currently doing academic research into the Colonial development of the Australian cultural identity. The Mitchell Library Special Collections has become my second home of late. I have most recently been looking into Barron Field, Supreme Court Judge 1817-1828 and poet of sorts. It was his 1819 book of poetry that drew me to him. Your reply has made me wonder, in that period of the first parliament, between 1824 and 1828, was Field questioning the legality of the acts of those first representatives, requiring that British law be officially received? What was his role, and do you know anything about the interaction between the Supreme Court, the Governor, or authorities back in London, and the first acts of that those first representatives were passing prior to 1828?
Now can you explain Admiralty law that I some times hear being thrown about.
I too would like to hear what that's all about
That topic is too much of a hot potato and would not get an airing here
The concept originates in the US Posse Comitatus who believed that the Federal Government was usurped by a British conspiracy around the time of the 13th Amendment (that ended slavery), and the 14th Amendment (that introduced federal US citizenship), replacing the original “de jure” American government with an illegitimate, tyrannical “de facto” THE UNITED STATES. It was contended that the Federal Government was a trading corporation, a “British ship in dry dock in Washington DC.” who used a form of British Maritime Admiralty law to contract away the American people’s God-given rights. For these “organic citizens”, the US was peopled by two nations, there was a republic where whites enjoyed unalienable rights superior to those held by people of colour and Jews. The latter were denizens of a separate quasi-nation, a “corporation” created by the 14th Amendment, and all the while, legitimate Americans were also “tricked” into adopting this inferior legal status. The “corporate US government” concept was also adopted by Australian pseudolaw adherents, and repackaged to suit localised arrangements, with the belief that Australia is a foreign corporation registered on the US Security and Exchange Commission. There is also the fact that all government departments have an Australian Business Number (ABN) which adherents claim proves their corporate status. Consistent with the US school of thought, it is believed to have replaced the original de jure “Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia”, with an illegitimate, tyrannical de facto ”AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT”, with a paper Queen and a corporate seal.
@@martinpurcell6126 In what way?
Great presentation. Won't convince the "Free men".
Quite so, but one can only try...
Clearly you no longer consider yourself ‘free’
@@Chase_Telemetric We are all constrained by reality. Find freedom where you can and be smart about recovering freedoms you have given away or had stolen by others.
@@KenDavis761 Interesting comment - but you don't sound convinced - the argument was - do you consider yourself free ?
@@MarginalFarming - I am convinced that anyone who views themselves as completely free is either delusional or using a definition of free that is open to debate.
Of course section 118 of the Constitution provides "Full faith and credit shall be given, throughout the Commonwealth, to the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of every State.".
Chapter nine of the Magna Carter (red dagger) deserves an entire episode even though it is outside the scope of this channel
Americans are justifiably proud to belong to the first modern nation to be governed by a written constitution even if they had two goes to get it right.
Unfortunately because Americans view the US constitution as part of their national identity, it has become for them, and by imitation for countries such as Australia that adopted a written constitution. It has become a symbol, like a flag rather than a working document. Because it is a symbol people believe they can impose any meaning they like upon it. They can’t.
A constitution is simply a law about who gets to make laws and, in the broadest sense, how those laws are to be implemented and enforced. Like any law it is a bunch of words that have to be interpreted to be understood. It is not whatever any given person wishes it to be.
Sir Edward Coke, in "The Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Law of England" (at 36-38) had: "...described parliament's power as "transcendent and absolute", not confined "either for causes or persons within any bounds" while he contemplated the enactment of bills of attainder without trial and statutes contrary to Magna Carta without any suggestion of their invalidity, as Dawson J pointed out in the High Court in Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [1996] HCA 24 (at 12).
The Bill of a Parliament was always subject to being judged by 12 of one's equals, the courts of conscience, under JUDICIUM-PARIUM.
In Victoria, if a law is non-existent, then relies on UK law. I recall when I was a kid, there was some legal argument about livestock on the road. The law in use was 500 years old. I think there are probably few examples of this now.
I'm not sure I see how someone could be charged under a "non-existent law" to begin with. Perhaps rather, the "500 year old law" was adopted previously by the state legislature, (which makes it part of Victorian law), or the court referred to previous jurisprudence from English common law that was 500 years old?
@@auspseudolaw I’d say the court referred to previous jurisprudence.
@@darylcheshire1618 or put another way - received law - ie received uk common law
were abouts in sydney can i go to to get these books ??
Not sure which books you mean, but when it comes to legal books, the specialised bookstores have all gone. There's a small number of legal books in the large Dymocks on George Street. Otherwise, best to order them online from the publisher or through a large online bookseller.
Has anyone constructed a crime story where reference to (presumably chapter 29 of) the Magna Carta *could* relevant to a decision? That is, is there any modern possibility that a case might not be determinable fully by later legislation? I'd suppose it to be an entertainingly winding path?
I was contacted recently by someone writing a crime story set in colonial New South Wales that turned on a legal twist - but it was not based on Magna Carta. The problem with doing those kinds of novels is that you really need to get the law right! At least this author was checking with experts to ensure that he did.
Magna Carta isn't legal it's Lawful which is higher and then there's God. However, if you say it doesn't have much context in todays world, can't we say the same thing about the Treaty of Waitangi in NZ, that it was only for it's 'time' and should be archived?
Allowing parliament to sit judge on the Magna Charter seems to defeat the rule of law.
The very first form of parliament was actually a result of the Magna Carta. As said in Flowers v State of New South Wales (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 887 (at 62-63): "The first of the Magna Carta, otherwise titled Magna Carta Libertatum, of 1215 was a charter of rights agreed to by King John in which the rights of barons were prescribed. The original Magna Carta contained clause 61 which was a limited form of parliament, being 25 barons representative of the peerage."
I was under the impression ANY changes had to be penned by the people
Changes to the Commonwealth Constitution require a referendum under section 128, and there are some "entrenched" provisions in a couple of state constitutions that likewise require referendum, but other than that, changes are regularly made by the parliaments through ordinary legislation.
Magna Carta is just a statute, like others that can be changed by later statutes. The changes are penned (or, at least, passed) by the elected representatives of the people.
But require ratification by the governor general representing the crown
@@Chase_Telemetric Not ratification - that's a technical term used with respect to a treaty process. Statutes (at the Commonwealth level) require royal assent.
The Magna Carta was originally a treaty
So the royal assent is for statutes as you said
But the statute was not created with consent of the people it intended to protect was it ?
Are my copys valuable .
But??? Seriously cheers for this clarification..
You're welcome.
So, if we are still a colony (officially), how are we accepted as a member of the United Nations when their charter states that " to be accepted as a member, a nation must be a republic or an independent state", and accepted as a "quasie" republic???
Australia is no longer regarded as a colony.
The states ceased to be colonies at Federation. The Commonwealth never was a "colony" at any time, but rather a "dominion" of the British Empire, which was collapsed in 1926 as a result of the Balfour Agreement, brought into law with the Statute of Westminster 1931, adopted in Australia in 1942.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 So, what is our official political status? According to the USSEC we are a corporation, registered in the early seventies by the Whitlam administration ???
@@auspseudolaw Do you define "dominion" as an independent state or a republic?
And was there a referendum conducted in 1942 to adopt such statute?
@@beklerken1 No, the SEC registration is for a country, not a corporation. Every country in the world that has corporations intending to trade shares on US markets is required to register their financial situation, as the strength of their currency is what gives those corporations their value. It is an anti-scam practice that has existed since the Security Exchanges Act 1934 (US).
No. At the time, a dominion was, (as already stated) a subordinate of the British Empire, which changed as a result of agreements at the 1926 Imperial Conference. There was no referendum required under section 128 of the Constitution of the Statute of Westminster adoption, because nothing in the Constitution was altered.
Hi Professor Twomey, so I imagine the situation regarding the old Bill of Rights of 1689 would be similar to this?
I had read in years gone by this Bill of Rights was also quoted by some folks in the same way as Magna Carta guaranteeing certain inalienable rights.
It is also provided for in the same part of the Imperial Acts Application Acts of the states. In Port of Portland Pty Ltd v State of Victoria (2010) 242 CLR 348, the High Court considered the force of the principles enunciated in the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 (Vic), which includes the Bill of Rights 1688. Section 3 provides that the transcribed enactments "shall continue to have in Victoria … such force and effect, if any, as it had at the commencement of this Act". French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ said (at 13) that "...the preferable view is that these provisions in the Victorian statute at best serve only to reinforce what are settled constitutional principles".
In Antunovic v Dawson (2010) 30 VR 355, Bell J considered the relevance of the Bill of Rights 1688 in a contemporary context. His Honour said (at 50): "The rights and liberties in the Bill of Rights restricted the powers of the sovereign, specified and confirmed the responsibilities of Parliament and declared certain fundamental freedoms of the people. The focus of these rights and liberties is mainly on the relationship between the sovereign, the Parliament and the people, rather than on the rights of the people as such. The rights are mainly civil and political in character."
These two decisions were discussed in Living Word Outreach Inc v Deputy Sheriff of Victoria [2014] VSC 454 (from 48): "It follows from what was said in the above cases that the provisions of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 are not to be understood as being capable of striking down provisions in other statutes. Rather, the principles there enshrined lay the groundwork of the constitutional framework and find expression in more specific principles."
The short answer is - Yes. Although there are still some bits that remain relevant, eg re succession to the Crown.
Imagine the technology they will have in the future to pay on us
Question pls 🙋🏻♂️
If one was found innocent; after trail and that person has been removed from say, a house or land holding, as in bailed to an other residence. Once Innocent, Could the law, keep one from returning to said owned home or land holding, legally purchased. As in, a domestic dispute case of a spouse trying to take a house and family in the form of spite and resentment.
Could one use the innocent plea of the free man to not lose property or rights there of,
In the Magna carter resolve.
To legally return to home and have property re instated.
If that makes Sense.
Yes, any current State law overrides any right in Magna Carta. If there is an existing law that removes a person from their home, then calling on Magna Carta will do absolutely nothing to help. One person tried to 'secede' from the State as well as calling on Magna Carta. He lost.
(39) No free-man shall he seized, or imprisoned, or dispossessed, or outlawed, or in any way destroyed; nor will we condemn him, nor will we commit him to prison, excepting by the legal judgment of his peers, or by the laws of the land. [Trial by Jury with 12 peers! - how many foreclosures from summary judgements are unlawfully pushed through these administrative tribunals?]
Nulli vendemus, nulli negabimus, aut differimus rectum aut justiciam.
(40) To none will we sell, to none will we deny, to none will we delay right or justice. ["sell" - puts lawyers' livelihoods out of commission doesn't it? - no wonder Magna Carta 1215 is down-played at every chance you get!]
There was no trial by jury in 1215, as pointed out in the video. Perhaps you should watch it. One's peers were only used as one way of bringing the matter to court. Decisions on conviction were made by trial by ordeal or trial by battle. Perhaps you ought to read a little more about the feudal law in which Magna Carta applied before suggesting that it should override current law.
No one is found innocent in a court of law.
You are either found guilty, or not guilty.
Not guilty isn’t the same as innocent.
Just saying.
@@RealHooksy 😂🤣 no wonder you guys struggle
King John signed the Magna Carta under duress. He was forced at knife point !!!
You were there?
That's lame 🤦♂️
I have read the documents pertaining to why it was annulled, maybe you should also.
There are pictures depicting one of the men at the Kings table with a dagger in his hand.
It was a Papal Bull and the Roman Catholic Church held King John in fear of His life if he refused to sign it. Being a Christian King, once King John was in the sanctity of His own realm He denied the Romans, which led to the denouncing of Magna Cartas relevance and further persecutions from Rome.
@@raggedyman6327 Ahh yes, the photographs...
@@raggedyman6327 I believe it had alot more to do with the first Chancel of the Temple Church built by the Knights Templar. The Chancel, or Chancery, of the Crown Inner Temple Court (now known as the bankers and attorners from the independent City of London). Australia is controlled and manipulated by this private foreign power and our unlawful Federal Australia Government is their pawn broker. The bankers and Bar Attorneys in the U.S.A. are a franchise in oath and allegiance to the Crown at Chancery - the Crown Temple Church and its Chancel located in Chancery Lane - a manipulative body of elite bankers and attorners (aturner - to transfer allegiance of a tenant to another lord) from the independent City of London who violate the law in Australia/America by imposing fraudulent "legal" - totally unlawful - contracts on the Australian people.
The banks Rule the Temple Church and the Attorners carry out their Orders by controlling their victim's judiciary. The old British "Crown" has long ago passed to the "Crown" Temple in Chancery. It's an ancient power game!
You should write Dan Brown novels.
What gave the British Crown the rights of Terra Nullius over Australia, a fully populated and self determined continent ?
It is a hard mother f**ken fact of life that whitefella dominate and assert Crown rights over Australia. No one these days had a hand in its creation, we inherited the current Crown system from our ancestors.
To answer your question, military force - applied by Imperial Great Britain to the then existing fractured population of Australian blackfellas. Invasion has been going on for millenia, an invading force conquers the local inhabitants and asserts their claims by force proclaiming they are in charge and sets up their own system of government. Britons and Picts in Scotland themselves were invaded by Romans and Normans and others predating the Romans.
Unfortunately for the Aussie Blackfellas at the time of Governor Phillip, they simply had no military answer for a modern invading empire. Whole of Australia is still legally Crown Land and administered by whitefella created courts. Though Eddie Mabo was able to prove his family ownership of his land predated Crown Land. So sad that Eddie passed away before his case was won. I am a white fella, a fifth generation Aussie, I can see the injustice suffered by the blackfella. But there is no going back to the prewhite fella days.
The musket .
In Flowers v State of New South Wales (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 887 (at 62-66): "The first of the Magna Carta, otherwise titled Magna Carta Libertatum, of 1215 was a charter of rights agreed to by King John in which the rights of barons were prescribed. It was annulled. The annulment of the Magna Carta was confirmed by the Pope. The Magna Carta was reissued in a different form in 1216 by Henry III. The second of the Magna Carta was significantly different. It contained only 42 clauses, compared with 63 clauses in the original document. The Magna Carta was issued a third time in 1217, in a version that differed further from the original and differed from the second of the Great Charters. The Magna Carta was issued again in 1225. The last version of 1225 differed only slightly from the third version in 1217."
To the channel owner. Please consider doing a video on the prerogative writs.
"To the channel owner". You don't know who you're talking to do you? Perhaps google Anne Twomey and rethink your comments.
@@auspseudolaw Relax sit back and have a cup of tea. Stop taking yourself so seriously. Better things to comment on.
@@keithad6485 Tea? Never drink that shit unless I run out coffee, which I practically live on. I'm not taking anything about myself seriously here, but I'm talking about your comments, which show you don't have a clue that "the channel owner" advises the High Court and governments in constitutional interpretation, and you hilariously think you can teach her something about "the principle of legality of statutory interpretation" lol. :)
Is law of the land common law? Can parliament over-ride common law in Australia?
The supremacy of parliament over the common law was recognised with the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and Australia inherited the principle as part of the Westminster system of government.
@@auspseudolaw It might have been recognized by some, but that doesn't make it lawful. It's quite evident both from common law and logic, that no one individual or group is sovereign, but that the ultimate arbiters of law are the people, and that this is done via the process of trial-by-jury, whereby unconstitutional law may be annulled on the spot by juries of the peers of those charged with offences. It cannot be a moral principle to allow 'law' to be determined by majority vote, which is then imposed on a one-size-fits-all approach to justice. Every case must be judged on its merits, and Parliament must ultimately be subject to natural law, or equity before the law ceases to exist.
@@lockedonarticle6179 Again, this is your BELIEF. It is NOT how the law sees this. The High Court has consistently upheld the principle of the Supremacy of Parliament as the highest law-making body in this constitutional structure. You appear to have great difficulty understanding the difference between your beliefs, and the law. A good example of the inherent inconsistency you have is that no Australian court (or any UK court for that matter) can agree your beliefs have validity in law. Try it. You'll find out they are bound by the decisions of the High Court. I have 3000 court decisions to prove this in my encyclopedia. And you have... your opinions.
Thank you
I was just told of your channel...Could you please explain the Supreme Court of Canada challenges to the Protestant provisions of The Act of Settlement 1700 ...( Rights and Liberties of the subject )
2015 TESKEY V CANADA (Attorney General)
....The entire Westminster Body Politic System was created by the Bill of Rights 1688 and Act of Settlement 1700...Canadian supreme Court said that the Act of Settlement 1700 is part of the Constitution that is beyond the power of the executive or the Judiciary and is "NON JUSTICIABLE ".....Clause 1 and the "DEFAULT" clause if the King/Government make communion with the Holy See.....Non JUSTICIABLE ...1981 Federal Law review in Australia after 8 members were removed from Victoria's Parliament because they were not "NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS OF HER MAJESTY".
"The Act of Settlement 1701 and the employment of Aliens" is the article which said the Act of Settlement 1700 clause 1 is "PART OF THE CONSTITUTION" and "BEYOND THE POWER OF EITHER COMMONWEALTH OR STATE PARLIAMENTS"
...Speeding fines are easy when you understand the reverse onus "evidentiary provisions" of calibration certificates....SA supreme Court Police v Butcher..
I am happy to respond to questions, but you need to write in sentences so that I can understand what you are saying. Just stringing words together and writing them in capitals does not mean anything. If there really is a case in Victoria that holds that the Act of Settlement 1701 is beyond the power of Commonwealth or State Parliaments to alter, then please give its name and citation and I will respond. My guess, however, is that you are misconstruing any such case, if it exists.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Having debated James Bowes for about 8 years, (there's an article of that name in the Index) I can simplify things by getting to the point. He uses your "Keeping the Queen in Queensland" and other works to attempt to prove that Queensland Crown is bound by the Anti-Papal restrictions from before the Emancipation era, including that the Governor cannot be Catholic, and Judges celebrating Red Mass are in breach of their oaths to a Protestant monarch. Also, the "Communion with the Holy See" regarding meetings between the Vatican State and Australian state or federal officials. I've found it a fascinating subject.
@@auspseudolaw love your work Rob .. debating since 2011 . You forgot my early years when I studied Roman law and the UCC now my 8 year depth of knowledge on the Protestant reformation ,the imperial crown and the illustrious bloodline of the House of Windsor/Saxe-Coburg Gotha / Wettin from Saxony the motherland of the Protestant reformation and is the illustrious bloodline of King David and the Davidic Covenant ...lol
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you for your reply and thank you for " Keeping the Queen in Queensland" , sorry for my poorly structured comment.
My question is.
Did Gough Whitlam making communion with the Holy See in 1973 invoke the "default" clause of rules of succession as set out in The Act of Settlement 1700 and therefore automatically lose all Regal Power Authority and Jurisdiction?
Given the ruling in TESKEY V CANADA ( Attorney General ) 2015 the Appellate court said :
with respect to the rules of succession, the court while citing to O' Donahue v Canada 2005 , held that the rules were a part of the Constitution....
The court further opined that the changes envisioned by the Perth agreement and assented to in the Succession to the Throne Act , 2013 were properly implemented with respect to process established by the Statute of Westminster.
Conclusion: the changes to the rules of succession were themselves part of the Canadian Constitution and thus protected from Charter ( of rights and freedoms) review. Therefore, it would seem that if those provisions of the rules of succession that TESKEY and O'Donoghue deplore are to be changed or removed it will have to be accomplished politically and legislatively through another multilateral agreement similar to the Perth Agreement rather than Judicially through the courts....
The Australian Learned Treatise I was referring to is
Australian Federal Law review 1981, volume 12 ,starting at page 212...The Act of Settlement and Employment of Aliens.
It is the most definitive review of the different rights and Liberties of ..."Natural Born Subjects" ... Denizens and Aliens .
It says at page 214 : covering clause 2 of the Commonwealth Constitution , which provides that provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 extend to Queen Victoria's "heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom" suggests that the statutory provisions which identify those heirs and successors are incorporated by reference into the Constitution Act . If this is so , sections 1 and 2 of the Act of Settlement are in force in Australia and cannot be repealed by either the Commonwealth or State Parliaments.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Now with the Duchy of Lancaster in the news would be a perfect time to do a video on the King in his Body Politic and the King in his Body Natural are indivisible which is why His Majesty King Charles lll has the Duchy of Lancaster....
The case of the Duchy of Lancaster 1561 and that ruling of the King in his Body Politic and Body Politic one and indivisible was just used with transfer to His Majesty King Charles lll.
The King has two Capacities, for he has two Bodies, the one whereof is a Body natural, consisting of natural Members as every other Man has, and in this he is subject to Passions and Death as other Men are; the other is a Body politic, and the Members thereof are his Subjects, and he and his Subjects together compose the Corporation..
What Legal System?... The ANZ Bank is not bound to comply & actively involves itself in all maner of criminal activity, yet no System (Legal, Government, or governing) will take action against them.
Is that why I'm constantly reading and summarising decisions with ANZ as the respondent?
@@auspseudolaw All I can tell you is: the bodies set to regulate ensure no Justice comes to pass as they suppress & sit on details & documents (with knowledge & support from ALL Sectors of Government & Law! ... Still waiting for communications after months of supplying irrefutable incriminating documents (that the Bank had withheld for well over a decade)!
@@auspseudolaw I have also (besides other post) been advised "the Banks are perceived as the pillars of the current System & therefore are to be maintained before/ above ALL else!"
Other post was removed
@@auspseudolaw YT is removing posts
Can you do a vid on the Universal Commercial Code.
There is no such thing as the "Universal Commercial Code". There is US legislation called the "Uniform Commercial Code" which has been renamed by pseudolaw adherents to give the impression it is some type of "universal law" applying in every country. Far from it, it doesn't even apply in all the US states, and certainly not in Australia. Two provisions have been adopted in Australia to govern commercial transactions with US companies and institutions, which are of course superseded by our own nations state and federal laws. Article 9 is "Secured Transactions", covering transactions secured by security interests between banks, and Article 3 is "Negotiable Instruments" covering promissory notes, bills of exchange, banknotes, demand draft and cheques, for the purposes of trade with US companies and institutions. Article 9 does not even govern real property security interests, only certain fixtures to real property. Mortgages, deeds of trust, and installment land contracts, which are the principal forms of real property security interests, remain governed by state laws. The closest thing we have to the UCC in Australia is the Personal Property Securities Register but it's not the same thing.
I was one of those people who believed that most laws could be challenged through the existence of the Magna Carta, one because a copy of the Lancashire document was/is on display in Parliament House and two because I thought all law emanated from it concerning human rights for eg no man shall forfeit or be made to forfeit his ass/donkey/horse (goat, whatever, goods or chattels? to settle a debt). I realise my phrasing isn't correct, so thanks so much for your explanation and time. PS I'm wondering if the opposing party in the divorce case mentioned in the comments won hands down?
I have made several comments detailing errors committed in this video, and they've also been deleted. I assure you that the deletions were not self-inflicted. A video rebutting the numerous errors and falsehoods contained herein is required.
I am not aware of any errors in the video (apart from a spelling error in the words of one of the articles of Magna Carta which I put on the screen). I gave the references to the relevant cases and statutes. Anyone can verify them from publicly available sources.
Would you care to share these "numerous errors and falsehoods" with us or are you just throwing mud?
@@barryhamm3414 the video I mentioned is coming in a couple of days, and will back up my claims.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 A number of errors (not necessarily all) will be pointed out in my forthcoming video. Some are errors of fact, and others are errors in thinking , and insofar as they relate to the topic or philosophy of law, errors in law.
It needs to be made plain that statutes in no way comprise the entirety of the law, and in fact mostly fall outside of the correct definition, and should properly be referred to as 'legislation', not 'law'. The video will expand on this point, which has been dealt with extensively in other videos of the Locked On Article 61 series.
@@lockedonarticle6179 If only overturning the binding decisions of the High Court was as easy as ranting on a video.
Excellent video. Nice to have something to point to in case someone makes such arguments.
Thanks. I hope it proves useful.
Excellent information and advice delivered with great clarity. Thank you.
Much appreciated.
Another interesting and engaging video. I haven’t studied Australian law so these are very edifying. Thank you.
You're most welcome.
Excellent video.
Thanks - much appreciated.
Another very fascinating video. And I love the way your pink coat matched the colour of the captions - very chic!
Thanks.
TopG good info i never got the jab and almost lost all my rights now i want to buy some land and become sovereign is it possible? im thinking if i can fully pay some land off and get the deed then the land is mine and whatever happens on the land is up to me im hoping this is the case i looked through your videos but couldn't see anything on the subject... i don't want to be in the same situation again and not have any land to live on
No. You would merely have a title in Fee Simple, and the state government has power to regulate your actions on that land as much as they like. You cannot "become sovereign" in that way. There is extensive case law on this subject I've covered in published articles.
If your land is in a country, then its laws will apply to you, whether you own the law or not (as will the laws of subnational Parliaments, such as the States).
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thanks for being smart and knowledgeable on the subject
@@auspseudolaw cheers for the reply Rob im gonna check out your stuff im hopeful to at least be unseen by the watchful eye of the gov
@@michaelgilchrist6255 I've lived remote. off-grid and mostly self-sufficient for over 4 decades. I often complain because there's no police or emergency services or even presence within 50km, sort of like we live in an anarchist zone. I regularly abuse NSW Police about it, even sent them a "dear john" letter a month ago that I'm dumping their incompetent arses and employing my own security lol. The community here has just about appointed me sheriff because I'm the one they call for help, they're sick of police ignoring their calls. We've survived floods, droughts and frightening 90km/h firestorms completely alone. I've always loved the idea of ceding from the state and forming a micronation, but I know section 123 of the Constitution prevents that. I even sat at the feet of Leonard Casley of Hutt River Province for weeks back in 2006 racking his brain about it.
Anne, this video is fabulous! By the way, was English law ever received into Australian law at the Commonwealth level?
English law was received in Australia under the Australian Courts Act 1828. Section 24 provided: "Laws of England to be applied in the administration of justice. Governor and Council may declare such laws to be in force and limit and modify them. In the meantime, the courts shall decide as to the application of such laws in the colonies." As McPherson JA noted (at 610) in Bone v Mothershaw [2003] 2 Qd R 600, the common law received in Australia under the Australian Courts Act 1828 was received as a body of common law and not of enacted law, with the effect that the common law so received in Australia in 1828 was not so received as a body of statute law. It meant that English law as it stood in 1828, rather than earlier laws, applied in both New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land. Later English Acts of Parliament did not apply unless they were specifically passed for the colonies, as confirmed by the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865. Australian statute law thus had a firm foundation, but was able to evolve according to its own conditions and needs.
@@auspseudolaw and the powers of the Commonwealth were effectively codified by the adoption of the Constitution - the Constitution sets out the legislative scope the Commonwealth has at its disposal - Chapter III deals with the only right you have section 80 says you have trial by jury - but not nothing about your jury trial being fair
@@Bristolcentaurus And section 80 only deals with indictable offences, not summary offences, leaving parliament free to decide what offences are to be dealt with summarily. Secondly, it applies only to Commonwealth laws, not state laws.
I've been to Runnymede. It's a bit of a muddy swamp and the biggest monument is American. I'm of the view that political gains were very much gained by economic class. Magna Carta was entirely about rights for aristocrats. The middle class, particularly in the UK definition gained their rights, per force via the industrial revolution. Working class rights were largely based in the efforts of the Chartists.
I've been to Runnymede too, and tried quite hard to find my photos so I could insert them in the video, but failed. No doubt I'll find them one day. Yes, the JFK memorial there is the more impressive feature, and a little out of place.
Thank you professor for your explanation of the Magna Carta of 1215. The old saying "it's good to be the King"
Let me ask you this: the assent to the Commonwealth Australia Act 1986 relinquished to bonds of English law and judgement of the Privy Council?
🌏🇦🇺
The assent to the Australia Act (UK) and proclamation to the Australia Act (Cth) were actually given by Elizabeth II personally. These two Acts both abolished appeals from the State courts to the Privy Council. Appeals from Commonwealth courts were already abolished by the combined effects of the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals/Act 1968 (Cth) and the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975 (Cth). All other appeals (where a certificate might be granted under section 74 of the Constitution) were terminated by the decision in Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty. Ltd [No. 2] [1985] HCA 27, where the High Court held that it would never again grant a certificate of appeal, stating (at 5): "Although the jurisdiction to grant a certificate stands in the Constitution, such limited purpose as it had has long since been spent. The march of events and the legislative changes that have been effected - to say nothing of national sentiment - have made the jurisdiction obsolete."
@@auspseudolaw did QEII write her name on the first page at the top (Australia Act, 1986)? No signature at the end of the document? No seal? Doesn't this really mean that she has read it, but didn't actually sign (assent) to it? Don't believe there is any such lawful Queen of Australia - who are the policiticians taking their oaths to? If so many politicians are lawyers, do they not realise they are complicit in perpetuating this crime upon the People of our Land, they are supposed to know the law? That would then appear as mens rea - criminal aforethought!
@@rveux9387 I see you have been convinced of the myth about the placement of the Royal Sign Manual, without any evidence, because none exists. I've written a lengthy referenced article on the myth, you should read it. Interestingly, there isn't a single bill ever in history, including the personal assent given in Commonwealth legislation, where the monarch HASN'T placed the Royal Sign Manual at the top of the document.
Ever since Isaacson v Durant (1886) when Lord Coleridge CJ overturned Calvin's case and said (at 65-66) that: "...allegiance was due to the King in his politic, and not in his personal, capacity" oaths taken are to the Crown, not the monarch in a personal sense. As explained in Flowers v State of New South Wales (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 887 (from 111): "The allegiance and service to which a judicial officer swears in the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath is allegiance to the monarch, not in his or her personal capacity, but, rather, to the body politic. The allegiance, for example, would not apply to applying or enforcing Canadian law or English law. The Crown as a body politic is “an abstraction”, used in a metaphysical or metaphorical sense. Hence, we speak of the Crown in the Right of New South Wales as a distinct entity from the Crown in the Right of Victoria. As the High Court explained in Re Patterson; ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (at 224), the body politic is a creation of law and, as a consequence, the allegiance would be changed by any validly made law or by a lawmaking authority. The allegiance is to the body politic, being the State as an entity, not the government and not the monarch personally." More recently in Love v Commonwealth [2020] HCA 3 (at 108): "By federation, the Crown to which such allegiance was owed was understood to be the monarch "in his politic, and not in his personal capacity"
@rveux9387 the Monarch or the Viceroy always sign at the top right-hand corner of the document they are assenting to. It's called the Royal sign-manual.
It would be good if the government gave a crap about the constitution or magna carta, these days they seem to do what they like and sure you can fight it but it won't do you much good sitting behind bars, our courts will often follow government agendas, It's disgusting.
Courts apply the law. It won't do you any good relying on Magna Carta in court if you have breached a law enacted since Magna Carta, as later laws override earlier ones. The reason people end up behind bars, in some cases, is that they believe the fantasy that a medieval statute dealing with feudal relationships somehow magically gives them rights to breach current laws. It doesn't. Courts will continue to say so. That does not mean they are 'following government agendas'. They are applying the law, which is their job.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Or perhaps its because they are good people that believe in right and wrong, common sense and real justice, not the system of justice that sets us up for failure.
ruclips.net/video/5sH-q71jvzw/видео.htmlsi=014oPKFcLxs28TaX
Politicians and judges all swear to The King, end of story.
They all take an oath to The King, "according to law" which is Australian law. Since Isaacson v Durant (1886) when Lord Coleridge CJ said that: "allegiance was due to the King in his politic, and not in his personal, capacity", the allegiance under the oath is to the Crown, not the monarch themselves. The Crown as a body politic is “an abstraction”, used in a metaphysical or metaphorical sense. Hence, we speak of the Crown in the Right of New South Wales as a distinct entity from the Crown in the Right of Victoria. .. The allegiance is to the body politic, being the State as an entity, not the government and not the monarch personally."
Fines are illegal! The Imperial Acts Application Acts states: "All grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction, are illegal and void." This means that all fines are unlawful unless they are proven in a court!
Since it was written several centuries ago, "grants and promises" requires a bit of an explanation, though cherry-picking the word “fines” seems to satisfy those without knowledge of the historical context. In short, King James (and King Charles before him) had a habit of “granting or promising” to his mates the wealth of people he didn't like BEFORE they were convicted of treason. To stop this, the Bill of Rights insisted that the Crown can't grant or promise a person's wealth or property to anyone until AFTER the person is convicted.
Prior to 1870 a convicted felon forfeited his assets to the Crown. Indeed, the legal definition of a felon is a person whose property has been forfeited to the Crown. Because such grants and promises were later made illegal by the Forfeiture Act of 1870, it hardly matters now what the Bill of Rights did about narrowing the scope of such grants and promises back in 1688.
The King of Australia has not granted or promised any fine or forfeiture to anyone - and experts predict he is unlikely to do so during the remainder of his reign. If he ever does it to you though, you should rely on this section of the Bill of Rights to prevent your home or cattle being seized by the Crown and gifted to some Earle or Duke without giving you an opportunity to a fair trial.
pre-dating Magna Carta, there is a scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where King Arthur has a conversation with a couple of muckraking peasants who roundly reject Arthur's proposition that he is their king. Dennis the peasant states they are part of an anarcho-syndicalist commune, and tells Arthur that "strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government", and that he had not voted for Arthur.
Which begs the question, which could be the subject of a future video .... were there such entities in the middle ages of self governing communities in Britain where there were no lords or feudalism, and whether these self governed communities were essentially the forerunners of todays "sovereign citizens" ?
Serious or humourous ?? I wonder whether Monty Python was onto something here.
While studying Land Law, I actually came across some legal texts that address this very question. There could possibly have been 'allodial' settlements prior to the Norman Conquest; although they were not well documented or attested. Following 1066 *everyone* *everywhere* in the Realm of England was a tenant of the Crown; and therefore subject to the Crown's ultimate authority; there were no self-governing communities. Given that 'The Holy Grail' was putatively set in the 5th century AD, 500 years before the Conquest, then yeah: there could have been some autonomous settlements that were independent of the Crown (although "the crown" in the period between the end of Roman rule and the rise of Wessex, King Alfred, etc is a pretty murky concept).
I think this question is better suited to a historian of the period, but I suspect the real answer is that such communities did not last terribly long when confronted with neighbours that had large armies comprised of people owing duties to their lord. Having said that, I think there is a lot of underlying truth in Monty Python. After all, what did the Romans ever do for us?
So is this what gave the British the inalienable rights of Terra Nullius over Australia ?
Might over truth ?
@@martinpurcell6126 'Terra nullius' isn't a right, per se; it is the premise that there are no existing rights exercised on that land. There are examples of terra nullius all around the world: the island of Rockall in the Atlantic Ocean, the territory of Bir Tawil between Egypt and Sudan, and Marie Byrd Land in Antartica. In the case of the Australian colonies, between 1788 and 1992 it had been assumed that the land had been terra nullius when colonial settlers arrived and hence, all of Australia ipso facto became Crown land. Obviously Australia was occupied by the Indigenous Australians; but since they didn't appear to exercise land rights in a way the colonists recognised - eg municipal collections of estates in fee simple - the colonisers erroneously assumed no land rights existed. This view was overturned in the 1992 Mabo decision, which recognised that Indigenous Australians had rights to land ("Native title") which had not been extinguished. Obviously, it's a complex area which can't be adequately covered in a RUclips comment; but basically the Mabo decision ended the doctrine of terra nullius in Australia.
@@Maclabhruinn Thanks - good summary.
Thanks for the proper explanation.
You're welcome.
Hehe..signed under duress?
The domesday book holds more weight.
Hope the Cookers watch this
Chefs?
@auspseudolaw SovCit types , or American Nationals or Moorish Americans .
Cookers means some who " cooks " up conspiracy theories about alien lizard people controlling the world .
@@davidgreen424 It was always a term for someone who cooks up meth, and their brain gets cooked. A derogatory term implying low IQ or a mental health issue. Tom Tanuki who reinvented it a few years ago actually hates that it's misapplied so widely. I can say with certainty after studying all psychology reports on pseudolaw adherents fitness to stand trial, that the beliefs and consequential conduct are not the product of a mental disorder but instead is a form of paranoid political belief: “extreme but subculturally-normative beliefs”, honestly held ideas that have been reinforced in pseudolaw communities, marginal groups with extreme political and conspiratorial beliefs. (See Pytyck/ Chaimowitz for example)
Lol.. 🙏🙏 I need to watch this 3-4 times😂🙏