In his famously disturbed eulogy for his father, Trudeau used the punchline, “He retired from Ottawa but he came back for big issues … but he won’t be coming back any more.”

Now we know someone else who won’t be coming back to Ottawa any more.

The relevant timestamp, interestingly, is 666 seconds into the eulogy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p4NUJMPAjQ&t=666s

Principle 25 of 286: The glorious parliamentary prerogative of impeachment—putting wicked judges and tyrannical Crown ministers on trial.

(Below is an article on current intentions of reinforcing impeachment at Westminster, though the author commits the usual error of calling the British constitution unwritten.)

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2022/01/12/chris-monaghan-reimagining-impeachment-a-new-blueprint-for-our-challenging-times/

“make-work enterprises like epidemiology (which is everything and nothing) and bioethics (which is anything but ethical)”

https://www.eugyppius.com/p/head-of-austrian-bioethics-commission

Gevorg has a decent excuse, having grown up in Tbilisi, but sadly there are plenty in Glasgow who only know the There’s Not A Team variant of the original stirring chorus, There’s Not A Friend.

https://t.me/gevorgvirats_org/261

Today’s recorded section of Thomas Brooks’ Precious Remedies against Satan’s Devices went wrong. God willing, I’ll redo it in the morning.

I’m minded to read John Knox’ History of the Reformation in Scotland as my next Lord’s Day project, but Brooks will take almost all of this year anyway.

These are two recent discoveries of mine and have rapidly become two of my favourite hymn albums. Simple, good worship singing, one by an American soloist and the other by a London choir.

Some of you will be aware of Mads Palsvig, a close ally of Gemma O'Docherty and hawkish watcher of financial miscreance. It was his Danish collective's targeted warning letters to those who "advise" on the epidemiological status of Covid that got them to drop their standing "advice" to rob the people of their inalienable liberties.
This is the choke point to go for in every jurisdiction. "Health" "advisors" may be in tycoons' back pockets and thus bankrolled to the hilt, but they can't take the heat of legal threats.

https://21stcenturywire.com/2022/01/29/denmark-is-first-eu-country-to-scrap-all-covid-restrictions/

Trudeau's half-brother accuses him of casting black magic spells.

https://t.me/worlddoctorsalliance/17408

https://rumble.com/vtn7r5-exclusive-sit-down-with-kyle-kemper-half-brother-and-active-critic-of-justi.html

An Italian school named after Anne Frank informs unjabbed parents that they won't even answer the phone to them.

BBC admitting the jab is essentially useless this morning.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60193410

Skousen's Principle 25 concerns the parliamentary prerogative of impeaching wicked judges who are unsackable through any other route.

The American gentleman speaking eloquently in the below clip, as he is being evicted by local authorities, is a living embodiment of why judges can't be unsackable. Judges who say they "can't be dismissed by the executive, so as to safeguard judicial independence from government" knowingly omit that there is a third branch of government, the legislature (i.e. we the people), which does have that check and balance.

As in so many other cases in the US and the wider Western world, he told the courts he was in the right legislatively but the judges simply granted an order to appease corporations to force him to buy from them.

This batch of cases concerns forced utilities ("you can't live off-grid"), which is a particular problem in American states (notably Florida and Oregon), but the wider problem is universal and the only remedy is electing independent parliamentarians to chuck such judges out.

https://t.me/thuletide/2226

Constitutional interlude this week

A couple of you have asked where the British Constitution is written. One subscriber was even honest enough to say "I'm still learning" (which we all are).

So I am interrupting my readings of W. Cleon Skousen's The Making of America this week (at a convenient point; we're just about to proceed from the principles for the lower legislative chamber to the principles for the upper house) to read you the five uncontested documents that form the written constitution.

Others (including, now, HM Government's supposed constitutional ministry, the Ministry of Justice, which has only existed for fifteen years and is legally nothing more than the Lord Chancellor's office in a new garb) disingenuously add to that list in order to dilute it: supposedly, the extension of the franchise through the Representation of the People Acts forms a key part of "the constitution" and "our democracy". This is not the historical stance in any English-speaking country: representation can change, but the Crown's or President's oath-bound obligations to the people do not.

Those obligations are agreed to in treaties, usually at the end of—or to prevent the outbreak of—civil wars after liberties have been tramped by the executive.

The other recent trick is to talk of "statutes of constitutional significance that are not subject to implied repeal", so as to dilute the British Constitution by adding to it a number of mere statute laws. In short, this trick came about to wangle HM Government out of having to admit (in the Thoburn case, "Metric Martyrs") that EU regulations trumped the will of Parliament without any need for Parliament to legislate on the change. The lawyerly trick there was to assert that the statute in question was "not of constitutional significance" according to the will of Parliament (as expressed in the Hansard debates and the ministerial introductory blurb), and hence that the supposedly second-rate Act in question was "subject to implied repeal" (by Brussels). From this, the notion has now taken hold that some statutes can be "of constitutional significance".

But, as set out above, only constitutional conventions, culminating in treaties offered to the Crown as a condition of peaceful reign, can constitute true constitutional documents (this is acknowledged even in civil-law jurisdictions, where they simply pull the trick of dubbing the legislature "the constitutional convention" every time the constitution is desired to be amended).

The United Kingdom has the following five such constitutional treaties, which merit the name because they set out what the realm is and how the Crown governs it:

1. Magna Carta 1215, subsequently reissued several times with amendments, so that smart alecs claim some or all of Magna Carta 1215 is "no longer applicable". But bear in mind that it is the assertion of what is a fundamental constitutional liberty that is crucial, not lawyerly arguments. Joshua Rozenberg and the British Library clique can claim what they want, but (as Churchill, among others, has pointed out) no minister is going to dare to repeat those arguments in front of a real parliament, for then it would become patent that the Crown was reneging on our liberties.

2. The Declaration of Rights 1688 (for England, Wales and Ireland), and its close Scottish equivalent, the Claim of Right.

The above two were both English constitutional treaties with the Crown but both explicitly (see Calvin's Case) became United Kingdom constitutional treaties after the Act of Union.
Parliament was not sitting in either 1215 (when it hadn't yet been invented) or in 1688, so it has no standing whatsoever to pretend to "amend" or "repeal" the provisions of either of these treaties. It can merely transpose them into statute law (which it did in the case of the Declaration of Rights, which became the Bill of Rights in parliamentary terms).

3. The Act of Union 1707 between England and Scotland, which—never mind what England-bashers or Celt-bashers say—was originally intended to replace the parliament and Crown of England, and the parliament and Crown of Scotland (but not the two respective court systems), with a new unitary state, the Kingdom of Great Britain. (So much so that for the first century afterwards, England and Scotland were banned words in government documents and serious journalism, being replaced by "South Britain" and "North Britain". Serious, balanced historians to this day, such as Norman Davies, make a solid case for this.
A further proof that Great Britain after 1707 was a unitary state is that the term "United Kingdom" did not come in until 1800, upon union with Ireland. The only other state that used the term "United Kingdom" was the Netherlands after it briefly amalgamated with what became Belgium, in 1815–1830, and here again the point was that two kingdoms continued as two kingdoms under joint parliamentary jurisdiction).
Yet another proof of the above is Lord President Cooper's pronouncement in the Elizabeth II title case that the English Parliament did not absorb the Parliament of Scotland in 1707; final link below.)

4. The Union with Ireland Act 1800, creating the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

5. The brief, to-the-point Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921, creating the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland and recognising the 26-county Free State, which already had its provisional constitution, the "Dáil Constitution" of 1918, and its provisional court system, the "Dáil Courts". (Even after the Free State became first Éire in the 1937 codified constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann, and even after Éamon de Valera made Ireland a republic and withdrew from the Commonwealth in 1949, Irish courts and Dáil Éireann have continued to recognise that Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights remain constitutional treaties.)

Of course, there has been much corruption of these five constitutional treaties by party-political intrigue at Westminster, notably the flouting of the ban on ministers sitting as MPs (this trick was pulled around the time of the Act of Union; article series forthcoming on this on ukcolumn.org) and before that the creation of a private Bank of England by William III's Dutch and Scots cronies, who clearly shared Cromwell's aim (1651) of incorporating Scotland into England as a de-facto annexation. Nevertheless, the people and their uncorrupted representatives and courts (judges and juries) can continue to assert the constitutional treaties. The Establishment's normal trick is to prevent a proper challenge from reaching the courts in the first place.

For more background, see the first two links below: my debate with Graham Moore ("Daddy Dragon") and our series, A Dissident's Guide to the Constitution (comments on whether we have a codified constitution are particularly found in Episode 1 but also in other episodes).

https://www.ukcolumn.org/series/a-dissidents-guide-to-the-constitution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV8dDuCUEvc

https://learninglink.oup.com/static/5c0e79ef50eddf00160f35ad/casebook_17.htm