Bill of rights 1688

This is an Auto Reply from the Data Access & Compliance Unit.

Thank you for your e-mail.

If your message was a request for information please be advised that your
request is being dealt with and you will receive a written acknowledgement
shortly.

Data Access & Compliance Unit

Information Directorate

Ministry of Justice
6th Floor, Zone B, Postal Point 6.23
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

Fax: 0203 334 2245

E-mail: [email address]

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

This is an Auto Reply from the Data Access & Compliance Unit.

Thank you for your e-mail.

If your message was a request for information please be advised that your
request is being dealt with and you will receive a written acknowledgement
shortly.

Data Access & Compliance Unit

Information Directorate

Ministry of Justice
6th Floor, Zone B, Postal Point 6.23
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

Fax: 0203 334 2245

E-mail: [email address]

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

<<2376843>> Please find attached a response to your recent enquiry

Thanks

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Freeman,

Although the Bill of Rights does contain this sentence, which we can
only assume is an attempt to entrench the provisions in the Bill of
Rights, it is not the case the Bill of Rights cannot be amended.

One of the fundamental principles of our constitutional arrangements is
that no parliament can bind its successors. This doctrine was well
established by the end of the 17th century.

Furthermore, changes in rules of UK constitutional law can be effected
by ordinary legislation, (unlike the situation, for example, in the
United States of America, where changes can only be made by a
complicated process of constitutional amendment).

Thanks

Eirian Walsh Atkins

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Freeman,

In the UK the fundamental rules of constitutional practice are enshrined
in many individual documents: in various acts of parliament, in the
common law, in judicial decisions, in parliamentary law and customs and
in constitutional conventions. There is no single consitutional document
and there are no unambiguously constitutional "higher" laws. However,
there are certain laws which are generally regarded as being "core"
constitutional laws that deserve and receive particular respect and
special consideration, and the 1689 Bill of Rights falls into this
category. For example, the courts would generally be unwilling to accept
that the provisions of such legislation have been overridden by later
statutes except in very clear language.

The statement in the Bill of Rights that it shall remain the law forever
should not be taken at face value. Lock expresses the view that the
sentence was included "to add solemnity and weight". It is also worth
noting that the line of succession laid out in the Bill of Rights was,
in fact, altered just over a decade later by the Act of Settlement 1700.

Thanks

Eirian Walsh Atkins

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Freeman,

The Bill of Rights 1689 is not equivalent to a modern bill of rights, which is generally a document which defines and guarantees the basic human rights of citizens. The Bill of Rights 1689 enacted the Declaration of Rights made by the convention parliament, and in this way the Bill of Rights acquired the force of statute. However as with all statutes, Parliament can amend or even repeal the Bill of Rights. As I have explained before, our constitutional arrangements mean that Parliament has the power to amend any previous legislation, even constitutional legislation, with no special arrangements for a referendum. If you have no points of novelty, I will be unable to respond to any further correspondence,

Thanks

Eirian Walsh Atkins

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Freeman,

I will endeavour to respond to your question more completely if you
could perhaps refine one or two points in your questioning for me:

Firstly, by what method do you believe 'the people' would have given
their consent?

Secondly, to whom do you refer when you use the phrase 'the people'?

Thirdly, when you say that the Bill of Rights 'was an agreement betwen
the people of this land and William of Orange and Mary', how do you
think that agreement was made?

Finally, when you say that 'parliament is only there by the consent of
the people and can only change laws with the consent of the people', how
do you think that works on a day to day basis?

If you could elaborate a little on these points, I should be able to
more fully address your concerns,

Thanks

Eirian walsh Atkins

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Freeman

Thank you for your response.

When asking my first question, I was in fact attempting to define the
method by which a vote was taken, rather than the kind of vote cast.
From your other answers, I can only assume that you believe there should
be some kind of referendum whenever any change is made to the law. This
country is a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy,
and so decisions are made on a day to day basis by representatives of
the electorate. Although there are some examples of direct democracy at
a national level, it is difficult to see how it could effectively work
in a country of this size or how the lack of direct democracy makes all
acts of Parliament unlawful and the acts of a dictatorship. The Bill of
Rights for example, was not written or enacted by a directly democractic
process but by an elected parliament, at a time when there was no
universal suffrage. By your definition, 'the people' had very little to
do with the Bill of Rights when it was written and enacted in 1689. The
Declaration of Rights (which was then enacted as the bill of Rights) was
drawn up by the Convention Parliament of 1689. It was read to William
and Mary and the Crown was offered to them on the condition that they
accepted the Declaration of Rights. The Declaration was then enacted,
by parliament, to give it the force of statute.

Thanks

Eirian Walsh Atkins

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections