A.V. Dicey and the Rule of Law | Public Law

[@LearningAcademy1]

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!

[@msmrepo3271]

The Head of state cannot break the Law, this was settled in 1688 which was a Victory for the Law not parliament or Kings. As for Parliament being Sovereign, just doesn't stand up to scrutiny as we the people are Sovereign. The BOR 1689 taken from the Declaration is a binding Bill, the source of authority. If Parliament made legislation that said we have to jump off cliffs, equity would come to play as no one would do it. Didn't Dicey in his later days admit his errors? I find it fascinating how people think Parliament is Sovereign they just ain't..

[@thelawacademy1]

Parliament is sovereign and they are elected by the people. These are not difficult concepts to understand

[@msmrepo3271]

@@thelawacademy1 I understand the Concept and know we live under this theory, but it does not stand up to scrutiny. They are bound by the Bill of Rights or should be and bound by their oaths of office or should be. The head of state is here to serve and not be served, to God as God is the creator and you can't be more powerful than your creator. Parliament and the head of state represent us the people the principle, and they cannot be Sovereign, they cannot create legislation that harms anyone. The Law is our birthright, not statute There was no transfer of power, and the divine rights of Kings weren't passed on to Parliament. Any Sovereign claims are usurped unless you can show me where and how Parliament have these divine rights or got them from without giving it to themselves. The Declaration of Rights, the First Act and more are conditions, and limits on what these people can do ie not sovereign. History tells us a different story, it has been educated out of us. It just does not stand up to scrutiny and has never been tested, Parliament and the government are accountable to the courts for the Lawfulness of what they do. This sovereign claim is full of holes, and hypocrisy and is illogical when scrutinised properly, if it's true then we have tyranny.

[@thelawacademy1]

@@msmrepo3271 It doesn't matter how much you write about it, the fact is that Parliament is Sovereign

[@msmrepo3271]

@@thelawacademy1 "The Fact is" This is the problem, prove this fact, you can't prove it, it's a theory being acted out. Like I said the evidence tells us different as opposed to your "facts" that you cannot provide. Its been educated out of us, or you. Your response is typical of the problem with all due respect. What about the BOR? are you saying it does not control or limit? Parliament is not Sovereign, they cannot make any legislation they want, they tell you different, but the facts are facts even in this post truth society we have walked into. You have no clue about our Constitution unfortunately and that's a shame due to its importance and it keeps the King's peace. Thier own rules and regulations tell you this for God's sake, can't you put the whole picture together...no you can't, your teaching an untruth.

[@thelawacademy1]

There's plenty of case law, even stemming from the past few years, that shows Parliament is Sovereignty. Again, you can ramble as much as you want, the Supreme Court is clear on this matter.