Statute only carries the force of law with constent .. .

[imanc]

Hi,

Where is it written that "a statute is given the force of law when contented to by the governed." I have a Black's 8th Ed. and I've looked at the section on State / Statutory INstruments, etc. but cannot find this specific definition.

I spoke to a lawyer who has over 30 years experience, and he said the idea that Statutes are only valid when given individual consent is ludicrous. He said that whilst the government is recognised and acting in accordance with international treaties, it has the right to form and enforce laws, including statutes.

So i asked him for specific evidence that this is the case so I could refute the typical FMOTL idea, but he said that I was asking for proof of a negative.

I'm looking to go beyond here say and find something definitive -- hopefully evidence that does prove statutes require consent. I think he quite rightly stated that a Black's Law dictionary definition would not be regarded as absolute evidence in a court, so I can't imagine it could used to defend that position. And if it can't authoritatively be proven that a statute requires consent, then how can you use that argument to deal with any situation in which a court or police constable or whomever is attempting to enforce a statute?

There also does not appear to be a clear delineation between common law (as seen by the FMOTL community) and statute law. Indeed, the Bill of Rights act of 1668 is itself a parliamentary act. Not something that evolved through legal precident / case law.

I'm also fairly incensed by the idea that "ignorance of the law protects no man", when the Halsbury Statutes is 50 volumes in itself.

I want to believe, but I also want to know that I can back up these ideas.

imanc

[jonboy]

Think about it.

Do statutes require consent?

Are all men created equal? YES.

Does any man have dominion over another? NO

Does any man have Authority over another? NO

How have the Governmant, police, military etc. gained their (assumed) "power" over the populus? By killing, threatening, injuring, torturing and imprisoning.

If the concept that statutes requiring consent is "ludicrous" as your friend puts it, then he is accepting that we live in a totalitarian dictatorship is he not?

Common law (remember that we live in a common law jurisdiction) covers every possibility, we can all get along just fine only operating under common law.

Cause no loss or harm to another individual. Do not breach the peace, use no mischief in your contracts.

There is not a single situation where common law does not protect us.

How can anyone claim to have the right to tell us if we should wear a seatbelt or not? How can anyone tell me what I can put in my body or not? Answer no one can, they are just men, like me.

[imanc]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

All that makes logical sense.

Where can I get evidence that the law accepts these rights as irrefutable?

"Are all men created equal? YES.

Does any man have dominion over another? NO

Does any man have Authority over another? NO"

Is there a core document that lists these rights and says that statutes cannot override them?

If you had to provide evidence to defend your position in court, and perhaps challenge an alleged statuary violation, what material would you draw upon?

Cheers,
imanc

[huntingross]

Does a statute have the force of law if no one consents, how about a 100, or a 1000....every voice has an equal vote.

Read the Law of Nations by Vattel and consider what he says.

The OED for definitions.....and bear in mind when you define something, it only takes an "authority" to redefine it and you now believe something else....did you change your view or did they change the definition....so it is wise to believe what you know rather than what someone else tells you....or defines for you.

Statute | A law or decree made by a monarch or legislative authority.
Law | A rule of conduct imposed by secular authority. The body of rules, whether formally enacted or customary, which a particular State or community recognizes as governing the actions of its subjects or members and which it may enforce by imposing penalties.
Rule | A principle, regulation, or maxim governing individual conduct
Regulation | A governmental order having the force of law.
Conduct | Provision for guidance or conveyance
Decree | an authoritative decision having the force of law.
Recognise | Acknowledge the existence, legality, or validity of, esp. by formal approval or sanction; accord notice or attention to; treat as worthy of consideration; show appreciation of, reward.
Govern | To keep under control; restrain.
Action | Behaviour or conduct. Often used in the plural.
Member | One that belongs to a group or an organization
Community | A group of people living in the same locality and under the same government

Rearranging and substituting :

Made by a legislative authority, a Statute is | A decree | An authoritative decision having the force of law.

Or

Made by a legislative authority, a Statute is | A law | A [(rule of conduct) which a (community) (recognises) as (governing) the (actions) of its (members)]

Made by a legislative authority, a Statute is | A law | A [(governmental order having the force of law) which a (group under the same government) (acknowledge) as (restraining) the (behaviour) of (one that belongs to that group)]

Force of Law.
Giorgio Agamben is professor of philosophy at the University of Verona.

From a technical point of view, it is important to note that in modern as well as ancient doctrine, the syntagm “force de loi” refers not to the law itself, but to the decrees which have, as the expression goes, “force de loi” decrees that the executive power in certain cases can be authorised to give, and most notably in the case of a state of emergency. The concept of “force de loi”, as a technical legal term defines a separation between the efficacy of law and its formal essence, by which the decrees and measures that are not formally laws still acquire its force.

This type of confusion between the acts by an executive power and those by a legislative power is a necessary characteristic of the state of emergency. (The most extreme case being the Nazi regime, where, as Eichmann constantly repeated, “the words of the Fuhrer had the force of law”.) And in contemporary democracies, the creation of laws by governmental decrees that are subsequently ratified by Parliament has become a routine practice. Today, the Republic is not parliamentary. It is governmental. But from a technical point of view, what is specific for the state of emergency is not so much the confusion of powers as it is the isolation of the force of law from the law itself. The state of emergency defines a regime of the law within which the norm is valid but cannot be applied (since it has no force), and where acts that do not have the value of law acquire the force of law.

Look to the Acts of Union, and find Article 25....Laws and Statutes....the Act recognises they are not the same.

The Bill of Rights is an Act....but it recognises pre-existing rights, it does not grant them....same for the Acts of Union.

And proving statutes have the force of law by consent IS NOT PROVING a NEGATIVE....that's just a tired lawyer having his foundation questioned.

Governed by consent, police by consent....when you don't consent, you have tendered your resignation from the society whose rules you no longer wish to keep.

Look at the rules of a bank or building society....they send them through regular enough....read them....the small print says if you don't agree with the changes and tell them so, then your account is considered closed....I wrote back and told them I didn't approve of the changes....

[imanc]

"....so it is wise to believe what you know rather than what someone else tells you....or defines for you."

I agree to a point. But if in court attempting to defend an allegation, I'd want to make sure I understand what the court would accept things to mean. Unless you are saying I can impose my definitions on members of the court?

According to Wikipedia page on Consent of the Governed (I'm not regarding wikipedia as a source of absolute truth!), it says:

"The theory of tacit consent of the governed holds that if the people live in a country that is not undergoing a rebellion, they have consented to the rule of that country's government.[3]"

In my opinion that's complete b/s, because it isn't like we can up sticks and a country that isn't state controlled and currently peaceful. But if it's regarded as so, and it appears to mirror what the Lawyer said.

I also found this:

"All democratic governments today allow decisions to be made even over the overt dissent of a minority of voters, which in some theorists' view, calls into question whether said governments can rightfully claim, in all circumstances, to act with the consent of the governed.[1]"

This seems to hold true. A minority of protesters does not in anyway affect a governmental ruling. For instance, a government will pass new austerity measures, despite some protesting. Or even heavy protesting, as is the case of Greece! On an individual level, would protesting and overtly refusing to give consent have much impact? Perhaps it would or wouldn't depending on the temperament and understanding of the persons attempting to enforce a government act.

With regards to the Bill of Rights acknowledging existing rights, I found this article on the bill of rights from (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-00293.pdf). It states:

"Consequently it is sometimes mistakenly believed that the Bill of Rights cannot be amended.
This is not the case. It is a fundamental principle of British constitutional law that no
parliament can bind its successors and that any statute can be repealed"

I'm also trying to find evidence that statutes have to adhere to, and cannot contradict common law. If this is true, then the statutes must be null and void in every instance where corpus delecti (plausible harm) has not taken place.

[huntingross]

Why do you think they codify laws into Acts.....so they can later amend and repeal.....does that repeal the law that was the foundation of the Act.....No.

Vattel

34. In short, it is from the constitution that those legislators derive their power: how then can they change it without destroying the foundation of their own authority?

The Act of Union can not be repealed without destroying the basis for their authority.....check the Metric Martyrs....constitutional acts can not be impliedly repealed....that means subsequent acts can not override and repeal by de fault....as the Act of Union can not be impliedly repealed, Article 25 says any law or statutue which is contrary or inconsistent with the Articles of union are null and void.....that's not voidable....its void.

You need to read this stuff before you question it.

[imanc]

Hi,

Great information. Thanks.

So this means the Act of Constitution can not ever be repealed? Or can articles be overtly or explicitly repealed (assuming this means something and is different to implicit repeal)?

Or is it the case that the Act of Constitution is essentially set in stone?

I located the following text from article 25:

"That all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles or any of them shall from and after the Union cease and become void and shall be so declared to be by the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms"

There is similar text in the Bill of Rights act:

" All which their Majestyes are contented and pleased shall be declared enacted and
established by authoritie of this present parliament and shall stand remaine and be the
law of this realme forever"

Is the bill of rights act available online somewhere?

I also found this on wikipedia re's the British constitution:

"These pillars are, first, the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty; and, second, the rule of law. The former means that Parliament is the supreme law-making body: its Acts are the highest source of British law. The latter is the idea that all laws and government actions conform to certain fundamental and unchanging principles. These fundamental principles include equal application of the law: everyone is equal before the law and no person is above the law, including those in power. Another is no person is punishable in body or goods without a breach of the law: as held in Entick v Carrington, unless there is a clear breach of the law, persons are free to do anything, unless the law says otherwise; thus, no punishment without a clear breach of the law."

Why can't I just walk into a court and say "thanks guys for the offer of paying you taxes, but I respectfully decline" and have done with it, if I am governed by consent and policed by consent?

[huntingross]

Why can't I just walk into a court and say "thanks guys for the offer of paying you taxes, but I respectfully decline" and have done with it, if I am governed by consent and policed by consent?

Why not indeed....

Alternatively, give or confirm your name, date of birth, address and plea and you won't need to....to just gave them jurisdiction anyway.

[imanc]

By giving them those details they get joinder with my legal fiction, and thus I'd be screwed?

[jonboy]

Just remember that the truth is always hidden in plain sight.

They are called "acts", if they were laws then they would be called "laws", would they not?

If you owned your house, you would receive letters addressed to house owner, not the legal fiction "home owner" or "house HOLDER".

If you owned your car, you would not be known as the "registered keeper", you would be called the "owner", plain and simple.

ACTS are not LAWS. If they were the two words would be one and the same.

The word "act" is almost taking the piss in my opinion, especially when you view parliament as theatre. A silly game to give the dumbed down public the idea that the government is benevolent and neccesary.