Principium Volume II, Book 11, Quote 1178 and 1180

1178. (1-11-2011) (The importance of separate judicial and legislative bodies.)ATJ The first maxim of a free state is, that the laws be made by one set of men, and administered by another; in other words, that the legislative and the judicial character be kept separate. When these offices are united in the same person or assembly, particular laws are made for particular cases, springing often times from partial motives, and directed to private ends: whilst they are kept separate, general laws are made by on body of men, without foreseeing whom they may affect; and, when made, must be applied by the other, let them affect whom they will….When the parties and interests to be affected by the laws were known, the inclination of the law makers would inevitably attach to one side or the other; and where there were neither any fixed rules to regulate their determination, nor any superior power to control their proceedings, this inclination would interfere with the integrity of public justice. The consequence of which must be, that the subjects of such a constitution would live either without constant laws, that is, without any known pre-established [sic] rules of adjudication whatever; or under laws made for particular persons, and partaking of the contradictions and iniquity of the motives to which they owed their origin. Which dangers, by the division of the legislative and judicial functions, are in this country (England)ATJ effectually provided against. Parliament knows not the individuals upon whom its acts will operate; it has no case or parties before it; no private designs to serve: consequently, its resolutions will be suggested by the considerations of universal effects and tendencies, which always produce impartial, and commonly advantageous regulations.

- William Paley – The Principle of Moral and Political Philosophy, 1785

1180. (1-12-2011) (Consider the Parliament of Brittan in1767, and their tyrannical declaration of “unlimited sovereignty” and that they “could pass any law it saw fit.” The out-cry from the American colonies against this ideology was not about stamps and taxes or tea in a harbor. It was about protecting and honoring individual liberty and the rule of law. That even Parliament should be subject to rules and laws. However, the English Constitution was not codified in written word. It was respected and honored as historical memory – precedent and legitimized by laws that were written. But the Pride and arrogance of men rose up to despoil such old and outdated traditions, such are the tactics used against our written Constitution today, by vain and proud men and women of our own congressional bodies, namely The House of Representatives and the Senate. Who believe they hold unlimited sovereignty and that they can pass any law they see fit. We should refute such a concept of folly based on all of history’s lessons.)ATJ When in 1767 this modernised [sic] (French rationalist influenced)ATJ British Parliament, committed by now to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty unlimited and unlimitable [sic], issued a declaration that a parliamentary majority could pass any law it saw fit, it was greeted with an out-cry of horror in the colonies. James Otis and Sam Adams in Massachusetts, Patrick Henry in Virginia and other colonial leaders along the seaboard screamed ‘Treason’ and ‘Magna Carta’! Such a doctrine, they insisted, demolished the essence of all their British ancestors had fought for, took the very savour [sic] out of that fine Anglo-Saxon liberty for which the sages and patriots of England had died.

- E. Mims, Jr. – The Majority of the People

1 view0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

1331. (3-3-2011) (The book “On Power” is going to be much more cerebral and feel abstract, but lend your mental faculties to it and bits of truth begin to come. Like the leaks in a dam, dike, or levy,