The English Constitution Info. https://nitter.gq/t.co/YFlRdShuoj The English Constitution Society. https://nitter.gq/t.co/UXzC5QJAes @englishexit @SecretPeopleTSP
Joined July 2024
- Tweets2.4K
- Following111
- Followers988
- Likes65
Pinned Tweet
The English Bill of Rights (1688)
that it may be declared and enacted That all and singular the Rights and Liberties asserted and claimed in the said Declaration are the true auntient and indubitable Rights and Liberties of the People of this Kingdome
#English #Constitution
@Constitutional Checks🏴🏴 retweeted
Stealth repeals of our rights is fraud by omission. We want ALL English rights back and here in a nutshell is why. This video could be vastly expanded with reasons why what Parliament, Judges and the Crown has acted ultra Vires, but in a nutshell . . .
SECOND TREATISE OF GOVERNMENT by JOHN LOCKE
resources.saylor.org/wwwreso…
Two Treatises of Civil Government, FULL Audiobook.
SECOND TREATISE OF GOVERNMENT Start's at 5:08:14
youtube.com/watch?v=HGmFbTs-…
C19
Sect.238. 'because he betrayed-his people, whose liberty he ought to have carefully preserved,-he himself loses the power he had in it before, without transferring any the least right to those on whom he would have bestowed it; and so by this act sets the people free,
P107
@Constitutional Checks🏴🏴 retweeted
Where do your rights come from? England and the English. Read the article.
@Constitutional Checks🏴🏴 retweeted
Queens Declaration 20th July 1988 - separation of powers - no power is absolute. Therefore parliament is not sovereign. rumble.com/v7gwlw2-queens-de…
“The Revolution Settlement put into practice the cardinal principles of the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament and the separation of powers… Experience has taught that peoples can enjoy the full fruits of liberty, security and justice only when they are represented in a sovereign legislature whose laws are interpreted by an independent judiciary.”
Her most Gracious Majesty Queen Elisabeth II
I'll read out the speech tonight and show the constitutional law that forbids a Somalian becoming an MP or other other position of authority over the English.
Unlawful Societies Act (1799).
'An act for the more effectual suppression of societies established for seditious and treasonable purposes; and for better preventing treasonable and seditions practices.'
Repealed, 21 July 1967. 🤔
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unla… nitter.gq/englishexit/status/206…
Halsbury's Laws of England constitutional volume states that communists and fascists can be "purged" as a matter of state security.
'Halsbury's Laws of England Fourth Edition, Volume 8, Constitutional Law' 👇
48:47: youtu.be/ZEhz2C6m-t0?t=2927
nitter.gq/ESpeaksFreely/status/1…
"This book tells you that he should be purged from our system!" -
Graham Moore (@englishexit) explains how under REAL English Law, @Keir_Starmer would be no where NEAR No.10 in Episode 3 of The Speak Freely Podcast!
FULL PODCAST PREMIERS 7:30PM THIS FRIDAY!
youtube.com/@espeaksfreely?s…
@Constitutional Checks🏴🏴 retweeted
Restore England.
🚨DISGUSTING: This is Judge Tracey Lloyd-Clarke, Recorder of Cardiff. She sentenced ex-soldier Daffron Williams — a 41-year-old veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and suffers from PTSD — to two years in prison (half to be served in custody) for Facebook posts made in the tense days after the Southport child murders.
His posts referenced “civil war is here” and included anti-Islamic imagery. She acknowledged his military service, good character references, and mental health struggles… but still sent him to prison for words on the internet.
The same judge has also jailed others for social media posts in the post-riot crackdown, including 24-year-old David Morgan who received 20 months for tweets involving Nazi imagery and racist content.
Yet when Rees Newman — convicted of the historic rape of a girl under 14 — appeared before her for breaching his sex offender requirements, she suspended his two-month jail term, explicitly citing prison overcrowding.
A veteran with PTSD goes to prison for Facebook comments warning about cultural conflict.
A child rapist walks free because the jails are too full.
@Constitutional Checks🏴🏴 retweeted
The laws referred to here are ALL English. Not British!
The English Bill of Rights 1689, Section 2 and 3 as originally enacted by the convention parliament of 1689.
Which you can read here: americanhistorycentral.com/e…
'to define its limits more accurately-found in four great statutes or charters-which the rights and liberties of the subject are preserved and-the Crown or its ministers restrained. ²(BoR) 👇
These statutes-declarations-the fundamental laws of England.' 👇nitter.gq/EnglishHistory/status/…
England's constitutional statutes are solemn compacts between King and People.
'The English constitution is to be from sources which the law of the land is derived, namely, Magna Carta, Petition of Rights, the Bill of Rights, and the Act of Settlement.' 👇nitter.gq/SecretPeopleTSP/status…
The Judgment of Whole Kingdoms and Nations, By Lord John Somers.
'Recommended as proper to be kept in all Families, that their Children’s Children may know the Birth-right, Liberty and Property belonging to an English-man.'
archive.org/details/judgment…
PDF: dn790006.ca.archive.org/0/it…
¶ 34. "When the Christian religion is become a part of the subject’s property by the laws and constitution of the country; then it is to be considered as one of their principal rights: And so may be defended as well as any other civil right."
Christianity is protected by the English Constitution itself; here's a thread: 👇👇 👇 nitter.gq/EnglishHistory/status/…
English constitutional law, Act of Settlement [1700], section 3:
English = 'born of English parents'; only 'native English' to hold positions of power; etc.
Explained here: 👇
1. restoremag.com/what-has-the-…
2. nitter.gq/SecretPeopleTSP/status…
3. nitter.gq/SecretPeopleTSP/status… .
@RupertLowe10
How did the British regime subvert our ancient Constitution to steal the birthright, England, of the English People?
This article, 'What Has The British Nationality Act Ever Done For Us?' (link in the first reply), is a professional rewrite of material found on my own website. The gents at the Restorationist ( @Restorationist_ ) website did a fantastic job of presenting it more fully, and to a standard that I could never hope to achieve, and I can't thank them ( @MCRReiners @HWoodTrashIII ) enough for that.
Thank you again gents. 👏 😊 🏴 ♥️ 🏴
The article itself is historically referenced and describes in full detail how the British regime enacted what can only be described as the most 'repugnant' piece of legislation ever to have been inflicted upon our English People, allowing foreign Peoples not only access to our ancestral homeland and to all of its benefits, but to govern our insular People into the bargain.
To put into perspective the gross callousness of the British regime at the time, the timing of the legislative enactment should be noted.
(Note: A positive that we should all keep in mind is that; LEGISLATION IS NOT SET IN STONE, and can be repealed or voided at any time.)
From Nevil Chamberlin’s declaration of war speech, 1939.
“The Government have made plans under which it will be possible to carry on the work of the nation in the days of stress and strain that may be ahead. But these plans need your help. You may be taking your part in the fighting services or as a volunteer in one of the branches of Civil Defence. If so you will report for duty in accordance with the instructions you have received. You may be engaged in work essential to the prosecution of war for the maintenance of the life of the people - in factories, in transport, in public utility concerns, or in the supply of other necessaries of life. If so, it is of vital importance that you should carry on with your jobs.
Now may God bless you all. May He defend the right. It is the evil things that we shall be fighting against - brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression and persecution - and against them I am certain that the right will prevail.”
From Churchill’s speech on June 4, 1940, following the Dunkirk evacuation, as German forces swept through France, threatening Britain next.
“... We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender ...”
“We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be.”, he said.
The ‘we’ was of course the whole of the English People; the defence was that of our ancient homeland, self determination, sovereignty, culture and way of life; and the cost ultimately being death.
Many thousands of our People as we know, did pay ‘the cost’.
Yet in 1948, just THREE SHORT YEARS after succeeding in what was asked of them having answering 'the call' to once again defend England from the horrors of foreign invasion and subjection to foreign rule and oppression; and with physical wounds not fully healed, psychological scarring, in most cases, never to be healed; WHY, without their knowledge or consent, would our ruling classes stab our English forefathers and mothers in the back by repealing entrenched protective constitutional law ('An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject' - [Act of Settlement (1700)]) established over 300 years previously EXPRESSLY forbidding those not ‘born of English parents’, foreigners, from governing the English People and occupying positions of great power over them?
Presently, my own thought is that the British regime were paving the way in preparation for their now clearly failed, 'multicultural' experiment.
Article below. 👇
@englishexit
Bill of Rights [1688]: legislation.gov.uk/aep/Willa…
Magna Carta (1297); the Petition of Right (1627); the Bill of Rights (1688); and the Act of Settlement (1700).
These statutes, declarations. The fundamental laws of England by which the rights and liberties of the subjects are preserved. Inviolable. 🧵👇nitter.gq/EnglishHistory/status/…
Act of Settlement [1700], section 4:
IV. The Laws and Statutes of the Realm confirmed.
'And whereas the Laws of England are the Birthright of the People thereof' - legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3…
'and if any thing be done to the contrary, it shall be redressed and declared void.' 👇
The law has not changed - the education system has - George Custance wrote that s book (original) 1803. These constitutional laws are your BIRTH RIGHT as an Englishman. Not a Brit. @realdinobane @gabby_cabby @RestoreBritain_ @RestoreCumbria
@Constitutional Checks🏴🏴 retweeted
1/ The English Bill of Rights didn’t say “until the next Parliament gets bored.”
It said officers shall serve according to it in all time to come.
It said heirs and posterities submit for ever.
It said it shall be the law of this realm for ever.
2/ So a serious question for MPs, judges, barristers, solicitors, and the Crown:
Which part of forever needs a translation?
3/ You call yourselves honourable and learned.
Then explain how “for ever” became optional.
🤖 Made with AI
@Constitutional Checks🏴🏴 retweeted
These pieces of legislation cannot ever be repealed or replaced because it would be treason if the british parliament attempted it🏴
⚖️Bill of Rights Act 1689: -
"All promises of fines and forfeitures without due process are illegal and void"⚖️
⚖️Bills of Exchange Act 1882: -
"There is no recognisable legal means to respond to a demand for payment without a true bill which is based on a pre-existing commercial agreement"⚖️
⚖️Liberty Of Subject 1354: - No man shall be put out of land or tenement, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without being brought in answer by due process of the law.”⚖️
⚖️Observance Of Due Process Of Law 1368: - Also known as: Reaffirmation of #MagnaCarta or #DueProcess #Confirmation - Key Provisions (Plain English Summary):
The statute declares that:
No man shall be taken, imprisoned, outlawed, exiled, deprived of lands or property, or put to death without first being brought to answer by due process of law.
It continues:
And if anything be done to the contrary, it shall be reversed and held for nothing.
In other words:
•No punishment without legal process
•No dispossession without a proper hearing
•Any action taken contrary to this is void and unlawful⚖️
⚖️Magna Carta 1215 – Clause 39
“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions… except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”⚖️
In Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, Lord Justice Laws defines a constitutional statute as one that either conditions the legal relationship between citizen and state in a general manner, or, one that changes the scope of fundamental constitutional rights.
He expressed the view that: "Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not."
⚖️ Legal Status in 2025
✅ All 4 Laws are still in force.
🧷 Recognised as constitutional statutes—not impliedly repealable.
📚 Cited by courts in Entick v Carrington (1765), R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Simms (1999), Thoburn v Sunderland (2002)⚖️
📢 ⚖️Application in Modern Cases
•Can be cited in challenges to unlawful enforcement, eviction without hearing, or secretive court processes
•Forms the legal root of Article 6 ECHR: the right to a fair trial
•Protects against any attempt to strip liberty, property, or rights without notice, hearing, and lawful process⚖️
@Constitutional Checks🏴🏴 retweeted
"Self-defence therefore, as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society." - Sir William Blackstone 🏴
Algernon Sidney:
"That which is not just, is not Law; and that which is not Law, ought not to be obeyed."
Discourses Concerning Government, Section 11: oll.libertyfund.org/titles/s…
Re: illegal to rescue trapped dog from badger sett.
There is a serious point to the below story covered really well by 17th century English politician, Algernon Sidney.
"That which is not just, is not Law; and that which is not Law, ought not to be obeyed."
Letting your dog die because some lanyard wearing moron imposed some ill conceived and grossly over reaching law is unconscionable.
@Constitutional Checks🏴🏴 retweeted
Today, the Lady Chief Justice publicly objects to the slightest criticism of the judiciary and retired judges propose returning to offences against the judiciary. Lord Denning had it right (on this one). I wish today's judges and politicians were as courageous on such things.
