However, if one document tries to take away or restrict your rights, then you should know how to invoke your rights under the other document or under common law or even natural law as needed.
What a lot of so called “constitutional experts” refuse to acknowledge especially in éiRe, is the history of these documents and the significance this plays.
As a result of this history, our latest constitutions are significantly watered down and standing under them in a court can be very dangerous if you don’t know what you are doing.
Many such experts will claim their constitution gives them powers it simply does not and they actually get their power under natural, common, and human rights laws combined with freeman and sovereign ideologies. But they fail to mention this.
When you discuss these very salient points with them, you soon run up against what I call the “Constitutional Religion”, and the various fanatics and devotees. We all know where that leaves us and it’s not a good place.
A government will have you believe that a constitution is supposedly “by the people, for the people”. So if it is written in legalese, or refers to external legalese documents (positive law – acts), it is neither “by”, nor “for”, the people. As few people can comprehend legalese. However it is written, the bulk of any constitution is actually:
By the people, For the government.
It outlines how the government should be treating the people who elected it. However it is still very important that it is written first in the original native language of the country (in the case of éiRe, traditional (not new standard) Gaelic – also known as Clo-Gaelic).
Then it is important that it is translated from this, into english for those that do not understand Gaelic. However, the Gaelic version must always take precedent.
This is because in the overall order of precedence, constitutional law is the same as common law. Therefore, it is supposed to be written in the language of the people, not legalese. This is so the people know what their additional rights are and how they are supposed to be treated.
Note the word “additional” rights. As no document can remove or restrict your rights without your consent. They can only give you more rights (or more accurately – spell out in words what rights you already have). Any document taking away or restricting your rights with phrases like:
- “In accordance with law.”
- “Subject to law”
- “For the common good”
- “For the greater good”
- “For the good of the country”
- Wide ranging language like:
- Catholic morality
- Other such generic terms
Is invalid. For example who decides what is indecent, or moral, or offensive? – More on this later where we look at a common example with freedom of speech.
- Anything in common law that takes away your natural law rights is invalid.
- Parts of a constitution that takes away your human rights and vice versa are invalid.
- Positive law that contravenes common law (including your constitution and human rights), are invalid.
- Contracts that contravene positive law, are invalid.
- Policies that contravene contracts, are invalid.
You can only add to your rights, never remove or restrict them, especially without consent.
So be careful what you consent to, apply (beg) for, sign, or get licences for (a licence is permission to do something you already have a right to do). You cannot be licenced to do something that is illegal or unlawful. Read more about licences here.