UK House of Lords’ Post

As the constitutional debate of what route to travel to remove the Monarch as head of state in Jamaica presses on in a seemingly untidy and unstructured manner, I wondered as I passed by King's House recently: Will the move from monarchy to republic really change anything for the ordinary Jamaican? My answer: I don't know. I can't see how changing from "R v. Smith" to "The People v. Smith" will in fact improve the judicial system. In fact, it may only result in greater expenses for the government to change paperwork truly only for labelling purposes. As my mom always says, "a rose called by any other name is still a rose" 🌹 Moving from one head of state to another? Moving (potentially) from one out-of-the jurisdiction final appellate court to another out-of-the jurisdiction court? (London {Privy Council. v. Port of Spain {CCJ})? Perhaps though, I'm a little short sighted in the way I'm thinking about it. Perhaps, the change from monarchy to republic is the start of the future of a new Jamaica...which can't be expected to change with one fell swoop of a constitutional change. Maybe the change will trickle in, in small but meaningful ways. Am I wrong? Am I missing something? My observations are that it is the same leaders, the same systems, and the same outcomes. What will change except the name? Despite all those thoughts, the view from outside King's House is lovely, isn't it? ❤️ I have fond memories of being inside too for my mom's various judicial appointments. Lots to think about on this topic. Photograph: Me 📸 June 2024

https://lnkd.in/enikv3sK The UK's (unwritten) constitution recognises three independent power bases:- Parliament, The Executive (that is Government Ministers and Civil Servants), and The Judiciary (The media and journalists are often referred to as the Fourth Estate. This is by reference to the three historic Estates:- the nobility, the clergy and 'The Third Estate' - everyone else. Bishops and some hereditary nobility even now continue to sit in the House of Lords, the UK Parliament's second chamber.) Judges, magistrates and those employed by Parliament are thus not civil servants. Nor are the police, the armed forces, and those employed in the National Health Service and by Local Authorities.

Article VI Article VI Explained All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

It was the State Opening of Parliament in the UK yesterday. For those, like me, who are curious to know more about Black Rod and the Cap of Maintenance, here is an interesting article explaining the ceremony's rituals: https://lnkd.in/edkY4bcT

What can our current debates and discussions on Free Speech learn from the Civil Liberties discussion in New Zealand in the early 1950s? How did something argued for by the left, come to now seem to be argued for by the right? Can the state really protect civil liberties by itself? Can we talk of free speech without talking of civil liberties? Who are, in philosopher Arthur Prior's term, the "subversives" today? In my latest piece for Plain Sight I discuss all of this.

On this day, The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is passed by Congress, abolishing slavery and involuntary servitude in America, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, and by the House on January 31, 1865. The joint resolution of both bodies that submitted the amendment to the states for approval was signed by President Abraham Lincoln on February 1, 1865. Ratified on December 6, 1865, it was the first of the three Reconstruction Amendments adopted following the American Civil War. The Amendment barred every person from holding slaves or engaging in other forms of involuntary servitude, while the fourteenth and fifteenth constitutional provisions to the amendment only regulated the government. The Emancipation Proclamation, declared and promulgated by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 during the American Civil War, only freed slaves held in confederate states. Only through the Thirteenth Amendment did emancipation become national policy. The amendment states: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Visit the “Slavery and Freedom” exhibit to view more objects that reflect the nation’s transformation in the fight for African American freedom during the Civil War and Reconstruction. http://s.si.edu/2gz7lDR #APeoplesJourney

As tensions rise and decisions loom, it's crucial for Prime Minister Netanyahu to heed President Biden's advice. Failure to do so could have far-reaching consequences, not only for Israel but for the entire region. The potential creation of a Republic or Kingdom of Jerusalem hangs in the balance, a prospect that underscores the gravity of the situation. We must recognize the historical significance of Jerusalem and the complex dynamics at play. Any misstep in handling this delicate issue could exacerbate existing tensions and jeopardize prospects for peace. Diplomacy is paramount in navigating these turbulent waters. It's imperative for all parties to engage in constructive dialogue and cooperate towards a mutually beneficial solution. The stakes are high, and the well-being of millions hangs in the balance. Looking ahead, we must consider the various scenarios that could unfold and strive for outcomes that prioritize stability, security, and prosperity for all involved. The road ahead is fraught with challenges, but with commitment to dialogue and cooperation, we can navigate towards a future where Jerusalem serves as a symbol of unity rather than division.

Do you value your freedoms and privileges as a US Citizen? I do! In order to ensure you do your best before the upcoming votes to chose our leaders, please read the US Constitution and make sure you vote for people, not parties, that you believe will uphold what is written in our constitution. Our country will only exist if we are not apathetic and know who we are. Apathy leads to tyranny. Please, please read all of this and share this with all you know, especially the younger generations who may not have had to learn about our Constitution in school. https://lnkd.in/ednft5uD

This is personal. There are numerous qualities we all respect: Integrity, Honesty, Accountability, Openness, Fairness, Truthfulness [Nolan Principles] Following our Prime Minister's actions at the D-Day commemoration of the fallen, I question whether any of these attributes apply to him and the current British Cabinet. What were they thinking when they agreed for the Prime Minister to return to London for a political interview? It beggars' belief. This incident highlights, in my view, the disrespect the PM and the cabinet have shown to the British nation. I wonder why Lord Cameron and other senior cabinet ministers did not advise the PM that, at this crucial time in our history as we face a general election, such an action could severely damage their chances of re-election. I am greatly disappointed that sycophants win out every time against better judgment, compassion, common sense, and respect for our fallen and those who sacrifice their lives for our freedom in all conflicts. These MPs should hang their heads in shame and resign at the earliest opportunity. They should go back home, justify their actions to their constituency, family, and friends, and let them explain why they are a disgrace to the nation. Are these MPs devoid of any self-respect? Sir Winston Churchill and other great leaders from various parties, I suspect, would walk away from such unparalleled arrogance. God save us from these incompetent people whose only ambition seems to be elevating their own persona at all costs. Sincere apologies to all good people who provide unstinting support for those in need. Sean.