Explain rule of law Videos

+ROCK jam I agree. That's also why lawyers exist. They are trying to find the most balanced way to get out of these contradictions.   

+张家墅 Yes!! common law (which is the law of the land) treats us all the same but it's getting eroded with political statues & acts from parliament that are unnecessary only to profit and take away our Common Law with their own laws

+ROCK jam Law treats everyone the same. That's the point of it.

Somalia = Rule of AK 47. Have fun! :-)

Thankyou, I will read through that now. My essay title, in essence, asks us to evaluate the opinion that our constitution is in a state of disarray. I image you would love to have been set that.  Please let me know if you can think of any other good and reliable sources.

+Oliver Smith I suggest you read this then I will put up the video of the Queen's coronation that is self explanatory Oliver. I am also reading Law and my real interest is Constitutional Law: //acasefortreason.webs.com/Documents/Books/Laymans%20guide%20to%20the%20English%20Constitution.pdf

+whitenightf3 I am a student who has been thrown in at the deep end with an essay on this topic, so am trying to explore different opinions and arguments.Following the Glorious Revolution of the 1680's, the Declaration of Rights and then the Bill of Rights 1688 were passed. Following this, the Coronation Oath was changed, by which any new monarch must swear by upon their secession to the crown, and this was written down in an act of Parliament. The arch bishop in the coronation is required to ask the King/Queen, “will you promise & swear to govern the people of England..according to the statues parliament agreed on & the laws and customs”. This oath which is sworn by at every coronation and is a contract with the people. This is in itself a contract, & one of many things that creates a constitutionally limited monarchy, bound by law.Furthermore, a bill only becomes a statute law following royal assent. Irrelevant of the fact that no monarch has refused to sign this assent for centuries, the crown still in theory and law holds all of the authority to do so. No bill can be passed without her say-so. That is our power, under contract, to the queen. She is the contractee on our, her peoples, behalfWhat would be your opinion to that?

+martin jeffery I think your position is quite good if you think about:Credit Suisse report says 1% own 50% of the world's wealth and 50% of the world's population own only 1% of the world's wealth.The bank HBOS HSBC helped the rich to hide billions of £££ in taxes. No-one has been prosecuted = big lack of accountability = no challenge from government or the judiciary & the electorate is powerless to stop them. Heck I haven't even stopped banking with Barclays and they are shit too e.g. Libor scandal.There is however, a problem of just assuming we are oppressed and there's a big conspiracy and the tories and Labour are just puppets for the Illuminati and aliens from another dimension etc. Where's the evidence?

+martin jeffery You are making me think about stuff e.g. the separation of powers doctrine. Here are some examples:Tory culture secretary Maria Miller bought her parents a house with our taxes but was challenged by the press and lost her job.Tony Blair's government went to war in Iraq "because of the threat of WMD" but was punished by the electorate when no WMD were found.The Sun hacked the phones of dead children and celebrities in order to create sensational stories and sell newspapers. Later the electorate, judiciary and government were unhappy about this and now the press face greater regulation.These examples have common characteristics. In each example, 1 of the organs of democracy exerts power in a way which makes other organs unhappy. Normally this is because of selfishness (but perhaps Tony Blair wanted to please the Americans or perhaps he hates dictatorships). The unhappy organs then object and try to use their power to regulate the bad organ. This can create tension and if the bad organ has too much power then retribution and obscurantism may occur e.g. the Chinese government might have investigative journalists declared insane and have them sectioned.

+A student called Daniel  love your last bit of your comment ,I think you will find that this has been happening for the past few decades if not longer

+martin jeffery What you're describing is a dictatorship or oligarchy. I believe we in the UK live in a democracy with power distributed (between different organs: the press, Parliament, judiciary, executive & electorate) to the point that the selfish concerns of a single group are not dominant.

+etniks International Law is different from national law in the US. In countries like the Netherlands, Japan, Germany or Mexico, Internatinal law is more important than national law since their constitutions say so. But the US and the UK respect their own laws more than international law due to diverse reasons. One is that international law is based in continental europe laws (the continental system). 2.- Great Powers can bend international law to their favor or they can choose to ignore part of it, since there is nobody who would enforce it to them.

+Gusty17 If the USA is so well "inherited" why is it breaking so many International Laws? The Guantanamo US prison is a clear violation of the most basic human rights. Today there are close to a hundred people the very US Supreme Court has declared innocent and free to go, but are still languishing there!!!The Guantanamo base has overstayed its lease and refuses to move off the Island.The biggest bully world criminal, is the US oligarchy that runs the country.

rickl7069.. Good point, there are many other areas that our liberty has been removed considering our current De Facto form of Democracy. Most Americans do not understand the true meaning of a Constitutional Republic and the Rule of Law... De Jure. All you hear from both parties and political pundits is the word Democracy... this is not done from ignorance, it has been taught in our schools for over 40 years. We have been losing our true Constitutional Principles since the Organic Act of 1871

I think the title reverses the nature of the rule of law in that a constitution springs from the rule of law's emphasis on an enumerated set of laws. This video does little to really explain fundamental theories as developed by Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, et al. The rule of law derives from the basic social contract entered into between two or more people wishing to establish the foundation of the agreement between them as to what they as a unit find morally and economically acceptable.

I created and registered a copyright on the first ever "Public Domain Affidavit & Instrument of Proof" that proves "Who's LIABLE if a LAW is deceptive, dishonest or a lie",.. Any lawyers, cops or judges want to sign it .. since lawmakers don't ? (to prove their crap is really truthful) If you HATE injustice, JOIN "Everyone's Plan B" on FreedomWorks org

I like the video; however the first 30 seconds or so was disorienting and was almost enough to make me move on without getting the real and best part. I respectfully suggest it be edited to remove that unnecessary and distracting intro and start with the interview. Thanks!

Slow down the presentation and go into one emphasized area, such as the rights of accused under the law. Focus on the 4th and 14thamendments, for instance. Ask much fewer questions so something is retained.

Lol. There was a picture of Chuck Schumer in this video, someone who despises the rule of law, someone who is a welfare statist to the core! He doesn't deserve to be in such a video.

Any one who says they know about the rule of law would be promoting sovereignty. And us sovereigns know who the shills are. Because we know the law.

The problem now is that the rule of procedure has trumped the rule of law .

The rule of contract! I mean law, I mean contract.

Love the video - thanks for great resources!

Thats why the US is richer than Russia!

Nice video - cool effects!

Awesome video!

lel no comments

+Jason Kraft In physics, "current," is defined as the flow of energy ...from a higher energy to lower energy potential. In a circuit, this if from a battery's positive terminal to its negative terminal through the circuit. This happens to be the direction positive charges flow if they flowed in a wire. They do flow in ionic fluids and in the proton beams in Ghost Busters, but not in wires ;) Many engineering classes and engineering texts define current as the flow of electrons. Since electrons are actually moving in a WIRE and not protons. This means that the thumb in Ampere's Law, when using the closed right hand rule, points in the opposite direction of the electron-current and in the direction of THE current as defined in physics.

Glad it helped. All the best with your interview!

Thanks for the helpful information!

Very easy on the eyes...

You're welcome!