The supremacy of a nation’s people should be distinguished from the supremacy of its legislature. The former may be expressed by the latter, but there is no obligation to suppose that a legislature is the only means of expressing the people’s sovereignty.
A group is made up of individuals; indeed, there can be no group without individuals to populate it. If we subscribe to the basic principle that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”, then we must hold these rights to be supreme. If they are qualified in the sense that certain rights may be withdrawn under certain circumstances, we must define what those circumstances are or else such action will be arbitrary and inimical to stability.
For example, it is relatively uncontroversial that a convicted felon forfeits his right to liberty, subject to the term of his incarceration. However, this example only partially answers the question. Beyond this, one might ask:
* What kinds of action should be classified as crimes?
* What kinds of crime should be punished with incarceration?
* What other justifications might there be for removing or limiting the rights of citizens (e.g. war)?
The answers to these complex questions lie beyond the scope of this post, but they remain important questions, and they reveal the potential conflict between the rights of citizens and the power of the state. If, as a general rule, the rights of citizens are to take priority over the will and power of the legislature, then it becomes evident that a discussion of supremacy must begin by asking the foundational question, “Whose supremacy?”
I have read at various times articles on Brexiters saying that they had voted for British supremacy but were opposed to the House of Commons voting on whether to trigger Article 50 and voting to keep Britain within the customs union. The implication of such pieces is that Brexiters are guilty of hypocrisy, of entertaining a contradiction.
However, this is not necessarily so. Returning to the question of whose supremacy is at stake, many Brexiters would argue that they were voting for the supremacy of the British people, not the supremacy of Parliament. The two
are not identical, and the former does not entail the latter. Many Brexiters, in voting to leave the European Union were not necessarily saying that they wanted all powers returned to Parliament. Rather, they were arguing that exiting the European Union was a necessary precondition to restoring supremacy to the British people, but that this task would not be completed until the power of the British executive, judiciary, and legislature had been limited also. In essence, what many Brexiters wish for is the adoption of a constitutional democracy as the US possesses, rather than a return to a system in which Parliament is free to make laws in any form on any matter it wishes.
Indeed, in the infamous Jackson case, which, I believe, involved fox-hunting. Lord Steyn suggested that the courts should not enforce laws that strike at the fundamental principles of liberty and the rule of law. He argued that Parliament derives its authority from the people, representing them. Parliament, therefore, has a duty not to infringe those rights that the people could never consent to having infringed. Where a Parliament does so, it ceases to represent the people by whom and for whom it was created, forfeiting its legitimacy and rendering Acts passed pursuant to illegitimate aims invalid.
We must serious ask ourselves as a nation, in light of continuing developments regarding Brexit, freedom of speech, personal property, and the right to life, at what point it becomes necessary to resist incursions by Parliament against the people’s supremacy. I do not suggest that we have reached that point, but I submit that, if we believe in the principles found in the American Declaration of Independence, we must concede that such a point exists.
All Along the Watchtower 
It seems to me that anyone who believes in natural law and the rights of the individual due to this fact can only support what is termed a ‘limited’ government; supremacy should not even be considered. Even in the US the progressives and the corrupt politicians have allowed (due to corruption) excesses in their own power: things like illegal searches, seizures, unwarranted intrusion in privacy and many matters.
The idea that local governments can and should handle smaller matters more in tune to the people of their state or community is a good one but let us not think that it always works without corrupt politicians getting their hands dirty in the process. For instance, here in the US, most states require that a body be embalmed before it is interred. What is the point of this outside making a person look good if they are having an open casket funeral. There is no advantage to the people this is aimed to serve. It is clearly a case of pressure from the funeral homes that this be a requirement and the politicians have passed such laws to get campaign finances from the funeral services lobby. This is the type of small things that eat away at the individuals choice in matters that should only concern them and it begins an avalanche of other laws which we have seen recently in the US both national, statewide and locally. All of it eats away at the principles that were intended and were protections of the individuals and the good for society as a whole.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Explanation of Family in the Catechism by Cardinal William J. Levada found on the Vatican Website: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20060707_levada-valencia_en.html
“For this reason the Church has always taught the importance of the family as the basic unit of the social fabric of society itself: “Authority, stability, and a life of relationships within the family constitute the foundations for freedom, security, and fraternity within society” (2207). The family, therefore, as an “institution is prior to any recognition by public authority, which has an obligation to recognize it” (2202). Since marriage and family have their basis in the created order, confirmed by the explicit Revelation of God, the Church necessarily opposes the adoption of human laws that would abandon or overturn this order.”
But I am sure the Cardinal is simply being ‘unreasonable.’ … ….
One of university studies classes in history was “The History of the Soviet Union.” The Soviet Union would run mass propganda campaigns were it would publish stories of little Petrov telling the authorities on their unpatriotic parents, remember how Winston Smith in ‘1984’ was scared of the children?–not a creation of Orwell. Also, in Nowa Huta, the Soviet Union would house men and women into different barracks, including husbands and wives, of course the intent was to break down the natural family bond. They would also intentionally make government housing small to discourage large families. Of course, if you’ve been around American ‘projects’ also built intentionally small, when they have plenty of room, any reason for this?
If the government was a limited one, for example, there would be no planned parenthood because there wouldn’t be a large entity to fund, or at the very least they would have to do the work themselves. There would also be no culture war over marriage because the culture would dictate what marriage is and like I said, the United States is so large there is no uniform culture.
Is this the plan? I do not think there is a strategic plan to snuff out Christianity; however, I do think that the ‘progessive’ ideology is one that supports the extraction of Christianity from the existence of the world and they will use any methods availible in the end.
LikeLiked by 3 people
When the leadership becomes entrenched in a privileged class you naturally get those who hungry for more money, power and privileges that are not afforded to the classes of people they are ruling. It is a corruption and as Ann Barnhardt constantly points out it breeds a group of narcissists (diabolical narcissists) who do not have empathy or love. One of the few natural human emotions they still possess is fear; fear of being found out, losing their power, greed and influence on others. That is why it is the duty of every man and woman to be informed, skeptical of political class, and always vote for the best possible candidate that might actually be nothing more than a normal citizen. Indifference will kill even the best government model if we do not speak up and act out our convictions at the ballot box. Sadly, politics has gotten so corrupt that our choices are usually limited to picking between flawed narcissists who seem to be the only ones on the ballot. That is when we must try to persuade good men and women to enter public life . . . and most don’t want to mix it up with the political class during the pre-election bid for office.
Planned or not, the narcissists who populate the elite political class fears the natural family and the normal values that a family creates. They are keenly aware that they are best served in the currency of votes to pander to flesh, greed, race, perversions and most things antithetical to family life. So they pander to that which divides us and destroys the basic elements of family life. They don’t need a play book, they instinctively know how to control people as narcissists are wired to do this in relation to their dealings with individuals as well as with the population as a whole.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Always keep in mind the sage quotation by President Ronald Reagan: “The 9 most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'”
LikeLiked by 2 people