tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post111705714386285406..comments2024-03-22T11:55:50.335+13:00Comments on Not PC: Cullen still attacking judiciaryPeter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1117637643157872392005-06-02T02:54:00.000+12:002005-06-02T02:54:00.000+12:00Well yes, the outcome of the Civil War did decide ...Well yes, the outcome of the Civil War did decide the fate of the devine right of kings...Lewis Holdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14732618881212335191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1117105351625259102005-05-26T23:02:00.000+12:002005-05-26T23:02:00.000+12:00To the extent that supremecy is the rule of man An...To the extent that supremecy is the rule of man Anon is right because he is saying that the STORY (not the opinion!) of Chuckers The 1st settles the issue. And it does, for our times. Who chopped off whose head? QED.<BR/><BR/>But if you, and Cullander, would remember your Cicero and Locke you would dump the question of "which man" with the whole 'rule of man' doctrine which has long been supplanted by the 'rule of law'.<BR/><BR/>Not irreversibly supplanted it would seem, because if I remember our new Interpretation Act correctly even *hansard* is a valad tool of statute interpretation now! Sick stuff. <BR/><BR/>Thankyou Jellyfish Geoffrey for taking us back to the politics of decapitation.<BR/><BR/>nb When guys like Palmer and Douglas write a book they play for keeps!Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06315796390662297759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1117103489424598782005-05-26T22:31:00.000+12:002005-05-26T22:31:00.000+12:00Anon - I think you mean Charles I is evidence that...Anon - I think you mean Charles I is evidence that there is no devine right of Kings... Charles most certainly wouldn't want the body (i.e. Parliament) he waged war against to be supreme.Lewis Holdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14732618881212335191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1117071286717685292005-05-26T13:34:00.000+12:002005-05-26T13:34:00.000+12:00Cullen is right in saying that Parliament is supre...Cullen is right in saying that Parliament is supreme - Charles I would be evidence of that. You're right about flexible law though - it is a tyrant's dream!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com