II.   Sovereign

A Proclamation, also known as a “Royal Proclamation” or in certain nations such as the United States as an “Executive Order” is a published decree, on advice or consent of some executive council claiming to have the same effect in law as a Statute or Act of Parliament but issued under privilege and sovereign or executive authority of the head of state.

The legal concept of Proclamation or Royal Proclamation having the same effect in law as an Act of Parliament is an anathema and is completely illegal and unlawful to the tradition of English Law and Westminster Law since the 13th Century:

(i) The coronation of Edward Plantagenet King Edward I (1272-1307) of England in opposition to earlier Papal rights first granted to the de Montfort House of Gascony as Lord High Steward of England (since William de Montfort in 1066) was conditional on his consent at being a vassal of the Courts of Westminster; and

(ii) In 1539, Henry Tudor as Henry VIII (1509 – 1547) formed a new body called the King’s Council comprising the key officers of the realm as well as chief justices of the King’s Bench and Common Pleas with a purpose built court in the design of a “star” within the Palace of Westminster. In an act of Parliament of the same year (31 H. 8. C.8), Parliament acknowledged the power of the Monarch to issue proclamations with consent of the King’s Council but with the claimed same effect of an act or statute; and

(iii) The term “Star Chamber” is a deliberate reference to the King’s Council first established in 1539 as there was no separate court called by this name. Furthermore, any reference in statute to a body called the King’s Council prior to 1539 is either a deliberate fraud included in re-written statutes or a separate body created from time to time by earlier monarchs; and

(iv) The legitimacy of Royal Proclamations lasted approximately eight (8) years until the first year of the reign of Edward Tudor as King Edward VI (1547-1553) of England when in 1547 a comprehensive act was issued and assented (1 Ed. 6. c.12) repealing the act of Henry VIII and the King’s Council. However, the King’s Council continued as a body and was not finally and formally abolished until 1640 and an act by King Charles I (1625-1649) of England creating for the first time the Privy Council (16 Car. I. c. 10); and

(v) The Privy Council first formed by King Charles I of England was formally abolished along with the House of Lords through an act of treachery by Parliament passed in 1649 by the leaders of the coup d’état. The leader of the Parliamentary forces being Oliver Cromwell thereafter formed a new council called the Council of State which met from 1649 until it was dissolved itself in 1653, to be replaced by a second version. The second Council of State was then itself formally dissolved in May 1660 when Charles II assumed the throne; and

(vi) The claim that the Rebel Parliament and Oliver Cromwell also permitted the naming of the Council of State to be known as the “Protectors Privy Council” is an absurd and clumsy falsity designed to perpetuate the myth of continuity between the old Privy Council and those formed after 1660; and

(vii) Contrary to the false claim that Charles II reconstituted the Privy Council in 1660, the Privy Council was not officially reconstituted by any act of Parliament until 1707 through “an act for rendering the union of the two (2) kingdoms more entire and complete” (6 Ann. c.6) whereby one (1) Privy Council for Great Britain was constituted, with the English Privy Council and Scottish Privy Council which were then permanently dissolved; and

(viii) In the year 1707 and immediately following an Act of Parliament which reconstituted the Privy Council as the Privy Council of the united kingdom of Great Britain, an Act was passed by Parliament (6 Ann. c.7) and consented by Queen Anne whereby for the first time in history, the life and existence of Parliament was separated from the Monarch to be independent, not to be dissolved on the death of the Monarch and therefore to technically exist in perpetuity as a corporation. Furthermore, the Privy Council (also a corporation) was thereafter to be independent of the Monarch, including all the great offices and not be dissolved on the death of the Monarch. Thus from 1707, the Privy Council effectively became the “Crown” also known as the Crown Corporation; and

(ix) In the year 1800, through the Union of Great Britain and Ireland to create the United Kingdom, the Privy Council of Ireland continued, while the Privy Council of the part of the United Kingdom called Great Britain remained the Privy Council of Great Britain. The Privy Council of Ireland was abolished in 1922 with the creation of the Irish Free State and replaced with the Privy Council of Northern Ireland which was abolished itself in 1973.

As King Edward VI (1547-1553) of England comprehensively repealed in 1547 (1 Ed. 6. c.12) the legitimacy of the Kings Council and any right of the sovereign to issue Proclamations as equal to the laws of Parliament and given Parliament itself ceased to be legitimate in 1649 and again in 1688, any and all claimed Royal Proclamations issued since 1547 claimed to have the same effect in law as statutes of parliament are fraudulent, without legitimacy legally or lawfully, are therefore contrary to the rule of law and hereby null and void from the beginning.

The legal concept of an Executive Order of the President as a Proclamation having the same effect in law as an Act of Congress of the United States is without legitimate, valid or reasonable grounds whatsoever within the Constitution of the United States:

(i) The United States Constitution as drafted, adopted and ratified by eleven (11) of the thirteen (13) states and put into effect from March 4, 1787 begins by defining the power and limits of the President according to Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 being “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four…”; and

(ii) The same United States Constitution makes clear the power to create laws is solely and exclusively vested in a Congress, not the President or any other organ of government; and

(iii) Since 1789, the Congress has progressively issued and amended Acts whereby the office of President has been granted certain discretionary powers for which the issue of an Executive Order or Proclamation is permitted, despite the formal absence of any Act originating such practice within the earliest sessions of Congress; and

(iv) Until 1907, most Executive Orders of Presidents were undocumented, undefined and mostly unknown to the public. However, the US Department of State commenced a retroactive numbering scheme beginning from October 1862 and the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln; and

(v) The first time an Executive Order of a United States President was successfully challenged as unconstitutional was in 1952 when the US Supreme Court rules Executive Order 10340 nationalizing steel mills was invalid as it attempted to create a new law, rather than clarify or execute an existing Act of Congress; and

(vi) Until 1983, Congress itself was able to overturn two (2) Executive Orders by issuing laws contrary to the disputed proclamations. However, since 1983, the US Supreme Court has argued that such action itself is unconstitutional by Congress seeking to usurp the legislative process.