Did the UK Prime Minister just accidentally claim to have committed treason? Section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 says: If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty’s dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her to change her measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty’s dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty, and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be transported beyond the seas for the term or his or her natural life. The Prime Minister has written to claim of his own Withdrawal Agreement from the EU: We are being told that the EU will not only impose tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but that they might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI. I have to say that we never seriously believed that the EU would be willing to use a treaty, negotiated in good faith, to blockade one part of the UK, to cut it off, or that they would actually threaten to destroy the economic and territorial integrity of the UK. He goes on to mix language such as &quot;actively undermining the Union of our country&quot; and &quot;we cannot leave the theoretical power to carve up our country – to divide it – in the hands of an international organisation.&quot; with remarks describing the EU as &quot;friends&quot;. The Prime Minister was both personally responsible for the very agreement he is now complaining about, and also responsible for it being pushed through Parliament at speed and with less oversight than would be normal for such an agreement. Many of the issues now being considered problematic were raised not only at the time, but years earlier. My question is: Do the Prime Minister's current statements mean that his previous actions in signing the Withdrawal Agreement were threatening to &quot;deprive&quot; the monarch of her territory, and that by pushing it through Parliament at speed and in the manner in which he did, that he &quot;intimidated or overawed&quot; at least one of those Houses in this regard? As I have no legal training, I cannot trust my own interpretation of the Act: my interpretation would mean all republicans would be in prison for life, which clearly doesn't happen. I am not asking if the Withdrawal Agreement actually has the effect that the Prime Minister claims it has, but rather what would be true if one assumes it has the effect that the Prime Minister claims it has.
Do the Prime Minister's current statements mean that his previous actions in signing the Withdrawal Agreement were threatening to &quot;deprive&quot; the monarch of her territory, and that by pushing it through Parliament at speed and in the manner in which he did, that he &quot;intimidated or overawed&quot; at least one of those Houses in this regard? No. The Queen will not be &quot;deprived&quot; of any of her territory. She is still Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has not reunified with Ireland, nor has Scotland declared independence and also removed her as Head of State. He also did not &quot;intimidate or overawe&quot; at least one of the Houses. This is for two reasons: The prime minister has political and legal legitimacy through the holding of a (sometimes substantial) majority in the Commons. If the Act passes the Commons, it will be because the prime minister enjoys the support of the MPs on their side (or at least a majority of MPs in the House, e.g. the Tory-DUP agreement of recent years). Under the Salisbury Convention, the House of Lords will not block any legislation that was promised in a Government's election manifesto. While the prime minister did not enter office on the back of a General Election when he agreed the Withdrawal Agreement with the EU, the subsequent amending and implementing Act of 2020 was mentioned in the Government's election manifesto in December 2019 and therefore the Lords will not block such legislation. Given these two facts, it is almost impossible to declare that either House were &quot;intimidated or overawed&quot;. For example, the prime minister did not hold a gun to the heads of his MPs, he did not surround the House of Lords with an army until they voted the way he wanted them to. The fact that the Commons willingly supported his legislative programme, and by convention the Lords didn't block it, is evidence that the prime minister and his government enjoys political, and subsequently legal, legitimacy. In any event, the Queen cannot commit treason against herself. Anything done on the advice of her ministers cannot, on the face of it, constitute treason. Furthermore, the Prime Minister has not, on the facts, done anything that constitutes treason. Even if he were to technically commit treason by the letter of the Act somehow, the matter would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt and it is highly likely that all but the most obvious and egregious examples would not meet the threshold for prosecution. For example, it would almost certainly not be in the public interest to prosecute a prime minister for delivering on their legitimate policy aims in line with the legal (correct) functioning of our legislative system. Indeed, it is hard to imagine any court agreeing that such activities are treason when the relevant Acts passed both Houses, and the Government of the day had legitimacy in the Commons with a substantial majority after a General Election in which the legislation formed a key manifesto commitment, and the Salisbury Convention means that the Lords didn't oppose it; they would likely hold that such activities are the intended outcome of our current democratic system. I cannot think of any examples (barring something like murdering the monarch) where a sitting prime minister could conceivably be charged with treason. Even advising the Queen to abdicate would not constitute treason, provided that the necessary Act had passed in both Houses. Perhaps it might be treason if the prime minister advised so without any legislation in place, but that would seem more of a political matter for Parliament to deal with in reality. I suppose it is possible that if a prime minister advised the Queen to abdicate without the legitimate consent of Parliament (as expressed through the passing of legislation), it is possible that they would be removed from office if a no-confidence motion was passed by the Commons and then they might be prosecuted, but it seems most unlikely.
The starting point of any analysis has to begin with asking what the scope of the Act's application is i.e. what acts fall under its remit and what does not. The question is whether Parliament intended the Act to apply to ANY alteration to the structure, or only a certain class of acts. Clearly it is not the former. With the latter then in mind, statements like that you pointed out merely acknowledge that the Party Wall Act does not cover every single conceivable alteration to a shared structure, as that statement has to be viewed in its entire context. You have left out the second half of the statement that stipulates the core principle of the Act, which is that the Act only imposes the req to serve notice only if, generally, the alteration would cause much structural change or damage. The de minimis threshold can be inferred from the list of activities covered under section 2. Notice that the general character of the listed activities envisage acts which are atypical (in the sense of just drilling holes etc.). This can also be inferred from Parliament's intent in its drafting of the Act as a whole. Also, it might just be common sense.
Since the US Federal government didn't try to pass any such law (nor would it have been politically possible in the period shortly before the US Civil War), there is no way to know with assurance how such a hypothetical law would have been addressed by the Supreme Court of the day, nor by the various states. Congress legally could have prohibited the importation of slaves after 1808, the constitution specifically grants this power. Congress legally could have prohibited interstate commerce in slaves. Congress could have repealed the Fugitive Slave Act. Congress legally could have imposed heavy taxes on the ownership of slaves. If heavy enough these could have been a de facto abolition. A series of Presidents could have appointed Justices inclined to overturn the Dred Scott decision (denying the possibility of citizen ship for most Negros, and denying that a "free" state could free slaves temporarily resident there). Congress could have passed laws requiring negro votes to be counted in federal elections. Various of the above hypothetical measures might have made slavery less economic, and thus less common, in time. Note that it is not likely that any actual Congress would have passed most of them. But I do not see how, absent a constitutional amendment, and absent a war, a simple Federal statute could have constitutionally abolished slavery de jure throughout the US. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was legally justified as a war measure, a confiscation from those in rebellion. It did not affect loyal slave states, such as Maryland. And it was never seriously tested in court anyway.
england-and-wales No. Reconciliation between victim and attacker has no bearing on the guilt of the attacker. It may have a bearing on the decision to prosecute: A victim can be forced to testify, but they may well not make a very convincing witness if they are. Also, in past times (when the police were the prosecutors for most crimes), they often had a &quot;least said, soonest mended&quot; approach to domestic violence. It may also have a bearing on the sentence. Note: England and Wales is a jurisdiction where prosecutions can occur without a complaint (in general).
The Queen (or King) is not the government; she represents the State. The difference is often ignored by ministers, but is important particularly in constitutional cases. Miller began as Miller v Home Office, a judicial review case. When it became clear that the question was what powers the government actually had in a certain situation, the Supreme Court decided that constitutional points should be argued by, effectively, an amicus curiae on behalf of the state, with government lawyers defending their own viewpoint (and other interested parties intervening). This made it, in their view, a case of the state versus the government, with 'Miller' being either an acknowledgement that the applicant remained a party or a means of distinguishing this case from all the other "R. -v- Government" cases over the years, depending on your point of view.
They still have the power They generally don’t because: Most activities of a criminal nature no matter how novel can be shoehorned as a new instance of an existing crime. Parliament is much more pro-active in its legislative agenda. The judicial system moves much more slowly.
This is the cited article. Thankfully, the interviewee provided a scan of the police letter he received, so the rest of this question is relatively easy to answer. He was specifically charged with Störung der öffentlichen Ordnung (lit. Disturbance of the public order) persuant to &sect;&nbsp;81(1) of the Sicherheitspolizeigesetz, which reads (after putting it through Google Translate): Who by a behavior that is likely to arouse legitimate annoyance, disturbs public order, commits an administrative offense and is punishable by a fine of up to 500 euros, unless the behavior is justified, in particular by the use of a constitutionally guaranteed right , In the event of aggravating circumstances, instead of a fine, imprisonment can be imprisoned for up to one week, or up to two weeks for repeated offenses. This law is almost certainly constitutional as it specifically allows exercise of constitutional rights. Note this also includes human rights, as Austria has included the European Convention on Human Rights as part of its constitution. Given that, I'm guessing if the interviewee had wanted to, he would have had a decent shot at having this charge dismissed.
Legally there is no problem. What you say is protected speech under the 1st Amendment as long as it is either true or a matter of opinion. However Ron Beyer's comment is a good one; while legal this sounds very inadvisable. You would be far better off hiring a lawyer. The Mr Dicks of this world make money from the widespread fear of legal action. He will probably fold as soon as he sees a letter from a lawyer threatening a lawsuit. Until then stalling doesn't cost him anything so he will carry on doing it. BTW, don't delay. I don't know about the US, but over here in the UK there are a number of ways that people like Mr Dick can make it hard to collect. Don't give him time to play shell games with his assets.