Peter C. Earle: The American Revolution Redefined Freedom Itself

When the Continental Congress approved the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, its immediate purpose was practical: to justify severing ties with Great Britain and explain to audiences both foreign and domestic why rebellion had become necessary. Yet the document’s historical importance extended far beyond the thirteen colonies. The American declaration not only created a new nation, but helped establish a new political language: a language rooted in natural rights, popular sovereignty, and the legitimacy of political self-determination. It was a language that would reverberate across continents for centuries.

Dr Bryce Wilkinson: Dangerous belittling of New Zealanders’ liberty and property rights

Governments have many roles, but some are of fundamental importance. A vital role is to secure citizens in their persons and possessions.

I am amazed by the extent of public opposition to this long-standing principle. It has been triggered by its inclusion in the government’s Regulatory Standards Bill.

Caleb Anderson: The psychopathology of the left - and the Magna Carta

The following question is being asked with telling frequency. "How do we reverse the decline of the West before the point of no return, and is this even possible, are we already beyond this point?"

New Zealand is daily subject to assaults on the hard earned foundational principles of our nation, the principles that have delivered a stable democracy, economic prosperity, and social cohesion, unlike few nations of our time, and certainly historically.

Barrie Davis: We the People find the Grail

For fifty years our representative Government has been forcing a racist ideology upon us without giving a reason and without seeking a mandate to do so. Our Government has published propaganda in the media and groomed children at school until their furtive ideology has become suffused in our society. That zeitgeist is reinforced with the fear of ostracism and possible disadvantage if we dissent. We are now conditioned such that our thinking is constrained within the bounds of the zeitgeist.

I claim that scenario is wrong and quite the opposite of what we would best be doing. I will give my reasons for that belief and propose how we could flip to its opposite, namely “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Charles Krblich: What Happened to American Civics?

My son’s school assigned a civics project for summer vacation. The project’s scope is expansive and spans from explaining the history and functions of the three branches of government to creating a flip book of landmark Supreme Court cases like Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education. One of the tasks is a minor level of civic participation, either through community service or writing a letter to his Congressman. My assistance has often been required, and I’ve been given a chance to revisit my own civics education against the anti-democratic themes of the recent world, including pandemic lockdowns and political coronations.

Gary Judd KC: The Humpty Dumpty approach to the rule of law

Decolonisation and more

This article was published by the Auckland District Law Society’s LawNews on 31 March 2023. It concerns Justice Glazebrook’s views about the rule of law and her apparent desire for the indigenous people to “take back power and control.” I am about to publish “Tikanga is not law #2,” which refers to this article.

A search of the final report of the Independent Review, Regulating Lawyers in Aotearoa New Zealand reveals that "rule of law" appears 58 times. Notwithstanding the frequent use of the term and the report's recommendation that upholding the rule of law continue to be a fundamental obligation of lawyers and a statutory objective of the new independent regulator, the only time the report touches on its meaning is a brief and incomplete if not inaccurate, description in the Minority view of Professor Jacinta Ruru.

Guy Hatchard: The Rule of Law

Someone from one of the major parties involved in the upcoming Tauranga by-election called me yesterday. There are twelve candidates in all. Three minor parties opposed to vaccine mandates say they are hoping for an upset result, but unfortunately, they have not united around a single candidate. Having listened to some political hopefuls, I reflect here on what this is all about.

The history of parliaments goes back to the Magna Carta which was pretty much forced on King John by his disgruntled barons. In essence, King John felt he had a divine right to rule—he could regulate, punish, and tax the population pretty much as he saw fit, and he did so with abandon. Modern parliaments have quietly slipped into King John’s way of thinking.

The Magna Carta affirmed that the King had to take account of the wishes of the people, it acknowledged that citizens had a right to worship and conduct their business freely, and crucially said that the King was not above the law:

“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”

What Is the Law of the Land Referred to Here?

Brian Arrandale: Magna Carta - our founding document

On June 15th this year Western Democracies celebrate the 800^th Anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta in 1215. Just what does a document written in Latin by Feudal Barons 800 years ago have to do with our New Zealand of today?  

Good question. Any study of the history of that time informs us that it was primarily a struggle between whether a King could impose his sovereign will, especially in the field of taxation and law, without any justification or consultation of the people.  The Barons, feudal landlords objected strongly, and in essence forced King John to accept the provisions they demanded.