I'll give it a shot:
Rule of Law? The article attempts to equate subsequent Acts Statutes, Charters and Cartas as being LAW while they only have the the force of law, and are an attempt to reflect the colour of law.
"...and made government executive decisions contestable in civil courts." Nope.
WTF is "Basic Law"? I don't recall ever hearing about Basic Law.
"...despite the fears of lawyers � attempted to curb its Rule of Law." Lawyers aren't concerned with LAW (of the land), they are concerned with LEGAL (admiralty and commercial jurisdictions).
I hope this isn't a big shitstain! Great exercise. Still thinking about it.
LOL....this one is funny ! :D
but most importantly it established the idea that the essential difference between a prince and tyrant was that �while both made and enforced laws, the prince also subjected himself to the law.� This is the essence of the Rule of Law.
The Statute of Westminster 1931, which transformed the British Empire into the British Commonwealth of Nations, is sometimes referred to (particularly in the former dominions) as a "Treaty" of Westminster.
CANADA USED to be a DOMINION.
This particular paper went from 69 clauses (with no defined article) to 21, to 3, only 2 SEEM to hold any merit. In this case, worshipping papers that folks change to suit their needs at the time. :-/
hmmm....on a tangent point of writings that strangers make, I just noticed that the Federal Reserve Act doesn't have Articles either, it has SECTIONS.
Well, this is interesting.....
Being BETTER THAN JESUS, I offer my PRAYER GUARANTEE! I will answer an equal or greater number of prayers than your current Jesus, or NO MONEY BACK! :D