The British Constitution Deception - Part 1

The problem is not that we don’t have a codified British constitution it’s that too few know about it. Allowing Parliament to hide it, assume authority they don’t have, and deceive the British people.

This deception is exemplified on the UK Parliaments own website which states:

“Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution….. Parliament [is] the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law…….. The courts cannot overrule its legislation…… Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution…….the UK constitution is often described as 'partly written and wholly uncodified'. (Uncodified means that the UK does not have a single, written constitution.)”

This accurately describes the establishment’s version of the British Constitution. Such a constitution is perfect for any corrupt multinational corporation, bank, wealthy globalist or foreign power.

They can use their practically limitless resources to lobby, bribe, blackmail or simply employ Members Of Parliament (MP’s) to deliver whatever laws or regulations they want. There’s no need to corrupt 65 million people when you only need to manipulate 650 useful idiots.

This leads to precisely the form of ‘government’ we suffer in the UK today. Detached from the electorate, riven with corruption and exclusively serving the interests of the rich and the powerful. While we unquestionably accept the fabricated constitution, it won't change.

Thankfully, nothing in Parliament’s statement is true. The more constitutionally aware MP’s (and there aren’t many) know this. The ruling establishment has always known it, and that’s why they have been deceiving the British people for nearly a millennia.

In Part 2 we discuss what the codified British Constitution really is, how it came into being and how it has been usurped. Politicians, and the institutions of state, are very keen to spin the yarn that we don’t have a codified, written constitution. But we do.

You might struggle to accept this fact. This is entirely understandable because the British education system, academia and the legal system have all been commandeered to hide the British Constitution.

For argument’s sake, just for now, let’s assume Britain does have one. What does that Constitution say and what would be the implications if it were fully implemented?

Every legitimate society is governed through its laws. Britain is no exception. So the question is, who creates society’s laws? We are told law is formed in two fundamental ways. The Common Law (law that continuously evolves through precedents established by judicial rulings which are 'substantive' or 'procedural') and Statute Law (law created by Acts of Parliament - often amended by Secondary Legislation or Statutory Instruments.)

Consequently, most people believe that 'Law' comes from Judges and Parliament. This appears to be the case under Parliament's malign interpretation of their own claimed power. However, the hidden British Constitution states that it is the people who determine the laws of the land. Judges and Parliament are both subordinate to the 'Rule of Law' and consequently to the decisions, or will, of the people.

For a society to function there must be equity. That is to say everyone is equal under the law, no matter who they are or how much money or power they have. The genuine British Constitution makes it clear, this is the case. No one is above the law. Including Judges and Parliament.

Of course, we always hear Politicians say "no one is above the law" but we only have to look at how justice is applied in Britain to know this is an absurd nonsense. The current ‘legal system’ is hopelessly crooked. Enough money buys you whatever ‘justice’ you want. If you have none, you’re screwed. Does anyone seriously question this?

We are taught, from an early age, that the UK government functions as follows.

At the top we have the Crown (Head of State) which, since the Glorious revolution of 1688, is a constitutional monarchy, limited by law. A constitutional monarchy had existed since at least 1215. However, this had been progressively eroded and ignored over the centuries leading to the revolution which reestablished the principle. Then we have Parliament and the three branches of government. The Legislature (the House of Commons and Lords,) The Judiciary and the Executive (the Head of State, the ‘elected’ government of the day and their officers.)

Right at the bottom of the pile we have the people. Who therefore have to do what they are told by government, because Parliament is sovereign and has all authority. Right? Who could doubt it? Don't forget, Parliament themselves claim they are "the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law."

However, this is not the model of governance defined by the authentic British Constitution. Under the true Constitution the situation is very different. Parliamentarians are nowhere near as powerful under the 'real' Rule of Law. Perhaps this explains why we have been 'educated' to believe that a single, codified, written British Constitution doesn't exist?

Which brings us to our much-vaunted democracy. We are frequently reminded that 'democracy' means we can choose our leaders (elected 'government' and Parliament) once every 5 years (in the UK.) This is not what the word democracy means. That all adults can vote is called ‘universal suffrage,’ not ‘democracy.’ Nor does democracy mean being ‘represented by a legislature.’ That’s just consensus politics, which frequently leads to all manner of mob rule atrocities.

The etymology of 'democracy,' from the latin ‘Demos’ (the people) and ‘Kratos’ (sovereignty,) shows the word means 'sovereign people.' True Democracy is based upon the Hellenic Athenian Constitution of ancient Greece, which established 'government by Trial by Jury.’ It means individual ‘citizen jurors’ are the final arbiters of the law. As we are about to discover, this clarification of the true definition of democracy is extremely important.

We are encouraged to be thankful that we live in a ‘democracy,’ even though it isn’t. Since 1928, all adults, with a few exceptions, have been allowed to elect their leaders. Aren’t we lucky?

Nationally, we exercise our democratic power once every 1825 days (ish.) We are ruled absolutely for the intervening 1824 days and have virtually no influence on decision making at all.

Most people will exercise their ‘democracy’ on less than 20 days in their entire lives. They are all told that voting is a vital civic duty for which many have sacrificed their lives. Unfortunately, under the current constitutional arrangement favoured buy Parliament, all voting delivers is power to people who will immediately renege on their manifesto commitments, then completely ignore the people for the next 5 years.

However, the buried British Constitution determines otherwise. It says we exercise our true democratic rights virtually every single day of our adult lives. So what does this codified British Constitution define? How is society and democracy intended to function if the true Constitution is observed?

Above all else there is Natural Law. This informs the Rule of Law which is interpreted and evolves, day in, day out, by the will of the people. The people then allow a ‘government’ to be formed so that they can carry out the task of administrating the peoples’ Rule of Law. The government of the people can employ politicians and public servants, such as judges (or rather ‘conveners,’) to get on with the job, as long as they obey the Rule of Law.

Natural law is sometimes referred to as God’s Law or Universal law. It’s a bit esoteric but really boils down to our innate sense of justice and fairness. It crosses cultures and all societies. We feel it as children, instinctively accepting it as the difference between right and wrong.

I imagine no one reading this thinks it is acceptable for anyone to harm someone else, unless it’s in self-defence. Of course, there are exceptions to this ‘universal’ acceptance of Natural Law. Some people are psychopaths. However, most of us understand this principle.

The Rule of Law, or Common Law, is the expression of Natural Law through judgements. The judgements are made by the people when they form a jury.

Under the Constitution, the British government, represented by the Head of State and the elected executive branch of Parliament, is a creation of the people. It exists only while it serves the people and its primary function is to uphold the peoples’ Rule of Law. If it ceases to do so, through their contract with the Head of State (the Crown,) the people can dissolve it. It does what it is told. As do the MP’s and the civil servants who work within government. Government is subordinate to the people.

With the real Constitution everyone, including the Head of State, are genuinely equal under the law. This means the people are ‘equal in authority’ to the Head of State.

Many will immediately say this arrangement is unworkable and makes no sense. Fortunately, when the codified British Constitution was created, the mechanism which enables this process to work perfectly well was also set in perpetuity. It’s called Trial by Jury.

Under the British constitution anyone accused of any crime (breach of the Rule of Law or 'legislation') has the right to trial by a jury of their peers. Today this means 12 people will be selected to pass judgement upon the accused, following an examination of the evidence in the trial.

 
It is the jury who make the judgement, not the judge. In fact the term ‘judge’ is a deceptive change of language to hide the fact they are called ‘conveners’ under Common Law. Their role is essentially administrative. They have no authority to direct the jury how to find the defendant. They cannot interfere in any way in the jury’s judgment and they do not decide the punishment. The 'convener' can only advise the jury and then administrate the punishment meted out by the jury.

Under the constitution, whether the accused broke or did not break the law is not the jury’s primary concern. ‘Guilt’ is a question of Natural Law. They examine their own consciences to judge if the actions of the accused were fair or unfair, just or not.

Did the accused act with intent to cause harm, did they cause harm through unacceptable negligence, were their actions wrong? It is perfectly acceptable for a jury to acquit someone who has technically broken the law but has, in the jury’s judgment, acted for honourable or just reasons.

Under the codified Constitution the questions of guilt and punishment are solely the province of the peoples’ jury. Each juror’s decision is a private matter for them alone, and the defendant can only be found guilty through the unanimous verdict of all jurors.

If the jury accept the defendant has contravened ‘legislation’ or fallen foul of the law, but has acted in good faith, they can find them 'Not Guilty.' Clearly, if the accused is judged to have committed no harm, but the legislation says they have technically ‘broken the law,’ the problem is with the law, not the defendant. Regardless of the breach, the Jury can decide to annul the legislation. The Law has been found to be an ass.

This ‘Annulment by Jury’ then starts the process or removing the unjust legislation from the statute books. This is the Rule of Law under the withheld British Constitution.

The implication of ‘Annulment by Jury’ turns the current power structure, claimed by Parliamentarians, on its head. It is the reason why the British people have been misled for centuries. Natural and Common Law, applied by the peoples’ jury, effectively overrules Statutory Law. In a very real and practical sense a jury can force an Act of Parliament to be repealed.

Even better, if legislation is passed which the people deem to be unfair, cruel or unjust they are empowered to prosecute the people who made that oppressive law by calling them to face a free trial by jury. Making draconian, unjust legislation a lawful impracticality. There would be no point in owning corrupt politicians because, if their legislation was deemed unjust by the people, it would be overruled and removed from statute.

If the real British Constitution was observed, the people would determine the rules which govern society. Every single time the Law is tested, through Trial by Jury, the people would decide if the statutes, created by Parliament, were reasonable and fair. As Common Law supersedes Statute Law the politicians would effectively be instructed, by the people, either to amend their poor legislation, as required, or get rid of it.

This would transform, or rather create, real democracy. The meaningless choice we currently get between two or three corporate owned ‘political parties’ would cease. The people, through the Rule of Law, would run society. Not a bunch of corrupt, self-serving careerists.

Under the current system, whoever you vote for you get the government. A government which always serves the interests of its puppet masters rather than the peoples'. If we adopted the real British Constitution, the lobby industry would collapse. Throwing huge bungs at Politicians or blackmailing them over their sordid indiscretions would be useless. They simply won't have the power to deliver, no matter how hard they are squeezed.

This would make the misuse of power very tricky for those who like doing that sort of thing. Illegal wars, state cover ups, corporate corruption, blackmailing of compromised officials, and so many other travesties we are forced to endure under the existing system, would become virtually impossible and largely irrelevant.

Does that sound like a better system to you? Do you think this would help to stop the endemic corruption, injustice and inequality we see every day in the UK? Would you like to see such a Constitution implemented?

Well the truth is, the British have had exactly that Constitution for more than 800 years. It’s just that it has been systematically ignored, obfuscated and buried by those who don’t want you to know anything about it. Because otherwise, they wouldn’t be able to operate their criminal cartel.

In Part 2 we’ll look at how this has been done and consider what we can do to assert the Rule of Law and bring an end to the tyranny we live under.

 
Take it easy you hoopy froods.

follow oyddodat

~~~~~~~~ Debate Me On ~~~~~~~~

Steemit

Twitter

Minds

Gab

~~~~~~~~ Watch In This Together ~~~~~~~~

Bitchute

YouTube

~~~~~~~~ Recommended Websites ~~~~~~~~

In This Together

The Corbett Report

the UK Column

21st Century Wire

Richplanet

Global Research

The UK & Ireland Database

Sort:  

Brilliant post and very well explained. Thanks for helping me knock the rust from my memory of this important matter, it’s been a while since I studied this subject. As you may have noticed, my name gives away the part of your story I’m hoping to hear about 🙂

Posted using Partiko iOS

Many thanks. Depends how lawful rebellion works dunnit. I think if we march in the streets and stand on the barricades we'll get run over. Time will tell if that approach works in France. I doubt it will. Whatever happens they'll only get tinkering at the edges. If it's fundamental reform we need (and I think it is) then other approaches are needed. Ignoring the silly sods would be a good start. Building communities, rather than knocking them down, if you see what I mean.

Very impressive and I'm glad there are still a few of us left out there that understand where the real power lies.

Cheesr mate. I think many more would welcome the Constitution if they knew what it was. We are heading towards constitutional reform, which will be unlawful of course, but perhaps this would be a good time to start shouting about what the real immutable constitution has to offer.