The people's right to define their own liberties according to their moral compass is built into the Universe. This is what we mean when we talk about Individual Rights. Although it's less about defining what your rights are (in a predefined list or code), and more about defining your wrongs. If you know what the boundaries are, you can say that everything else is a right. That's defining things in the apophatic - saying what something is by saying what it is not. Defining what you can do is dangerous because you're on a hiding to nothing: you will never reach the end of that list.

Over the last couple of days I have seen a number of dissenting voices on the central issue of Jury Independence  - which has been quite entertaining to watch from the sidelines. 'Entertaining' might be the wrong word I suppose - as watching people enslave themselves is fundamentally not entertaining. But the reason I use the word entertaining is because what one invariably spots, is the way that as the bickering proceeds, one begins to see the seeds of the enslavement in their own arguments.

People who support, for example, the outcomes of the Nuremburg trials, do so because they understand that simply 'taking orders' is unacceptable. Order-following is always immoral and never virtuous. Why? because it suspends the organic use of consulting our moral faculties and favours, instead, an algorithmic adherence to a predefined program. A program put in place by another individual or group you see as 'authority'.

That would mean that these people who point to the importance of Nuremburg should appreciate the profound importance of the concept of Jury Independence - because if juries are not independent then they themselves (the jurors) are following the orders of the judge or state.

If you are not placing Jury Independence at the centre of your philosophy on Constitutional Law, you are contributing to the enslavement of yourself and those around you.

I have no issue ultimately with having debate on the details of the Constitution and how it was set-up. I have no concerns whatsoever with putting to the test, various arguments about Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the existence of Jury Independence in the Hundred Court, Court Leet, Court 'Baron' etc. We can always have that debate but keep in mind that ultimately it doesn't matter what did happen or didn't. It's really about what the people want! People can ultimately have whatever system they like except that if you don't have some kind of tribunal system that functions under the principles of Natural Law and conscience, then the people can't define their own liberties and will always become enslaved under an authoritarian state.

The Jury provides us the opportunity to live according to principle. If you are calling for a system of rules, you have, again, missed the point. It means you are lacking the moral clarity that you would obtain were you to exercise your moral conscience.

This clamouring to find authority (in legislation) to allow you to have Jury Independence is also missing the point entirely and keeping us all enslaved.

The purpose of this campaign CommonLawConstitution is merely to show the people the hidden mechanism that places the people as the final arbiter of law. Prior to the start of this campaign, relatively few in society even knew about this concept. Now that more people do know, it's up to the people to decide whether that essential pillar is resurrected. Spotting the fact that in our English law, the jury even existed, more than hints at the fact that our entire system was built on this concept of jury independence. Why would you have a jury if they were always simply going to take orders from a 'state' judge? It makes no sense!

Sorry to be blunt (and there are people getting a bit precious about this) elevating Constitutional commentators who don't place this concept front and centre, in my view, is missing the entire point. If you don't have this central pillar, your constitution ceases to be Democratic and is no longer based on Common Law. Your rule of law is no longer 'of the people, by the people and for the people' and is instead statist. You are contributing to your own enslavement.