Questions and Answers

Questions about the Constitution itself and How it Works

What is a Constitution?

A constitution is simply a way of defining the governing principles and arrangements of a country. Specifically, this will define the relationship between the people and their government and articulate any limitations that are placed on government (or not!) and define the set of standards by which the government must adhere to if it is to remain lawful and legitimate. This is why the people need to understand their constitution - because this is the thing through which an out-of-control government can be held - that is, if a sufficient proportion of the population care enough about it.

What is a Democratic Constitution?

Specifically a Democracy is in place where you have a constitution that places the people into authority over their own government. This is the very thing that makes a government by, for, and of the people. There is only one mechanism that has ever been devised in the history of the world that allows for the existence of a nation that genuinely places the people in authority over their own government - and it is not voting in elections as we have been led to believe! Specifically that key mechanism is actually Common Law Trial by Jury (this is not in operation today in any nations). There are many nations that are meant to have a fully operating Common Law Trial by Jury system but none are actually operating correctly currently. The primary or central pillar of a Democratic Constitution is not about voting in elections but to have a tribunal of the people which is able (when considering the guilt of a defendant) to consider at the same time, the appropriateness and fairness of the legislation that brought the defendant into court. That places the people in authority over the government’s legislature (the arm that creates legislation).

Voting in elections is a minor characteristic of Democracy (not the central plank as we are all led to believe). Voting is actually called Adult Suffrage.

What is the role of the Judge in a Trial by Jury?

Originally (in a genuine Common Law Trial by Jury), the Judge would not have been a judge at all. He would have been known as the Convenor and merely would have had a hand in organising and presiding over the event. He might also have been trained in law (but not necessarily). The Jury are the judges in a genuine Common Law Trial by Jury and are given the right to judge on all aspects of the case: The facts, the law, admissibility of evidence and even the punishment. The Convenor could have advised the Jury, and the Jury could have taken that advice if they wanted to, but the Convenor would never have directed the Jury in their decisions.

What are Jury Independence, Annulment by Jury or Jury Nullification?

Simply the fact that regardless of the legislation that might have been broken by the defendant, the Jury is allowed to make an independent decision on the guilt of the accused. If a defendant has broken the law, but the jury feel it would be unfair to pass punishment on him, they can, nonetheless, pass a not-guilty verdict and effectively disagree with the legislation. This would be called (rather patronisingly by the establishment) a perverse verdict. This can sometimes mean that the legislation has been annulled in that particular case. (This does not mean repealed - a full repeal would require a more protracted process, but that could also be achieved). Remember this: Jury Independence effectively removes the power to punish from the government and hands that power to the people.

Jury Nullification is the term more commonly used in America for Annulment by Jury. For clarity, we tend to try to use 'Annulment by Jury' because the preposition clarifies who is doing the annulment and what is being annulled - we wouldn't want Juries to be annulled!

What is the King/Queen of Great Britain?

Because of the nature of our Democratic Common Law-based Constitution, our system in Great Britain is a ‘Limited Monarchy’. Specifically, this means that, far from being absolute in power, the Monarch is bound (as the Sovereign) under our Constitutional arrangements. They are our most senior public servant and first among equals. They do not have all power. But, importantly, their power is limited not merely by parliament either. Both the Monarch and Parliament need limitations placed on them because they are equally capable of acting tyrannically, as we know! The Monarch is meant to be keeping all of that in check and preventing legislation from parliament being passed onto the Statue Books that would be a threat to the people’s liberties or repugnant to the Constitution. This is done by refusing to give Royal Assent when it would be necessary (this is known as the Royal Prerogative). There is an obligation on the Monarch to use this power when necessary. Although the Monarch is called the Sovereign, they actually cede (pass) sovereignty to the people through the power of Jury Independence (already mentioned above).

How Might you Summarise the Constitution in 3 Points!?

  1. To have in place a tribunal of the people (a Jury of peers), that can judge the accused in court but also has the right and duty to decide on the justice of the country’s legislation passed by government. All people would have the right to be judged by that tribunal made up of their social equals.
  2. To have in place a legislature (branch) in government that can write only legislation that would be in alignment with the customs of the nation and the constitution.
  3. To have in place a Head of State that is sworn in perpetuity to hold all of that in place and use their power to refuse assent of legislation when necessary. They must continue to do all of that lawfully or they would delegitimise their own power and government in the process.

Would it be better to have a Republic?

Not necessarily at all. The head of state in a Republic is a President: in a limited Monarchy, it’s a King or Queen. Once the democratic element is in place (Common Law Trial by Jury), then the entire machinery of government (including the Head of State) is effectively disempowered. The power and scope of government is hugely reduced and the real governing is actually being performed by the people themselves through the Jury. Therefore the relatively minor differences at that point will not have an impact. People’s often repeated claims that a President is somehow better than a limited Monarchy does not stand - as long as it is functioning correctly under Common Law.

Which Countries have a Common Law Foundation?

Certainly all nations that are intrinsically connected to the English Common Law tradition that goes back through the Great Charter of 1215 are all Common Law countries. That would include the commonwealth countries but also the United States of America too. All people in those countries should be enjoying a limited government along with a Trial by Jury system. (But most of it has been distorted in various ways).

Other countries of the world (even those without a Common Law tradition) should naturally be living under the same system too! It simply means we might have more work to do to get things shifted! But all people naturally should be living under Universal Common Law. Ultimately it is always about your individual rights with which you were born.

What is Magna Carta?

The original Magna Carta of 1215 is not the source of our constitutional law (as is sometimes believed) but it is the most authoritative re-statement or expression of our constitution. In fact you could argue that the Great Charter (as it is sometimes known) is our constitution - and it is written - contrary to what they will tell you.

Yes, King John was under duress when signing it - quite correctly. Why? Because he had broken the law dangerously and violently, but he was already bound by his coronation oath that he had previously taken in order to take on that limited role of Head of State. Failing to cooperate and sign would simply have delegitimised him as Head of State. It was a requirement of him to re-express that promise (in perpetuity) to fall under the authority of the constitution and abide by the law that the Crown falls under!

No the Pope was not part of the constitutional arrangements of England and had no power to annul Magna Carta.

Magna Carta 1215 (the original charter) is not legislation created by the legislature but a promise by the Head of State to keep the constitution in perpetuity. It is above government. The government's own law-making powers fall under the authority of our constitution.

Further statutory versions (legislation) of Magna Carta were created later, parts of which government could itself repeal. But interestingly the aspects that still exist on the 1297 version still hold the essential principles of the constitution. Regardless, it is not the 1297 version that provides the constitutional authority. The 1215 Charter is still binding on government and it cannot be repealed.

The Constitution and its Common Law foundation predate Magna Carta and most of Europe was functioning under Common Law hundreds of years prior to 1215.

More General Questions

How do I counter the view that 'Parliament is Sovereign' and explain to others who are worried that we appear to have no say in our country’s future?

Share the memes (on the memes page of this site) and other information on

Particularly download the statement 'The Occulted Powers of the British Constitution' which is practically the first thing you'll come across on this site. This is a detailed explanation of how the Constitution is supposed to function backed up with some powerful references within the history of law.

Also read the article 'The Cyclic Argument of Statutory Law'. Important!

In the Resources section, there is a page dedicated to references and quotations that support the Constitution and Trial by Jury concepts. Learn some of them of by heart! That would be impressive.

How would society look now if we could use the Constitution properly?

Who knows!? It's been 800 years! That's the exciting thing. We've never had a modern, interconnected society functioning properly. What is undeniable is that government would be smaller. Our countries might be structured differently - possibly. There would be far less statute law - most of the current legislation would probably not exist. Law would be based on principle so that the common man would understand it. Most importantly, our society's state of morality would be higher due to a raised consciousness.

How would Common Law deal with Brexit, which we are constantly told is constitutionally difficult?

One would suspect that many of these issues would simply dissolve over time as the 'powers-that-shouldn't-be' are shamed into correcting things gradually and quietly. In the end the sheer weight of public knowledge would cause these things to be corrected and addressed properly. Who knows!? That's why these technical difficulties are less of an issue at this stage because of much of this would evolve. It's all about the general public's consensus becoming aligned with Truth (Natural Law).

Would we still need parliamentary parties? What would Parliament look like?

It is quite likely that the party political system would dissolve and fade away. The party system and the voting that goes with it (Adult Suffrage) was a fabrication, to confuse and obfuscate the more direct Rule of Law that allowed the people to determine the character of their society directly through the Jury. No need for politics and dealing with everyday policy. Government has no business in dealing with the minutiae of our lives anyway. Law is supposed to be defined in the negative (the apophatic) - you can do anything you like except... (doing harm to others). This leaves an empty vast space of possibility and freedom for the people and law is dealt with through intent and not outcome.