Where's Your Line?

You must, by now, be at the point where you feel that something is missing from the way the constitution was taught to us? you must be doubting the notion that parliament is sovereign? You must be asking why the King promises to govern us according to our laws and customs - but then is not 'allowed' to govern us at all- according to the version of the constitution we have been given - who would make such an oath knowing they would not be allowed to uphold it? Does KC3 have an indemnity, and, if so, from whom?

You must be asking how it is that we do consent, or not, to the rules given to us by parliament... because we surely must consent, else we would just be following orders - which is obviously immoral and was specifically outlawed at Nuremberg. You identify that the current ways we are told we can consent, or not, don't really hold water - by voting in elections - but you rightly say that politicians are not being held to account under this method of 'consent'... of course, they have an 'out' on their manifesto 'promises' - things change, as you say.

But what about tyrannous legislation - how do we remove our consent to that? Well, it is at the point where we are asked to comply, with the Jury ultimately deciding whether we would be punished for any breach of the rules - by that jury deciding whether or not they believe that particular rule to be in alignment with our constitution (natural law) or not... that's how.

Voting in elections is a smokescreen, a distraction. Surely, you would not abide by a rule which said, for example, a man must be castrated at 16, so that they are no longer a threat to women - hopefully everyone would object (Milgram says maybe only 35 percent of us would). Hopefully, you would refuse to put the Jewish person on the train to the concentration camp?

Once you realise that you must say No to such laws, you must surely know that ability (and duty) to consent, or not, is and always was, ours, the people's - and that we answer only to a jury of our peers as to whether or not we committed any crime in refusing to comply with the rule.Good - now ask yourself why it is that the state is threatening to further erode our right to a Trial by Jury? Ask yourself, whether it can actually be lawful that the Magistrates' Court conducts trials, or adjudicates on criminal cases at all.

“Suffrage is equally powerless and unreliable. It can be exercised only periodically; and the tyranny must at least be borne until the time for suffrage comes. Besides, when the suffrage is exercised, it gives no guaranty for the repeal of existing laws that are oppressive, and no security against the enactment of new ones that are equally so. The right of suffrage, therefore, and even a change of legislators, guarantees no change of legislation” Lysander Spooner - "An Essay on the Trial by Jury" 1852

https://substack.com/@lou1235597/note/c-142345968

LW