We said at the beginning that a society governs through its law. The ultimate control is through remedy or punishment. If the people are meant to be in authority through the proper democratic constitution, then what mechanisms do they have to make or remove their country's laws that they, themselves agree to abide by? Are the people automatically bound to be subject to any rules that its government creates? Clearly not - as we've already established. So what is this mechanism that allows the people to create this higher jurisdiction of law?
The ultimate mechanism through which the people can write their own laws is through the Common Law Trial by Jury system. Because, in a proper, full, un-abridged Trial by Jury system (that has now been unlawfully removed from the people), the jury have the right and duty to annul bad government statutes. This is the people being sovereign. See p.67 of Democracy Defined: The Manefesto.
So Common Law is actually the consolidation of the judgements of juries (the people), not, as you will generally be told by people in the legal profession, judgements by judges! Importantly, the people's law (Common Law), is based on principle not outcome. You cannot legislate for motive. (p. 37 of Democracy Defined: The Manefesto - guilt depends on intent or motive). Rules and regulation (legislation) only judges the outcome; but the higher Common Law judges motive and principle - according to human conscience. When ordinary people judge their peers, they do so through their conscience: it is therefore a human judgement by people of the community on the fairness of enforcing potential punishment upon the accused. This is, essentially, the manifestation of Natural Law through human consciousness.
Furthermore, it is people of the community judging people of the community. If the accused is found guilty, that guilty verdict will have been delivered by fellow community members - his peers or social equals. That further establishes the Natural Law principle that we are all equal before the [natural] law.
Further still, the jury (in a full trial by jury system) has the right and duty to judge on the nature of the punishment. The government will simply carry out or 'execute' the punishment according to the will of the people. That is the role of the executive branch of government.
Trial by Judge is not an impartial tribunal. The judge is an employee of the state and is a member of the judiciary. There is clearly a conflict of interest for the judge, when, on the one hand being required to decide on the justice of a case whilst, simultaneously, running the risk of defying the wishes of his pay-master, the government, by refusing to maintain and enforce its rules.
The Judge is wrongly named the 'judge'. Under proper constitutional common law Trial by Jury, the judge is merely called the 'Convener'. It is the members of the Jury (the Jurors) that are the Judges - as they are judging on all aspects in a court case - without interference.
Specifically, and most importantly, the members of the jury (through full Trial by Jury) have the power to annul bad government statutes (legislation) by applying the not-guilty verdict, if, according to their conscience they decide that it would be unjust for the accused to receive punishment.
Briefly, without going into too much detail on the proper democratic trial by jury, it is this full un-abridged Trial by Jury system (that has now been illegally removed from us) through which the people have the control over the law and the justice system within their country. This is what causes the people to have sovereignty in a truly democratic society.
Democracy has nothing to do with voting in elections. It is not through the election system that the ordinary people have influence over the functioning of their state. It is specifically through the full system of Trial by Jury (now un-lawfully taken from the people) that the people have control over the fairness and justice of laws of their country. That is the key characteristic of a democratic state. The people retaining their sovereignty, at all times - not just at elections, by having direct control over its law when functioning as jurors. Again, the existence of electoral voting in a country does not define that country as democratic - contrary to what most people (even in government) believe.
In a proper system of Trial by Jury, a guilty verdict must be passed unanimously otherwise the accused is automatically considered not-guilty. The defendant is only guilty if each and every member of the jury considers the accused guilty. Under Common Law, it is of greater importance that a good wo/man is not punished wrongly.
Lastly, the jurors make this decision privately and without having to provide explanation. Why? Because that decision is reached through their own conscience and sense of fairness.
WJK - May 2018