"UPHOLDING CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW IS NEVER “REBELLION”!
the doctrine of tacit consent. Locke argues that a government can only be legitimate when its citizens have consented to it. In response to the obvious claim that not everyone has consented to the government under which they live, An unenforceable contract or transaction is one that is valid but one the court will not enforce. Unenforceable is usually used in contradiction to void (or void ab initio) and voidable. ... An example of a transaction which is an unenforceable contract is a contract for prostitution under English law. or a law of any country or government that makes slaves of its citizens or wilfully does harm to the lives and rights of the people being governed
Single-minded, unswerving, determined mass peaceful support (satya graha) for Restoration of the Trial by Jury was the method by which Magna Carta was installed. The accomplishment of another such act of Restoration by The Restoration Amendment is required today. Restoration is the way to save populations from the worsening tyranny being perpetrated by criminal administrations. Inscribed in Article Sixty-One, it remains people’s perpetual duty to enforce the common law Constitution.
If government’s adherence to legitimacy wavers, people are obliged to constrain government to respect the rule of law. Distraint, assail and seize are legal but violent means. The Restoration Amendment is more direct and achieves the same ascendant goal peacefully. It does, however, demand unity of purpose and solidarity en masse. When persons in government are participants in criminal contraventions of the Constitution in general, and in particular those embodied indenial of the People’s Courts of the Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System, it is incumbent upon the citizenry at large ro restore Trial by Jury and thus legality to the status quo, for there is no other party to whom the task can be entrusted.
Definitions (recap.): government is comprised of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary; the citizenry, the population of citizens collectively, including military personnel.
Knowledge of the historical circumstances surrounding the inception of Magna Carta and understanding of its subject matter affirm that it cannot be extrapolated from any aspect of the document’s contents that it “permits” rebellion of any type whatsoever. It defies logic, reason and history to suggest that the upholding of the rule of law and Constitution could ever be an act of “rebellion”. On the contrary indeed, the Great Charter recognizes that the population has the ongoing obligation to police their own society; to treat as crimes all infractions of its Articles; and for jurors to vet, judge, make and enforce the laws.
Those who uphold and enforce constitutional common law on wrongdoers are never thought of or described as “rebels” – any more than is the policemen who performs his duty by accosting felons. He is doing his duty: he is not “rebelling”! Consider that, in the absence of police, does the upright citizen stand idly by as a spectator to permit the rape or robbery of a fragile woman or child, if he is able by words or actions to prevent it? Of course not! Then, ask yourself, is that citizen’s dutiful act of policing society to prevent crime, rebellion? No! It is not “rebellion” at all and could never sensibly be called one.
It is the duty of all citizens at all times and in all ways possible to uphold Common Law to preclude tyranny and crime. This common law duty to police society is unsurprisingly inscribed into the Articles of Constitution. Those who perform this duty are naturally, morally and legally authorized to do so.
Magna Carta permits NO acts of “rebellion”. Such acts are proscribed and condemned by the Great Charter. Yet, we notice puerile groups and individuals who claim to support the Constitution calling themselves “lawful rebels”. To adopt this deviation from truth maligns Magna Carta.
It reveals people’s lack of understanding of both their own language and the Great Charter Constitution, the very inspiration of all subsequent legitimate
Constitutions, the Australian, the U.S., etc., that they could even contemplate using that disrespectful, contradictory term “lawful rebellion” as a slogan. It misleads people and totally misrepresents the honourable purpose of our Common Law Constitution. Those who wish to confront the Illegality of the Status Quo already have the moral high ground of our Common Law on their side. It is politicians who are in the wrong. Beware! “Lawful rebellion” is mocking miswording invented by those who work for the illegal regime; see what follows."
An extract from Democracy Defined: The Manifesto by Kenn D’Oudney
