THE HIERARCHY OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE

by

This presents an evidenced reconstruction of the Constitutional Order, establishing that the authority of the State is not inherent to the Sovereign but is derivative of a higher, immutable order. It demonstrates that “Law” is not the command of a ruler, but the codified necessity of human survival—an Ontological Hierarchy rooted in objective reality.

The evidence shows that the English Constitution is a Corrective System. It operates on a feedback loop where Immutable Truths (Reality) drive Independent Adjudication (Common Law), which constrains Statute (Executive Instructions). Crucially, it identifies the Jury as the ultimate arbitrator: the insertion of the “Social Conscience” into the courtroom to nullify any State Action and Judicial Corruption that violates the unwritten customs of the people. This explicitly affirms that the People retain plenary authority even over the Independent Judiciary.

PART I: THE FOUNDATION (THE SOURCE)

To understand lawful governance, we must first strip away theological abstractions to reveal the operational reality. The hierarchy of authority flows downwards from “Time Immemorial” truths, not upwards from political power.

Tier 1: Immutable Truth (Objective Reality)

This is the absolute boundary of power. It consists of the physical, biological, and social laws that govern existence (e.g., gravity, the need for food, the instinct for self-preservation).

  • Definition: “God” or “Divine Law” are human labels for this terrifying absolute. In a secular constitutional analysis, this is Objective Reality.

  • The Constraint: The Legislature cannot legislate against Reality. A statute commanding a man to stop breathing is void not because it is immoral, but because it is impossible.

  • The Dreaming (Tjukurpa) [c. 65,000 BP]. Indigenous law establishes that the Law is embedded in the landscape and survival necessities, pre-dating the State.[1]

Tier 2: Conscience (The Human Sensor)

This is the mechanism by which humans perceive Tier 1. It is the rational calculation of survival, often called “Equity” or “Reason.”

  • The Mechanism: The Golden Rule (Reciprocity). If I permit violence against my neighbor, I authorize violence against myself. Therefore, survival dictates restraint.

  • Laws of Alfred [c. 890 AD]. Alfred codified this not as religious dogma, but as the logical algorithm for peace.[2]

PART II: THE CRYSTALLIZATION OF LAW (THE PROCESS)

Law is not invented; it is discovered. It flows from the “Source” (Truth) to the “Map” (Common Law).

1. From Custom to Common Law

  • Unwritten Custom: Communities develop habits of survival (e.g., sharing water, punishing theft). This is the “Social Order in Common.”

  • Written Common Law: When a dispute arises, independent adjudication observes the custom and records it. Common Law is simply the forensic record of PREVIOUSLY Unwritten Custom. It is the “Map” of the territory, not the territory itself.

2. The Doctrine of Per Incuriam (The Safety Valve)

Because the Written Law is merely a map of the Unwritten Reality, it acts as a check on judicial error.

  • The Definition: A judgment is Per Incuriam (through lack of care) if it is given in ignorance of binding law.

  • The Nuance: In this constitutional hierarchy, a judgment is Per Incuriam not just if it misses a statute, but if it is not with all relevant law, even if that custom is yet to be proven. If a Judge ignores the “Unwritten Truth” (Tier 1) in favor of a flawed precedent, they have failed to adjudicate on the whole law.

3. The Pre-1066 Baseline (The Proof)

The principles of the “Fiduciary State” were fully operational in England before 1066.

  • Mutual Liability: Under the Frankpledge (Laws of Cnut, 1020), every man was surety for his neighbor. Safety was a collective asset.[3]

  • Restitution: Under Wergild (Laws of Aethelberht, 600), justice was an economic transaction to restore value to the victim, not a state punishment.[4]

  • Consent: The King governed only with the consent of the Witan (Council). Power was a conditional loan, not a property right.[5]

PART III: THE 1066 AGREEMENT AND THE PERPETUAL REAFFIRMATION

The constitutional settlement was not created in 1215; it was agreed in 1066, enforced in 1215, and re-locked repeatedly thereafter to suppress the recurring mischief of State actors “forgetting” their limits of authority and power.

1. The 1066 Tenancy Agreement (The Contract)

When William the Conqueror sought legitimacy, he did not claim to erase English Law. Instead, he swore the Coronation Oath to uphold the Laws of Edward the Confessor.

  • The Deal: The Normans were granted the right to administer (Tenancy) on the condition that they respected the existing laws (Leasehold Covenants).

2. The 1215 Reaffirmation (The Receipt)

Magna Carta was not a new contract; it was the Enforcement Notice for the 1066 Agreement.

  • The Proof: The Barons forced King John to acknowledge that he was subject to the “Law of the Land” (Lex Terrae)—the very same law William had sworn to uphold.

  • The Conclusion: 1215 is the “Receipt” proving that the “Actors” (Normans) were forced to accept that the “Tenancy Agreement” (The Constitution) controlled their behaviour.

  • This was renewed many times and Magna Carta 1297 is still current statute law.

3. The 1688 Reminder (The Bill of Rights)

The most significant reiteration occurred in 1688. King James II attempted to use a corrupt judiciary to validate his suspension of laws he disliked (the “Dispensing Power”). The People, via the Jury (Seven Bishops) and Parliament, were forced to issue another “Receipt” to foreclose on this tyranny.

  • The Bill of Rights 1688 explicitly indicts the King for using “evil counsellors, judges, and ministers” to subvert the laws, and declares:

“That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.” [6]

This confirms that the State (Executive/Monarch) cannot use the Courts to bypass the “Tenancy Agreement.”

PART IV: THE OPERATIONAL HIERARCHY (THE MANUAL)

In this restored order, the function of the State is strictly defined.

1. The Constitution (The Principles)

Derived from Immutable Truth, these principles (e.g., Separation of Powers, Due Process) act as “Safety Rails.” They prevent the State from veering into the fatal extremes of Tyranny (Total Order) or Anarchy (Total Liberty).

2. Statute (The Executive Manual)

  • Definition: A Statute is a “How-To Manual” written by Parliament for the Executive. It provides the administrative detail to implement Constitutional principles.

  • The Limit: A Statute is Derivative. It cannot overwrite the Source (Constitution/Truth).

PART V: THE CORRECTIVE MECHANISM (JURY SUPREMACY OVER STATE AND JUDICIARY)

This is the engine of the Constitution. The system relies on the Individual to correct the State, with the Jury acting as the ultimate safeguard against both unlawful State Action and Judicial Corruption.

1. The Trigger: The Individual with Better Knowledge

When the Executive (acting on Statute) brings a claim against an individual, the individual defends themselves by demonstrating that the State Action does not align with Immutable Truth.

  • The Correction: The Individual challenges the specific application of the law, asserting that this specific action is incompatible with reality or justice.

2. The Ultimate Arbitrator: The Jury (The Social Conscience = Jury Equity)

While the Judge manages the procedures of the court, the Jury represents the Unwritten Custom and Social Conscience.

  • The Veto: If the State Action is technically “legal” under Statute but fundamentally unjust or repugnant to the unwritten custom, the Jury has the power to refuse to convict. This is the Nullification of State Action by JURY EQUITY (CONSCIENCE).

3. The Check on Judicial Corruption

The forensic record confirms that the Jury is not merely a tool of the Court, but a check against the Court.

  • Bushel’s Case (1670): When the Trial Judge attempted to starve a jury into convicting William Penn (for preaching), the Jurors refused. The Court ruled that Jurors cannot be punished for their verdict. This established that the Conscience of the Jury is superior to the Direction of the Judge; they cannot be penalized for speaking their “Truth.”[7]

  • The Seven Bishops Case (1688): When the King appointed corrupt Judges to convict Bishops for petitioning the Crown, the Jury acquitted them in open defiance of the Bench. This verdict triggered the Glorious Revolution. It affirmed that the People possess Plenary Authority even over the Independent Judiciary. When the Judges are corrupt or the Law is tyrannical, the Jury has the final right to declare “Not Guilty.”[8]

4. The Correction: The Parliamentary Mandate

This functional deadlock—created by the Jury’s refusal to validate State or Judicial corruption—forces Parliament to correct the Statute or the Executive practice. To restore the administration of justice, the Legislators must amend their “Manual” to ensure future State Actions align with the Verdict of the People (Jury) and the Order of Truth.

CONCLUSION

The “English Constitution” is not a static list of rights. It is a dynamic, biological algorithm for survival.

The Cycle of Governance:

  1. Immutable Truth dictates the parameters of survival.

  2. The Individual detects when State Action violates these parameters.

  3. The Jury (Social Conscience) vetoes the State Action or Judicial Corruption.

  4. The Judiciary confirms the unenforceability (driven by the verdict).

  5. The Legislature corrects the instructions (Statute).

  6. The Executive resumes operation within the bounds of Truth.

Thus, the ultimate guardian of the Constitution is not the King, nor the Judge, nor the MP, but the Enlightened Individual and their Peers who refuse to consent to unlawful State Action.

Footnotes:

[1] Australian Law Reform Commission, Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws (ALRC Report 31, 1986) para 99.

[2] F.L. Attenborough, The Laws of the Earliest English Kings (Cambridge University Press 1922) 62-63 (Laws of Alfred, Intro, c. 49.6).

[3] A.J. Robertson, The Laws of the Kings of England from Edmund to Henry I (Cambridge University Press 1925) 175 (II Cnut 20).

[4] F.L. Attenborough, The Laws of the Earliest English Kings (Cambridge University Press 1922) 13 (Laws of Aethelberht, c. 57).

[5] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (G.N. Garmonsway tr, JM Dent & Sons 1953) Entry for 757 AD.

[6] Bill of Rights 1688 (1 Will & Mar Sess 2 c 2), Section 1.

[7] Bushel’s Case (1670) 124 ER 1006.

[8] Trial of the Seven Bishops (1688) 12 St Tr 183.

Leave a comment