: On the Meaning of the Word DEMOCRACY; and PLATO’S REPUBLIC.
The Home Page of The Democracy Defined Campaign
for RESTORATION and UNIVERSAL ADOPTION of
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW TRIAL BY JURY.
THE DEMOCRACY DEFINED INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL CAMPAIGN.
VERITAS, COGNITIO, IUSTITIA, LIBERTAS.
Media and General Enquiries: email@example.com
Kenn d’Oudney, Mrs. Joanna d’Oudney & Astra d’Oudney. CEO/Directors.
(Standard English Spelling)
ACTIVIST MEMBERS from all walks of life in
FRANCE, FIJI, NEPAL, SRI LANKA, AUSTRALIA,
CANADA, EIRE, INDIA, GERMANY, ULSTER, SOUTH AFRICA,
JORDAN, PAKISTAN, THE UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND.
THE CAMPAIGN PHILOSOPHY
is spread worldwide by its Members.
The Democracy Defined Campaign Philosophy is endorsed by academics, attorneys,
doctors (of jurisprudence, medicine, homeopathy, philosophy, etc.) and judges (U.S. & U.K.).
Remember, it matters not how many times an erroneous statement is repeated, nor the apparent eminence of the people who make the error, it requires to be corrected lest it leads people into a belief in pernicious untruth.
I. On the Meaning of the Word
IS YOUR COUNTRY A DEMOCRACY OR
IS YOUR GOVERNMENT A DESPOTISM ?
Suffrage does not define nor does it produce democracy, for electoral voting takes place in totalitarian, fascist, communist, and National Socialist (NAZI), i.e., anti-democratic, states. Having been elected, there is nothing to stop government from imposing control of an upper house, reneging on pledges, nor from adopting any tyrannical measures it chooses.
Viz. The word ‘democracy’ is widely abused and ‘defined’ incorrectly:
Democracy is a state of society realised neither by referenda (mass voting for new laws), nor by suffrage (electoral voting for representatives), nor by the representatives’ majorities’ legislatorial voting. Electoral voting, majority rule and ‘consensus politics’ neither create nor define democracy.
To preclude arbitrary (i.e., tyrannical; illegal) government and establish liberty and equal justice for all, the Hellenes created the society in which the common people have the power in Trial by Jury to judge the laws and overrule laws and measures enacted by the national assembly. The word the Hellenes gave to describe this state of society in which the citizens have control through the Trial by Jury to judge, make and enforce the laws and overrule the government, the wealthy and powerful, the aristocrats and all the people who sought to rule them, was demokratia, which translates into English as Democracy.
Democracy is founded on the Trial by Jury, derived from the Hellenic Athenian Constitution of government by Trial by Jury. Through its etymology, history and signification, the word democracy designates the constitutional justice system. Modern Constitutional Democracy is based on the sovereignty of the individual citizen-juror as the final arbiter of law and protection of the people from tyranny.
The Hellenic Athenian Constitution of government by Trial by Jury was a conspicuous achievement in human history for constitutionally establishing this unique mode of justice. The aristocrat Cleisthenes it is who must be credited with the creation of mankind’s first democracy in 508/7 B.C.E. (although ‘infant’ in form, as it did not yet give equality to women and permitted slavery). He brought acknowledgement to the need to spread empowerment throughout society to promote equal justice, liberty, peace and prosperity, and devolved power all the way down to the poorest (male) citizens, the thetes, by recognising rights, exousia.
Exousia rights included the right to attend, debate and vote in the national assembly on laws and measures (referenda); the right of the accused to a Trial by Jury; and, crucially, the empowerment of citizens by bestowing on them judicial authority as Jurors in Trial by Jury in which laws and measures passed by legislatorial majorities in the assembly could be judged, overruled and annulled * whenever this was deemed by the Jurors necessary to serve justice, liberty, and the interests of the people.
*See Works, vol. 2; by co-author of the U.S. Constitution, Justice James Wilson.
Democracy created the illustrious Athens which successfully resisted the Persian invasions of 490 and 480/79 at the battles of Marathon and Salamis; that built the Parthenon; set enduring standards in art and architecture; developed sciences including those of medicine, mathematics and astronomy; that proffered a stage to Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes; and laid the foundations of Western rational and critical thought. Hellenic Greece of the Constitution of government by Trial by Jury received from the Athenians the defining epithet, Democracy.
The historical facts about Democracy in Hellenic Greece and everywhere else, are that it was a virile system and devotedly supported by the mass of just, civilised, peace and freedom-loving people. Democratic free Athens eventually only succumbed because of the mighty invasion of the Macedonian, Alexander the Great (conqueror), who emplaced his generals as autocrats to rule by might over right, with force against democracy’s egalitarian system of equal justice and civic liberty. Otherwise, the Hellenic Culture would almost certainly have evolved into the development of equal rights for women, emancipated the slaves and outlawed slavery 2,000 years ago. Alexander’s far-flung martial exploits set back the socio-political development of mankind.
Naturally, people have the moral responsibility, the right and the duty to resist and suppress injustice wherever it occurs, and by whomsoever it is perpetrated, governments notwithstanding. By definition and in practice, Democracy requires that the People at all times retain the Supreme Power to annul injustices and the bad laws made by fallible politicians.
This Power is uniquely embodied in the Citizen-Juror’s Duty in Trial by Jury: to judge the justice of every act of law enforcement, and to render the Not Guilty Verdict whenever conviction or punishment of the accused would be unfair, according to the juror’s conscience.
In legem terræ* common law (constitutionally inscribed into Magna Carta in 1215), it is the jurors’ duty in the Trial by Jury Justice System to judge the justice of the law and every act of enforcement and acquit any persons accused under an arbitrary, unjust or apocryphal statute, regulation or prosecution. Trial by Jury is the central tenet and sole justice system of the People’s legem terræ common law which is superior to statutes or regulations made by national or local governments and the rulings of judges.
- terræ is pronounced terry, the ‘æ’ as in Cæsar, seize.
Consider Harlan F. Stone, U.S. Chief Justice 1941-1946, on the Juror’s Duty in the authentic Trial by Jury, as follows:
“If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant’s natural God-given unalienable or Constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law.
“That juror must vote Not Guilty regardless of the pressures or abuses that may be heaped on him by any or all members of the jury with whom he may in good conscience disagree. He is voting on the justice of the law according to his own conscience and convictions and not someone else’s. The law itself is on trial quite as much as the case which is to be decided.”
U.S. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone; Harvard Law Review.
Hellenic Greek, Demokratia, Democracy.
demos, the people; kratos, sovereignty*, power; kratein, to rule.
*Perseus Digital Library, Tufts University. See Democracy Defined Essay EIS#10, “We the People and the Matter of Words,” downloadable for free from the Democracy Defined Campaign Material webpage.
Chambers Dictionary, etymology, demos, the people; kratein, to rule;
MSN Encarta. Democracy, demos, the people; kratein, to rule;
From the etymology comes the definition: Democracy, the form of government in which the Sovereign Supreme Power is vested in the Common People; the emancipation and ethos of society produced by the power of Juries of ordinary citizens in Trial by Jury, to vet, make, decide and enforce the law; the people rule.
In order to understand the meaning of the word, it is essential to know first that democracy embodies the people’s responsible control over government and law through the Trial by Jury. The people control the government, not the other way around. The people rule. This is democracy.
The power, right and duty of Jurors to decide the verdict according to their convictions and conscience has been established in common law since time immemorial, at least since the pre-historical incipience of judicium parium, “The Judgement of Equals” — the Trial by Jury Justice System. This is because it is a definitive part of the Juror’s Duty to uphold Justice by protecting the ordinary people, the meek and innocent, from the crimes of lawlessness and injustice inflicted by those in positions of power. This protection against crime is a fundamental purpose of Trial by Jury, which is put into effect by the Juror pronouncing the Not Guilty Verdict to annul the enforcement of cruel or unjust laws, bad governance, the prejudices, corruption or incompetence of judges; and likewise by the cost-free private prosecutions (see below) by ordinary citizens in Trial by Jury of malefactors including those who acquire positions in government and abuse their power.
Later, England’s King Alfred, 871 – 899, upheld the established right and duty of jurors to find the verdict according to their judgement; see: The Illegal “Selection” of Jurors, Campaign Philosophy webpage Three.
THE ETERNAL CRITERION OF JUSTICE.
All societies govern by their Justice System. The power to punish carries with it ALL power. It remains a universal eternal criterion of justice that the validity and justice of laws and all acts of their enforcement require to be judged not by those who make and enforce the laws (government), but by those who voluntarily agree to abide by the laws (all the adult citizens).
All who do not uphold this tenet are then promoting unlawful rule by a tyrannical élite. Unwittingly, or for self-advantage, they serve despots, abet tyranny, and are the criminal enemies of freedom and equal justice.
Because the fairness and justice of the laws and all acts of law enforcement require to be judged by those who agree to abide by the laws, according to natural law, common law, constitutional law, and the paramount requirement for Equal Justice, the Common Law Trial by Jury of ordinary adult citizens in which the jurors judge the justice of the law and each act of enforcement, is the only justice system which is legal and just everywhere, for all process of law, civil, criminal and fiscal.
That is why Common Law Trial by Jury is installed by all legitimate constitutions as the sole justice system for all crimes (unimpeachable), civil, criminal and fiscal.
On the aforesaid grounds, there is NO legal enforcement of ANY law but by the Trial by Jury. It is uniquely in the nature of Trial by Jury that juries fulfil the function and purpose of law in a democratic society. These are to maintain Justice by protecting the citizen from injustice and crime of all kinds, whether perpetrated by the state or by other citizens; and to uphold the rights, freedom and legitimate interests of all.
The Juror is sovereign in Trial by Jury. Trial by Jury defines democracy, sine qua non. Within a Hellenic or modern democracy…
The Jury Comprises the Supreme Legislature and Judicature.
THIS CASE RULING EXEMPLIFIES DEMOCRACY AT WORK:
“If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognise the undisputed power of the jury to acquit even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence.”
“If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.”
United States v. Moylan; U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F. 2d 1002.
Neither in the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, nor in all of Continental Europe and elsewhere, have legislatures ever been invested by the People with authority to impair the powers, to change the oaths, or abridge the jurisdiction of jurors to govern government; nor to remove the universal Right of the accused to the Trial by Jury of peers for any charge or offence whatever, however serious or trivial.
Today, U.S. v Moylan is not exemplified by the modus operandi of courts. Democracy has been overturned by miscreant politicians and judiciary.
THE EDUCATIONAL CAMPAIGN.
The members of the legal profession who are Members of the Democracy Defined Restoration Campaign have learnt from this educational campaign and point out that the universally applicable legem terræ common law and the proper workings of its Trial by Jury Justice System have not been taught at law schools for a generation or more. The situation in regard to Equal Justice is still more degenerate in France, Germany and Continental Europe (EU).
Yet, the Common Law Trial by Jury is indispensable (and installed within Constitutions) not only to protect the people from common crimes by ascertaining guilt or innocence of the accused and where necessary apportioning retribution, but also, of transcendent importance, it is explicitly and precisely emplaced as a barrier to protect the vast mass of innocent citizenry from the crimes of arbitrary government, i.e., unjust laws, tyranny; and from the corruption, prejudices and incompetence of fallible judges. This is achieved by jurors judging on the justice of the law, and, by pronouncing the Not Guilty Verdict, annulling any law or act of enforcement which is deemed unfair or unjust to the accused, according to the juror’s conscience (i.e., sense of right and wrong).
The authentic Constitutional legem terræ Common Law Trial by Jury operates either
(i) as a means of cost-free* private civil, criminal or fiscal prosecution to establish rights and punish or obtain redress for wrongs, including those committed by persons in government, or
(ii) as a right by which to establish a person’s innocence (lack of guilt or liability) in defence from all and any fines, summary punishments, accusation or prosecution.
*According to common law, cost-free prosecutions can be brought by private citizens to a Trial by Jury. Trial by Jury is not the ‘preserve’ of the government prosecution service and the legal profession. (However, vexatious and malicious litigation which wastes the court’s, i.e., the jury’s, time can be decided upon and fined by juries.)
Since its earliest inception in the mists of pre-historical antiquity, legem terræ common law Trial by Jury has remained the civilised method of combating crime: both common crime, and high crimes committed by, or in the name of, government (that is, tyranny). Trial by Jury is the sole (peaceful) means known to mankind by which those who acquire and abuse power or government can be held responsible and brought to account.
The consummation of the purpose of Trial by Jury (described above) constitutes a reason explaining why judges and politicians are active in denying and destroying Constitutional Trial by Jury: the criminally corrupt reveal themselves as such by their very antithesis to Trial by Jury.
If a citizen is unable to obtain Trial by Jury for either of the aforesaid purposes (i) and (ii), that fact establishes the Illegality of the Status Quo. It then becomes the principal duty of every adult to restore legality to society by campaigning for Restoration and Universal Adoption of Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury.
The genuine Trial by Jury prescribed and defined by legem terræ common law enables all sane adults to judge authoritatively what their laws and liberties are (by straightforward means explained below), so that the people retain all the liberties which they wish to enjoy. For these reasons, it is essential to know exactly how the common law provides mankind’s model justice system by which equal justice before the law is furnished to all citizens.
AN IRREVOCABLE PRINCIPLE RECOGNISED
BY COMMON LAW IN REGARD TO ‘JUDGES’.
It is an irrevocable principle of the traditional (pan-) European, Irish, German, French, Spanish, Italian, the British, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and the American People’s Common Law governing jurisprudence, and of Magna Carta (Article 53 of John’s Charter and 17 of Henry’s), that Trial shall be by Jury and that at Trial by Jury no judge or other officer appointed by government shall preside in criminal cases or lawsuits in which the government is also an interested party (called pleas of the crown in the U.K.). In such cases, without the observance of this prohibition there can be neither Trial by Jury, nor legal trial of any type.
For the best of reasons, at common law the convenors (who are now incorrectly named ‘judges’ or ‘justices’) have NO judical function and are chosen by the people; i.e., elected.
The reasons for this are simple and pure: regarding convening officers (‘judges’) at trials, impartiality and integrity cannot be obtained (nor realistically even expected) from people who enforce the laws who are selected by those who also make and maintain the laws. At the common “law of the land,” whether in civil or criminal cases, all officers who convene trials are chosen (elected) by the people. At common law, all convenors (justices; judges) are themselves subject to common law and are answerable to the common law tribunals of the people (i.e., Trial by Jury), not protected by élite privilege nor impeachable by government and legislature.
See Book 4 of Blackstone’s Analysis of the Laws of England, p. 413; and Introduction to Gilbert’s History of the Common Pleas, p. 2, note, & p. 4; etc.
Trial by Jury is so-named, for in democratic societies the trial of a citizen is by fellow citizens who comprise the Jury. Trial is not ‘trial-by-government’ which could never be fair where government is also one of the contesting parties. Judges themselves comprise a branch of government, and, they are in the pay of government. Police, prison service and above all, prosecutors and judges are employed to enforce governments’ laws. Such personnel should never be asked, nor relied on, to decide impartially whether laws are just, for they must fulfil their task or face the fury of the government, their employer.
For these reasons given, government and judiciary are incompetent to require the conviction or punishment of any person for any offence whatever.
Q. “When is a judge not a judge?”
A. “When the ‘judge’ is not a member of the jury.”
Until the Latin-derived word ‘juror’ was adopted, jurors were actually called the judges, in recognition of their rôle. “…the judges, for so the jury were called…” See p. 55 of Crabbe’s History of the English Law, etc. In Trial by Jury, the Foreman or woman of the jury is the principal presiding officer.
In Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury, all adult citizens qualify for jury service (save the aged, the sick, convicts and lunatics). Common law requires Jurors to be indiscriminately chosen by lot or chance, so as to represent all views in society and protect minorities (see webpage sections on Jury Selection and Illegal ‘Jury Packing’ by the government).
CONSTITUTIONAL TRIAL BY JURY:
THE JUROR’S DUTIES.
Wherever Trial by Jury takes place, be it in the U.S., the U.K., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and numerous other countries, it is DEFINITIVE of Trial by Jury that, after swearing to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent, in finding their Verdict,
The Jurors Judge:
~on the justice of the law, and annul, by pronouncing the Not Guilty Verdict, any law or act of enforcement which is deemed unfair or unjust according to the juror’s conscience (i.e., sense of right and wrong);
~in addition to the facts, and
~on the admissibility of evidence (evidence not being pre-selected or screened-out by government or judge and/or prosecutor).
Jurors Must Judge:
~that the accused acted with malice aforethought, i.e., mens rea, a premeditated malicious motive to find guilt (‘guilt’ is a characteristic inherent or absent in motives and actions: it cannot be ascribed by legislation*);
~on the nature and gravity of the alleged offence; and where guilt is unanimously found,
~on mitigating circumstances if any (provocation; temptation; incitation); and
~set the sentence (with regard to its being fit and just).
- There is no moral justice nor political necessity (i.e., deterrent value) for punishing where there was no mens rea. (In the case of one person injuring another innocently or accidentally, the civil law suit and the Trial by Jury award appropriate compensation for damages.)
For jurors not to do the above, or for someone other than the jurors to make any such decisions, is another process: call it “trial-by-someone-else” if you will, or “trial-by-the-judge with a ‘jury’ watching” ― but this travesty cannot be defined as Trial BY JURY.
THE ILLEGALITY OF THE STATUS QUO.
Anyone acquainted with the process of law in the United States, Britain, Australia and elsewhere today, will see how far removed the practices of courts are from the ideals and legally binding stipulations of those nations’ Constitutions. Today, every single one of the above requirements definitive of Trial by Jury (including judging on the facts of the case) is illegally forbidden, interfered with and/or obstructed by the ‘judges’.
THE CRITERIA FOR MEASURING THE LEGITIMACY OF GOVERNMENTS.
Legem terræ common law is indispensable to the maintenance of civil peace, the well-being of all the population, and to the unalienable right of humans to unmolested tranquillity of existence, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness. Hence, it is of supreme importance that, for their own benefit, every sane teen and adult comes to understand the common law and, without compromise, support and ceaselessly campaign for the Restoration of its supremacy.
Common Law is the timeless supreme universal legal and moral code which ‘exists’ independently over statute law. Whether governments acknowledge and submit to legem terræ common law are the criteria for measuring their legitimacy.
Words (must) have distinct significations and we have no choice but to respect the etymology if we intend to communicate meaningfully with each other.
When the word democracy is properly understood, the contradictions-in-terms (meaningless distortions of language) become self-evident if adjectives such as “direct” or “representative” precede the word. These latter seek to confound, undermine and pervert the real meaning of democracy because, again, they incorrectly allude to statute law derived from government-by-majorities, including referenda and voting in assemblies.
These vacuous terms deliberately obscure the vital semantical point: democracy is founded on the Common Law Trial by Jury, the justice system in which the citizen-juror is sovereign, has all judicial authority, and jurors have the duty to annul enforcement of bad laws, tyranny and acts of injustice.
What goes on in referenda and the national assemblies has nothing whatsoever to do with Trial by Jury, and this latter is the basis of democracy through which the people rule, and hold in their own keeping all the rights and liberties which they wish to enjoy.
Indeed, through the Trial by Jury, democracy is the very system which precludes ochlocracy, i.e., direct rule by mobs, whether of brutish, self-interested minorities or majorities. Democracy protects minorities from wilful majorities prevailing over them. Likewise, democracy does not allow the idea that “rule” by a minority can ever be ‘legitimate’.
In both cases, majority or minority rule, regardless of the actual percentages, what is described is one segment of the population, an élite, “ruling” over the rest, a ruled, suppressed underclass. Those scenarios both describe an oligarchical governance which, by its nature, must trend towards partiality and injustice. That is the reality which besets the people of the World today, and this is precisely the situation which democracy was brought into being to preclude.
SOME ANTIDEMOCRATIC PITFALLS OF VOTING:
Referendum and Congress.
The Athenians knew all about the virtues of people’s voluntary involvement, en masse. Such activity is conducive to harmony and unity, but realistically-speaking, it is only healthy within that society wherein the common people have the power in Trial by Jury to comprise the Supreme Legislature and annul injustices which may be imposed. That is to say, it is only in Trial by Jury that the constitutional basis of authority resides in democracy, Hellenic, and everywhere else in place and time.
Democracy does not operate on ‘popularity’ or power of the majority, by referenda or in congress. Quite the opposite, democracy prevails on behalf of minorities and even of individuals, in establishing equal justice for ALL the people, demos, the people; not for only some.
Moreover, it is far from correct to conceive of ‘democracy’ as only a society of “a small number of citizens who assemble and administer the government in person,” for neither in Hellenic Greece nor in any other democracy is the assembly the supreme judge and final arbiter of law: that is the exclusive domain of the JURY.
Certainly, latterday technology can bring the referendum technique to virtually all the population. However, this was NOT the activity by which demokratia, democracy, was achieved, secured and defined in Athens or anywhere else. Far from it.
Explained by its etymology, history and signification, democracy can be paraphrased as “rule by the people through the Trial by Jury Justice System.” Yet, by contrast, when the referendum is binding on the society, then the referendum “rules;” the results become statute law; and those who resist or fall foul of the measure are scourged under the full force of the criminal ‘justice’ system. Those who understand the meaning of the word democracy, see how in every case these dismal facts apply. The binding referendum not only breaches the terms by which democracy is defined, it is in dire CONFLICT with all the adherents of the democratic system. Hence, government-by-referendum cannot be ‘democracy’ by direct means.
MEANING AND FUNCTION.
A ‘referendum’ is not a system for establishing justice; whereas democracy is the very embodiment of a system of the people’s, for the people, which is fully preoccupied with ensuring liberty and equal justice for all.
The results of government-by-referendum within a state bereft of Trial by Jury can yield up the worst imaginable injustices of which our species is capable. For example, the extreme ballot-box popularity of the National Socialist (NAZI) Party through the ’Thirties had the effect of ‘referenda’ or plebiscite, from which the Party claimed a ‘mandate’ for their barbaric acts of tyranny.
In the lead-up to a referendum, and indeed within the assembly, people can be charmed, cajoled, or terrified into voting for a given measure. Majorities can overwhelmingly endorse a party’s program, albeit one of lethal race laws; or of complicity in promoting an agenda biased in favour of particular elements of society against the legitimate interests of others; or the imposition of grotesque rule by the fanatics of a particular religion (to exemplify but three of the countless illegitimate antidemocratic ‘laws’ under which humanity constantly suffers).
Today, constitutional democracy is mankind’s model society which installs legem terræ, the common law of the land of which the central tenet and sole justice system is the Trial by Jury prescribed and defined by Magna Carta, “judicium parium,” the judgement of equals explicitly emplaced as the mechanism for protecting the population from all tyrannical inclinations of government maladministration.
Democracy thereby bestows Equal Justice on behalf of all the people; empowers ordinary people peacefully to maintain their rights and liberties for themselves; and removes from majorities, minorities, judges and politicians any power to forestall the democratic society, whether in a republic or a constitutional monarchy.
In real Trial by Jury, the validity, worth, justice and legality of a law may be challenged. A law’s effects, dangers, a possible venal character, and even the potential mens rea (malicious motives) behind the referendum or the assemblies’ lawmakers themselves, may be exposed.
When such circumstances are pertinent to the defence of those who break, resist or refuse to submit to the law, then, alerting jurors to their duty to annul bad laws and unjust prosecutions, counsel and defendant induce the jury to dispassionate deliberations on the evidence, facts, moral intentions, the purpose and fairness of the law, and of its enforcement.
Further protection is afforded by Trial by Jury against factions, the tyrant and demagogue by common law processes, such as the care with which all views amongst the population are reflected within juries, by random selection of jurors.
The referendum on the other hand, when installed as the means of rule, of governing, in which majorities have power to please themselves at the expense of minorities, is a horror which strikes fear and fury within the breast of every sane adult and true democrat [not party-political].
Government-by-referendum is as atrocious as government-by-majorities in the legislature, whenever these functions are unrestrained because of an absence of Constitutional Trial by Jury.
FOR EXAMPLE !
For example, the Spaniards have lost all memory of democracy and their former Gothic heritage of Common Law Trial by Jury. They were deceived by their unscrupulous politicians who praised the numerous social benefits listed in the so-called European Constitution, without sufficiently alerting them to the fact that all the terms of the ‘constitution’ are not guaranteed; they do not control and bind the governing bodies in the slightest. Some ‘constitution’!
On the contrary, the terms are actually changeable at any time at the whim of the unelected commissioners (commissars) of the Supreme Soviet (council) System: citizens are utterly at the mercy of the inquisitorial methods of trial-by-judge, which denies habeas corpus (freedom from arbitrary detention); freedom from arbitrary arrest (without probable cause); and Trial by Jury.
Ipso facto, the ‘European Treaty-Constitution’* is NOT a constitution; it is literally a charter of mass enslavement to the power of, or behind, the state.
*Definition-in-brief: a constitution is a binding code for the guidance and control of government, changeable only by the active participation of the great mass of the people.
The Spanish decision overruled a significant proportion of the population, which, when added to the large number who did not vote (to adopt it), was the real majority. Thus was the execrable result of government-by-referendum.
Democracy, the constitution of government by Trial by Jury, was itself the Athenians’ constitutional means of superseding and curtailing a state of government-by-referendum, from the voting in the assembly in which all could take part. Hence, it is seen that applying to democracy the adjective ‘direct’ in the context of referenda, is a linguistic mutilation. The attachment results, not in a meaningful nomenclature, but in a hideous self-contradictory misnomer. Instead of a useful term being coined, it represents reductio ad absurdam.
The crass, self-destructive and/or ulterior schemes of man are legion. By the juxtapositioning of words, fallacious ‘terminology’ is fabricated which destroys the meaning and marvel that is democracy.
All these vacuous terms following deliberately obscure the vital semantical point: democracy is founded on the Common Law Trial by Jury, the justice system in which the citizen-juror is sovereign, has all judicial authority, and jurors have the duty to annul enforcement of bad laws, tyranny and acts of injustice. (This list does not presume to be comprehensive.) Beware the following:
‘anticipatory’; ‘Christian’; ‘consensus’; ‘deliberative’; ‘direct’; ‘grassroots’; ‘illiberal’; ‘Islamic’; ‘liberal’; ‘Messianic’; ‘non-partisan’; ‘participatory’; ‘religious’; ‘representative’; ‘republican’; ‘social’; ‘Soviet’; and the ultimate in ludicrousness: ‘totalitarian’ democracy !
The nonsensical idea of ‘adding an adjective’ forms an expression of linguistic confusion which has been ‘cooked-up’ by a person or persons wholly unaware of (or intentionally to conceal) the definitive aspect of Trial by Jury as forming the foundation of democracy.
The Hellenic democratic ideal is transcribed directly into the Constitution of the United States, as follows:
“We the People, demos, the people, of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Article III. Section 2. “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury.”
It is not necessary for the word ‘democracy’ to appear in the wording of a constitution or declaration for the state of democracy to be created, because, whereas neither Magna Carta nor the U.S. Constitution insert this word, in the U.S. Constitution, demos is stipulated in the English words, We the people, accompanied by constitutional installation of democracy’s definitive attribute, the Trial by Jury through which the people have overall rule; and Magna Carta is written in Latin, prescribing the details of rule by the people through legem terræ, i.e., the Law of the Land and its central tenet, “judicium parium,” the judgement of social-equals, pares or peers: the Trial by Jury.
Ref. EIS#11, “An Essay on Specific Aspects of Magna Carta, the Great Charter Constitution,” freely downloadable from the Democracy Defined Campaign Material webpage. See how Magna Carta emplaces the judgement of peers Trial by Jury, thus following the form of the pan-European People’s true Constitution.
Demokratia, an ordered democratic society, is extant wherever common law Trial by Jury functions, regardless of whether in a republic, a constitutional monarchy or within a small society bereft of formal government.
N.B. republic, THE DEFINITION.
Definition, republic: a form of government without a monarch.
Etymological derivation, Latin. res, affair; publica, public; respublica, commonwealth.
Every type of government could be found in a republic, apart from the fact that the head of state is not a monarch. There are numerous republics: democratic; theocratic (‘religious’); military; fascist; authoritarian; totalitarian; communist/ socialist; and so on. They all have constitutions and all are constitutional republics.
As for the U.S. Constitution, Article 4; Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government [as distinguished from a MONARCHY], and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”
There is nothing intrinsically benignant about republics: they come in all shapes. The blood-soaked post French Revolution mob-rule was a republic, like that of the Russian Bolsheviks. They were ochlocracies (rule by the mob), along with governments of the sanguine communist Chinese and the deluded adherents to the violent primitive ‘religious’ theocracies. Yet, these are all constitutional republics.
ENEMIES OF EQUAL JUSTICE AND LIBERTY.
Democracy, which establishes responsible freedom of the people, always has enemies amongst power-hungry oligarchs, would-be tyrants and their abject servitors (from Socrates and Plato to banker Hamilton, religious fundamentalist Ames, et al); and there are others whose misuse of the word demonstrates that they simply did not (and today do not) know its meaning. Generations have been confused and deluded by the premeditated or unwitting incorrectitudes of Fisher Ames, Webster, Franklin, Hamilton and others…
Plutocrats and those who sow disinformation for them remain the foes of democracy — because democracy emasculates tyrants and emancipates the population.
Despots do not want you to know the real meaning of democracy — for fear you might reclaim it for the people of the world.
Note that law ‘dictionaries’ express perverted meanings intentionally imposed by politically-motivated legislation. They reflect the will of our oligarchical rulers, not the truths of history and the sciences of etymology, philology, and semantics. The misinformation which they and other modern ‘law’ books impart exemplifies propaganda which controls the mind of the credulous simpleton.
See Essay EIS#21, “THE VALUE OR OTHERWISE OF LAW DICTIONARIES,” freely downloadable from the Democracy Defined Campaign Material webpage.
The behind-the-scenes money masters, autocratic ‘rulers’ of the West, have now all but ‘ruled out’ Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury, Habeas Corpus, and freedom from arbitrary arrest (i.e., without probable cause), thereby precipitating nations into definition as tyrannies as opposed to democracies. The Founders of the U.S. and the authors and instigators of Magna Carta who risked all to gain freedom and installed Trial by Jury as a barrier to protect the people from common and government crimes, would have the greatest disdain for this generation for allowing these malignant events to come to pass.
The ongoing demolition by enemies-within of the democracies of the West is hardly surprising though, for as long as Westerners allow themselves to be miseducated as to the meaning of such important words as democracy and republic; and they are so completely flummoxed by the disinformation promulgated by the servitors of the wealthy oligarchs that it leads them even to disparage democracy ! Yet, democracy with its definitive attribute of Trial by Jury, is the singular proven means of their secular salvation by which equal justice and the lives, rights, liberty, and property of ALL the people are peacefully secured.
For pay, authors of the statist bias and unconscionable lexicographers and journalists collaborate to write lies and equivocation for their employers’ interests which are completely at odds with those of the people at large. They shred the truth and with abuse of words try to appear cynical and clever. With deliberate distortions of our language, they mock the ordinary people and spread disunity at a time when we all require to be sure in our beliefs.
As Founders of the Democratic-Republican Party, Madison or Jefferson would hardly be likely to call democracy ‘vile’ or ‘mob rule’, as claimed on websites ! Nowhere in Madison’s copious writings does the word ‘vile’ even appear. Wake up, People! The obvious example of the dupe or a servitor of tyrants is the person who maligns democracy as “two wolves, and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.” These are facile fictions, libels and calumnies adopted or made up by the likes of Henry Louis Mencken, Rose Wilder Lane and Devvy Kidd to delude people and lead them astray…
It is not credible (unless they are being deliberately untruthful), that people who talk of the wolves and sheep could have researched the history, etymology and signification of the word democracy: demos-kratein, demokratia: the people rule through Trial by Jury.
MAY EVERY CITIZEN OF THE WORLD BEWARE !
“If a juror or any citizen accepts as the law that which the judge states, then that juror or citizen has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that was once the citizen’s safeguard of liberty.”
Statement attributed by Bancroft in History of the U.S. Constitution, to Judge Theophilus Parsons at the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention.
“The saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while there was time.”
Complacent, insouciant, ignorant servile populations of Westerners, e.g. Americans, British, Germans, French, Italians, Spanish and other Europeans, New Zealanders, Canadians and Australians, have allowed antidemocratic politicians to strip them of their legal protections which are universal, inherent and inalienable: the Juror’s Rights and Duty and the Trial by Jury Justice System. People have permitted institutionalisation of despotic attitudes. Oppression has taken root and become widespread even in the former great bastions of democracy.
Trial-by-judge is the system which denies the common law Trial by Jury. Trial-by-judge is the National Socialist (NAZI), Stalinist, Soviet, fascist and communist system of judicial oppression, by which primitive tyranny thrives; massive injustices are routinely enforced on innocent people; and citizens are intentionally put into permanent fear and servitude.
II. DEMOCRACY versus OLIGARCH ÉLITISTS:
PLATO AND SOCRATES.
The historical facts about Democracy in Hellenic Greece and everywhere else, are that it was a virile system and devotedly supported by the mass of just, civilised, peace and freedom-loving people.
The democratic state based on the Constitution of government by the Trial by Jury, survived two attempts to overthrow it by wealthy aristocrats and oligarchs with their mercenaries and slaves. The wealthiest sought total power. These bloody coups were efforts at imposing an authoritarian state which immediately targeted for suppression the citizens’ rights in Trial by Jury, by which ordinary people were able to judge and annul any unjust laws and reject the enforcement of injustices.
Notably, one of these ultimately failing coups which nevertheless resulted in much bloodshed and loss of innocent life, was inspired by the maleficent élitist Socrates.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, it seems you are not aware of the meaning behind and the intentions of Plato’s words. Personally, I would not quote Plato unless to expose his villainy. You may consider the following.
Adopted as the official doctrine of Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich National Socialist (NAZI) Party, Plato’s book, The Republic, expressed Socrates’ ambitions in the “Socratic Dialogues.” Plato eulogises the ideal, prototypical ‘fascist’ state.
Note that Hitler came to power in a constitutional republic (Weimar).
Plato, who was the student and lifelong devotee of Socrates, adopted and promulgated Socrates’ ideas. Socrates himself wrote nothing down.
Generally when we talk about the treatment of citizens within a population, we use the word ‘just’ to mean ‘fair’. A preliminary observation here is that there are some people who call a society ‘just’ when it is organised (in theory or practice) in a way that agrees with their views, and real fairness does not enter the equation.
Let us judge the character of that type of person who advocates a form of society which, according to them is ‘just’, even though it is ordered to the advantage of only a small minority (which, of course, includes themselves).
Plato and Socrates envisioned a state wherein it was solely the interests of the ruling class which identified the direction of the state. The rulers (the government) were not elected by the citizens but were to be self-perpetuating from within their own class. The rulers were to be separately educated from the people, to be taught the means by which power was to be retained within the ruling class, to perpetuate the class and preserve the rulers’ interests.
The overall ruler or rulers create the ‘just’ laws, and the ‘guardians’ and ‘warriors’ execute the orders of the rulers. The remaining largest part of the population, the ‘producers’, are subject to this absolute authority, from which Plato’s ‘just’ society is created.
On pain of penalisation and even of death, the majority must obey, without dispute, the dictates of the minority to whom all power is ceded. The majority accepts absolute rule of some few men (only males) who hold the reins of power. The majority acknowledges that the mass of people have no real rights, but only some few privileges, as and when granted by the ruling class.
In this republic, the rulers control all aspects of life. Naturally, for the benefit of the state, every material thing is at the disposal of the rulers, and so private ownership by the people, of goods, houses, land, produce and riches, is abolished. The state is the sole owner of all wealth, with the rulers or their representatives deciding over such dispersion of income and goods as it pleases the rulers to make available; and to whom.
All forms of the family are denied to the people, this including the larger, or extended family; the nuclear (two parent) family; and even the single parent family. The rulers organise (temporary) couples for reproduction, based on preferred breeding attributes. Mothers are soon separated from their progeny and returned to work or retained for further breeding. (Apart from within the ruling class), no child knows his or her parents. Parents do not know their own children.
The intentions of ‘education’ are to perpetuate the status quo; to teach that the state is the benefactor of the people; to promote self-improvement for the purpose of benefiting the state; and to enhance the survival of the rulers.
The work occupation and place of residence of each person is decided for him or her by state officials. The whereabouts at all times of each person is controlled and designated.
The rulers have no obligation to justify any of their measures and are exempt from the laws which bind the ruled. Rulers have complete privacy as a matter of state security.
The people have no right to privacy. The state organises a ‘guardian’ and bureaucrat class to sustain the security of the rulers. All people are at the behest of the numerically minute ruling class. This is the ‘just’ society according to Plato.
From a purely academic interest, one accepts study of the Platonic writings and Socrates’ opinions, but we find objectionable and deranged the view held by some that the Socratic dialogues and Plato’s writings are amongst the “great works” of Western philosophy. Only that which contributes to the well-being and happiness of the people as individuals and thus as a whole can be considered worthy. Measured by this criterion, the thoughts of Plato and Socrates are to be judged as among the most dismal and despicable. One sees innumerable fallacies and flaws in their assumptions, and the thesis of The Republic is ultimately self-destroying for it is inimical to human nature.
What is one to make of individuals and groups who deny definitive democracy and its Trial by Jury ? Obviously, these people include Marxists, communists, fascists, socialists, New World Order Internationalists, statists, collectivists, et al; but let us not forget that the U.K. Labour, Liberal and Conservative Parties, the U.S. Republican and ‘Democratic’ Parties, and similar groups in France, Germany, Spain and elsewhere throughout the West have all presided over the current extinction by politicians and judges of the Trial by Jury. In spirit if not in letter, Western politicians are precipitating inevitable emulation of The Republic as proposed by Plato, or similar completely antidemocratic forms of totalitarian state.
We find these people and all their followers curious, if abhorrent, because, in our opinion, the rank and file who are actively advancing the demise of Western democratic civilisation will not end up within the advantaged class of exalted rulers. Instead, they will either be the rigidly controlled churlish enforcers of such a state, or its abject helots. They are deluded if they imagine that ultimately anything of worth will accrue to them. Have they become so brutalised and brutish as not to care that they are committing themselves and everyone else to statist enslavement ? Do they not have the wit to realise that the inheritance they are preparing for their immediate descendants is a lifetime of harsh discipline without worthwhile compensation ? …endless involuntary subservience, unrewarded toil, exploitation, humiliation under threat and receipt of the modern pernicious equivalent of the lash ?
The morbid criminal robber psyche of the politicians and unseen plutocrat instigators of the perceptible movement towards totalitarianism needs no exposition here. There is in these persons a malcondition present from childhood which induces such deviance, but, as with Hitler’s brood, their anormality does not exculpate them; for they know injustice and recognise it when it is inflicted against them. The people of the West acquiesce to or participate in the modern degenerative trend at their mortal peril.
The Athenians Socrates and Plato were the original traitors to democracy. Socrates sought with all his considerable gifts of rhetoric and intellect to impose élitist government over the people. His intention was to destroy the right of ordinary people to judge, make, enforce or nullify the laws in the Trial by Jury (thus denying the people protection from unjust arbitrary government). Socrates’ “mission” was to make the citizen obey the laws of the state without regard to their justice. His view was that the citizen must comply with the laws or persuade the state to change its laws; or else leave the state.
See Crito 51b-c, 52a-d.
Socrates’ subversive influence inspired a coup d’état (seizure of power) by wealthy oligarchs with their mercenaries and slaves. The oligarchs were referred to as the Thirty Tyrants. The Thirty overthrew the democratic state and proceeded ferociously to destroy the democratic rights of Athenian citizens to judge the justice of the laws in Trial by Jury. Under the tyrants’ régime, participation in legal functions — which had previously been open to all Athenians — was restricted to a privileged group of 500.
Under the Thirty, only 3,000 selected Athenians were granted the right to receive a Trial by Jury; and to carry weapons (to protect the Tyrants and enforce the Illegality of the Status Quo).
In those days, hemlock was used in capital punishment to poison condemned prisoners. To try to secure their rule by force and eliminate the proponents of democracy, under the Thirty Tyrants hundreds of citizens were forced to drink the lethal cup of hemlock, and thousands more were exiled.
After a year, the people in their turn overthrew the Tyrants and restored democracy. The democratic compassionate society gave amnesty to all parties.
Socrates, however, despised the common people and continued actively to subvert the democratic system, influencing his aristocratic students and followers into adopting his violently anti-democratic (i.e., against the people) philosophy. A persuasive, rousing public speaker, Socrates’ terrifying plan, like those of the fascists and Nazis of recent times, four years later again threatened the life, liberty and property of every ordinary citizen.
Despite the amnesty, because of the extreme and growing danger from his continuing treasonous activities, alternative charges (corrupting youth, etc.) were brought. Socrates was seized, arraigned, found guilty as charged, and sentenced to death by the people’s jury.
The people are always entitled to protect themselves against aggressors, and in this case from Socrates himself, following the recent loss of life under the Tyrants’ régime inspired by him.
Socrates’ devotees claimed that the prison guards could have been bribed and he could have fled the country, but rather than take a coward’s exit he accepted the sentence and swallowed the hemlock. This attempt to bestow kudos on the worthless criminal Socrates is almost certainly a fiction, along with much else concocted by his dastardly cohorts Xenophon and Plato.
Socrates was the traitorous enemy of democracy, Trial by Jury, liberty and justice. The nearest one can come to comparing the horrors of the Socrates case with latterday circumstances is, for example, in the Nürnberg (Nuremberg) Trials of Nazi war criminals; or the treachery of our modern politicians who will potentially now enslave the entire Western population under their régime which denies genuine Constitutionally-defined legem terræ Trial by Jury; Annulment-by-Jury; withholds our right to freedom from arbitrary arrest (i.e. without probable cause); and removes Habeas Corpus, the right to freedom from arbitrary detention.
THE HISTORICAL FACTS ABOUT DEMOCRACY.
Democracy embodies equal constitutional protection of all the people’s lives, rights, liberty and property. The facts about Democracy in Athenian Hellenic Greece and everywhere else, are that it is the uniquely just virile system and is devotedly supported by the mass of civilised, peace and freedom-loving people. Also, see above.
Thucydides* observed truly that most people will uncritically believe the first account they hear about something without taking the trouble to find out whether it is true.
*See History of the Peloponnesian War, by Thucydides.
If a person does not understand the workings of Trial by Jury by which it protects (is intended to protect) the population from arbitrary government, unjust laws and the prejudices and incompetence of judges, then that person could not be expected to comprehend the meaning of the related word, democracy. From ignorance, this person will always misuse and abuse the vocabulary. The question is: are people open and willing to learn ? Or are they permanently set on their purblind course after the statists have finished malindoctrinating them ?
Many people do not know, or do not wish others to know, democracy’s purpose and proven constitutional means of securing liberty and justice for all through the workings of the people’s common law of the land and its inimitable justice system of Trial by Jury. They are perversely determined to inflict their abhorrent incorrectitudes and mental malconditioning on others (“brainwashed”).
Peter, Beware of those to whom you turn for your ideas !
Novelist Alissa Rosenbaum, also known if you prefer as Ayn Rand, understood nothing of how Trial by Jury defines democracy, sine qua non; and how universal natural law* provides the beneficial code (or law) for judging all the acts and motives of men and women in their relations with each other — and to which (she), you, I, and all mankind must eternally remain utterly subject.
- See “Secularity, and Why Legem Terræ Trial by Jury Is the Universal Justice System;” Campaign Philosophy webpage One.
Karl Marx was a tyrannical authoritarian; a ferocious statist enemy of the private individual’s rights. Not for him was the right of the people to have the Trial by Jury Justice System at their disposal by which to decide and protect their rights and liberties for themselves. Still less did he want ordinary citizens to have the definitive Trial by Jury right whenever necessary to supersede and overrule statutes and the state, and to bring to justice individuals working in government who abuse their power; viz. Constitutional Common Law, Article 61, the Great Charter Constitution, Magna Carta of 1215.
Likewise, whoever you have read maligning Churchill has lied and misrepresented him to you. Churchill’s profound love of liberty, justice and his fellow human beings, together with his complete belief and personal subjection to the values of legem terræ common law, is given inspiring exposition throughout his very considerable body of work. Read it !
“We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus, Trial by Jury, and the English common law, find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.”
Sir Winston Churchill. To Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri, 1946.
“The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government, whether Nazi or Communist.”
Sir Winston Churchill, Author, Chronicler, Historian, Philosopher, Nobel laureate for Literature;
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Excerpt of telegram from Cairo to the U.K. Home Secretary on November the 21st, 1943.
Note: The words parium, pares or peers meaning ‘social-equals’ should not be confused with the later English word ‘peer’ meaning ‘lord’ or ‘titled person’. Ignorance of the Latin has caused some people to misconstrue meanings and incorrectly claim the Charter balanced justice only in favour of “the barons,” whereas correct translation from the Latin conveys a conspicuous egalitarianism.
See Magna Carta Essay on the URL below.