Where does sovereignty come from

With respect to the British monarch's recent passing, it may be time to discuss the idea of where the state's sovereignty resides. With a monarchy, the soveriegnty is in the person who occupies the throne. It is a PERSON. Quite literally, the monarch is the state.

England is said to be a constitutional monarchy. In the case of the UK, the monarch is mostly, if not fully, a ceremonial position. The King or Queen is the head of state. There is no formal power in the monarchy, as was the case in earlier times. The British Parliament holds the real power in England now. However, the monarch is still the head of state, and the sovereignty is symbolized in that person. In earlier times, the British monarch WAS the state.

Not all countries employ this model, of course. What we have in the USA is a model in which "WE THE PEOPLE" are the sovereign. At least on paper. In fact, it may well be the case that the officialdom in power have decided that THEY are the sovereign. But if that were so, why would they need to swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution? All officials under the US Government have to do this. Is the Constitution the sovereign then? No. A mere document cannot govern. It is a framework for governance of a self-governed people. The US President has real power, like a monarch, but it is LIMITED. The US President is a mere official of state, not the state itself.

Other examples: When Adolf Hitler seized power in Germany, he had officials swear an oath of allegiance to HIM PERSONALLY. The source for this information is from The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich. After gaining this allegiance, Hitler WAS the state for all intents and purposes. Hitler was an usurper. The Weimar Republic, which he swore to overthrow, was certainly achieved with this deed, and the people's submission to him.

A person HAS to govern. A document cannot act. Sovereignty has to proceed from people or a person. In the case the US Constitution, the document is an expression of the will of the people in how they are to be governed. The public official are obliged to follow the law. What happens if they don't? In theory, elections can change the government. But what happens if the officialdom decide that the people are no longer going to be doing that?

To my knowledge, there is no written constitution for the UK. Perhaps they rely upon precedent. It may be said that sovereignty might be shared somewhat. How did the English model change from the pure monarchy to what it is today?

There are many other examples to be sure. Those won't be discussed here, it isn't necessary.

It should also be noted that the intent of the Constitution was to limit the powers of those who govern, as opposed to the other way around. This is more in keeping with the Declaration of Independence, which states that the people have the right to alter or abolish those forms of government which no longer meet their needs. Does that still apply to America?

There is much discussion in some circles about our way (USA) of governance. Perhaps those who are in power have decided for themselves that the people are no longer to be the ones to decide what is and what isn't. It is as if they have grabbed the mantle of sovereignty into their own hands, and now are the ones who rule over us. It may be the case that the USA is no longer a self-governing republic. "WE THE PEOPLE" have had our powers usurped. The Constitution, after all, is just a piece of paper.