Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: The Magna Carta, 15 June, 1215 defended on the fields of Waterloo, 18 June, 1815

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156

    The Magna Carta, 15 June, 1215 defended on the fields of Waterloo, 18 June, 1815

    "[ ... ]
    It is one of the strange quirks of history that in the same week Bonapartism was delivered its death blow in a Flanders field, the British celebrated the 600th anniversary of the signing of one of their founding documents. That Charter, 63 clauses in length, many of which we today might regard as governing trivial matters, was the culmination of a centuries-long attempt to check the power of the King, ensuring that royal fiat did not encroach on long held and much cherished individual rights.
    [ ... ]
    Is it any wonder that the American revolutionaries in the 1770s, in claiming their rights to reject taxation without representation, regarded themselves as doing so not as Americans at all but as British citizens, whose natural rights, they claimed, had been articulated and codified in the Magna Carta.

    Today there are many who wish to characterize the Magna Carta as irrelevant, as representing nothing more than a back room deal between a crooked king and his cronies which the King almost immediately repudiated anyway. What they fail to understand or appreciate is that history swept the Magna Carta forward as a blueprint upon which future generations would leave their own designs, using it, over time, to erect impregnable structures which would guarantee such rights as due process, equality before the law and habeas corpus - rights which have come to be regarded , even in the halls of that broken institution the United Nations, as universal.
    [ ... ]"

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...rta-defended-/
    Last edited by Nightmare; 06-11-2015 at 09:22 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Whats awesome is the Magna Carta was never intended to protect the rights of non nobles. The people forced the state to apply the same principles. It truly was a great document.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Whats awesome is the Magna Carta was never intended to protect the rights of non nobles. The people forced the state to apply the same principles. It truly was a great document.
    +1

    It was Edward Coke, lawyer and judge, who turned Magna Carta into a foundation of liberty for all Englishman. According to Leonard Levy in his book Origins of the Fifth Amendment, Coke just up and did it. And, the ideas caught hold.

    Coke was an interesting fella. He was a prosecutor and later judge under Elizabeth I. For a good part of his career he was a government lapdog. At some point after becoming a judge, he made an about-face, and suddenly became a champion of liberty.

    Elizabeth's successor was James I. Heavily annoyed with some of Coke's legal opinions, James appointed Coke to Chief Justice of the Kings Bench, figuring it would shut up Coke, or at least slow him down. It didn't particularly work.

    Daniel Hannan, MEP (member of European Parliament representing England) spoke at the memorial a couple years ago. Skip forward to 1:30

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735
    At 11:15 - We did not contract out our freedoms to some supreme court and trust them to secure our rights. The responsibility is with each of us as voters to ensure that we remain a free people.

    But, as Thomas Jefferson stated:
    "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

    http://www.americanpresidents.org/inaugural/03a.asp

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Whats awesome is the Magna Carta was never intended to protect the rights of non nobles. The people forced the state to apply the same principles. It truly was a great document.
    It must be hermeneutically noted that at the time of the writing of the MC there were more than nobles and non-nobles, to use your terms. The king was as far removed from the nobles as the nobles from the yeomanry, and the yeomanry from the peasantry. Even then there were emperors to whom kings owed fealty and popes above all, western-latin and eastern-byzantine.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 06-12-2015 at 11:01 AM. Reason: spelig
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735
    I'm sure a common man exists somewhere.


  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Not all that great...pack heat in Jolly Ole England and see what happens to ya.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    It must be hermeneutically noted that at the time of the writing of the MC there were more than nobles and non-nobles, to use your terms. The king was as far removed from the nobles as the nobles from the yeomanry, and the yeomanry from the peasantry. Even then there were emperors to whom kings owed fealty and popes above all, western-latin and eastern-byzantine.
    Oh, I don't know about that. The romantic version might say so, but the facts on the ground were a bit different.

    The king was more in the direction of first among equals at that time.

    King John's father, Henry II, came pretty close to losing his throne over the murder of Thomas Beckett, Archbishop of Canterbury. Half of England, most of Europe, and even his wife Eleanor turned against him. Henry pulled the public-relations maneuver of the millennium to ratchet back the heat. He made a public pilgrimage to Canterbury, made an all-night vigil at Beckett's grave, and then allowed himself to be flogged by the monks. Romantic kings don't allow themselves to be flogged.

    The barons and kings knew the score in those times.

    As for fealty to the Bishop of Rome (the pope), Henry felt he owed so little allegiance to the pope that he appointed his true friend and chancellor to the senior post in England: Archbishop of Canterbury. Yep--the same Thomas Beckett. They were once very close friends. Henry figured he could gain control of the church in England by appointing Beckett as Archbishop of Canterbury. Beckett didn't want it--he said he could not serve two masters. He'd either lose his friend (Henry) or lose God. Henry got his way, making Beckett archbishop. Beckett chose God. The resulting tension eventually led four knights to murder Beckett on behalf of the king.

    I've come across at least one reference that Henry's son King John (of Magna Carta fame) offered (a caliph?) to make England a Muslim nation in exchange for military support in his war with the barons.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    At 11:15 - We did not contract out our freedoms to some supreme court and trust them to secure our rights. The responsibility is with each of us as voters to ensure that we remain a free people.

    But, as Thomas Jefferson stated:
    "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

    http://www.americanpresidents.org/inaugural/03a.asp
    +1

    And, "Freedom Under Law."

    To borrow from Hannan, ponder for a moment.

    People had to tell government (at sword-point, thank you) that the government's law cannot fail to include freedom. People couldn't just be free, with government protecting their freedom. They had to make it a part of the law, and then badger and force government to keep its "laws" within certain limits. From another angle, the people had to stand up to government and say, "Look here, a$$holes, freedom is gonna be included in The Law, and you're going to be subordinate to that Law, or there's going to be trouble. Understand?"

    The very existence of Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights (1689 AD), and the American Bill of Rights are indictments against government. The people had to stand up to government and tell government their freedoms were a part of the law. What kind of government would need to be told that? What kind of jerks would need to be told that?
    Last edited by Citizen; 06-12-2015 at 09:32 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    +1

    And, "Freedom Under Law."

    To borrow from Hannan, ponder for a moment.

    People had to tell government (at sword-point, thank you) that the government's law cannot fail to include freedom. People couldn't just be free, with government protecting their freedom. They had to make it a part of the law, and then badger and force government to keep its "laws" within certain limits. From another angle, the people had to stand up to government and say, "Look here, a$$holes, freedom is gonna be included in The Law, and you're going to be subordinate to that Law, or there's going to be trouble. Understand?"

    The very existence of Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights (1689 AD), and the American Bill of Rights are indictments against government. The people had to stand up to government and tell government their freedoms were a part of the law. What kind of government would need to be told that? What kind of jerks would need to be told that?

    In another discussion in another forum ran by my friend Robin Koerner (a brit who writes for Huffpo) someone posed the question that the MC was signed under duress (because of being done at sword point) so wasn't it null and void?

    My return point was that the kings rule or any rule is done under threat of violence, so the nobles was really just a self defensive move against the king.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    In another discussion in another forum ran by my friend Robin Koerner (a brit who writes for Huffpo) someone posed the question that the MC was signed under duress (because of being done at sword point) so wasn't it null and void?

    My return point was that the kings rule or any rule is done under threat of violence, so the nobles was really just a self defensive move against the king.
    Gotta remember that answer.

    And, it suggests a further point: the peasants' and serfs' "agreement" to be bound to the nobles in that feudal system was also null and void.

    As is the so-called "social contract".
    Last edited by Citizen; 06-13-2015 at 12:51 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Gotta remember that answer.

    And, it suggests a further point: the peasants' and serfs' "agreement" to be bound to the nobles in that feudal system was also null and void.

    As is the so-called "social contract".
    Yep. Of course all rule by no consent is null and void.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •