Significant Principles in the Declaration of Independence (d.o.i) and English Magna Carta
The English Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence (D.O.I) are both documents which guaranteed and protected the rights of the citizens .Three specific rights that both documents focused on were liberty, the pursuit of happiness and self-government.
Liberty in both of these documents means freedom from despotic government or from foreign or external rule. And that is exactly what both of these documents did. More specifically, the Magna Carta limited the power of the king while the D.O.I let America obtain freedom from foreign rule, in this case, English rule. In the Magna Carta, it states, “…and that men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights and concessions…” and the D.O.I states ,“That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states.” These excepted and the ideas that these excerpts represent is very important because it protects the people.
In addition, self-government is a significant ideal represent in both of the documents as well. A self-government is when a government is controlled by its own members. In other words, a democratic government, such as the one in the United States . The importance of a self-government is that it creates a shared power with the people and the government and in turn, it also protects the rights of the people. In the D.O.I, it clearly states , “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”, in other words, that the government gets its power from the people by letting the people indirectly choose who runs the government. By indirectly, they choose representatives to choose for them.
Another crucial ideal that is presented in both documents is the pursuit of happiness.The pursuit of happiness is defined as a fundamental right to freely pursue joy and live life in a way that makes you happy, as long as you don’t do anything illegal or violate the rights of others . This is an important ideal because it gives freedom to the government’s people.. In the D.O.I , this unalienable right (the pursuit of happiness) is mentioned in the first sentence of the second paragraph, “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
To conclude, the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence give rights to the people by presenting important ideals that have shaped the world that people have come love and respect.
Magna Carta – one of the most important documents in the medieval England times
Throughout time there were many important documents from the declaration of independence to the constitution. One of the most important documents in the medieval England times is the Magna Carta. Magna Carta was a document that declared that all representatives can have a say in the government so that all the people have a say and King John wasn’t the all-powerful uncontrollable king. For King John to sign it wasn’t the smartest choice because he would be giving up all his power. He didn’t have much of a choice when his army and his people started to rebel back. His army and people decided that King John had too much power and control so they brought forth Magna Carta. The people then declared if he didn’t sign Magna Carta they wouldn’t allow the things he wanted such as waging the wars and raising the taxes. King John then had no choice but to sign the Bill.
Magna Carta had a strong influence both on the United States Constitution and on the constitutions of the various states. However, its influence was shaped by what the 1800’s Americans believed Magna Carta to be a sign of. Magna Carta was had wide beliefs to be the people’s rights against an overpower ruler, a legacy that caught American doubt of concentrated political power. In part because of this tradition, most of the state constitutions included declarations of rights intended to guarantee individual people a list of protection and immunities from the state government. The United States also brought in the Bill of Rights, in part, due to this political conviction. This not being their fault they had no choice and had to see it happen.
England had for some years owned land in France. The barons had provided the king with both money and men to defend this territory. Traditionally, the king had always consulted the barons before raising taxes and wanting more men for military service. This was all part of the Feudal System. So long as English kings were militarily successful, relations with the barons were good. But John was not very successful in his military campaigns. His constant wants and needs for more money and men angered the barons. By 1204, John had lost his land in northern France. In response to this, John introduced high taxes without asking the barons. This was against the feudal law and accepted custom. 1214 was a bad year for John for more reasons. Again, he took a hit with a big military defeat in an attempt to get back his old territory in northern France. He came back to London wanting more money from more taxes. This time the barons didn’t want to listen. They fought back against him. The barons took over London. However, they didn’t defeat King John entirely and by the spring of 1215, both sides were willing to discuss matters. No matter what King John tried to do he was not able to win back his kingdom ship. Magna Carta was the result of these all.
Comparing And Contrasting The English Bill Of Rights And Magna Carta
Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights are both historically significant documents; while the Magna Carta was meant to serve as a peace treaty between upset barons and King John, the English Bill of Rights ensured that the monarchy within England didn’t hold too much accumulated power, and thus gave more power to the Parliament. Although the English Bill of Rights ended up replacing the Magna Carta, and although both documents serve different purposes, they have an interesting amount of similarities. This paper will aim to analyze the similarities and differences between Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights by thoroughly comparing the two documents.
Both documents were written due to a public at dismay. The Magna Carta was written because rebel barons were fed up with the overwhelming power of King John, and they felt that they were stripped away from basic rights and their free will due to the government in England. Through the Magna Carta, they sought to provide themselves and those who will come after them the free will and basic rights they deserve “To all free men of our kingdom we have also granted, for us and our heirs forever, all the liberties written out below, and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs” (King John, 1215) However, the Magna Carta didn’t demand the complete obliteration of the monarchy as the Bill of Rights had. The Bill of Rights, written nearly 500 years after the Magna Carta, was written by a society that had just experienced the Glorious Revolution (“English Bill of Rights of 1689”, 2018), and demanded the end of the interference between the crown and the law. Overall, both documents were written due to controversial situations in England, both were a rebellion against British monarch where it minimized the monarchy’s power, although in different degrees, and both documents served to give power and distinctive rights to the people.
While the Magna Carta was written in 1215 rebelling against King John, the English Bill of Rights was written after the Glorious Revolution in 1688 in a rebellion against King James II, and the monarch family. The Magna Carta mainly addressed the baron’s demands of wanting a right to trial jury, the king not being able to tax the public without their consent, wanting an effective legal system where law is exercised, and defending everyone’s property rights. On the other hand, the English Bill of Rights demanded freedom of speech and religion, abolishment of the monarchy’s interference within law, elimination of cruel and torturous punishments, and ultimately, a pathway that would make the Parliament stronger than the monarch (“The English Bill of Rights,” 1688). On an important note, the Bill of Rights delivers a plan of free elections and of a representative government. Similarly, Magna Carta wished to lessen the power of the King and thereby offered a legal system where “the barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep” (King John, 1215). The English Bill of Rights simply built on this ideology. The major differences between the two documents is that the Magna Carta addressed the issues that the barons were dealing with during that time such as trials and crimes, and it didn’t seek out to grant any rights to the public overall as the English Bill of Rights had. The English Bill of Rights sought to gain the freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech among many other freedoms to avoid further oppression from overwhelmingly powerful monarchs. The Magna Carta placed limits on King John’s power, but the Bill of Rights ensured that the Parliament will always be more powerful than the monarch.
As can be seen, the Magna Carta written in 1200s derived from rebellious barons who were fed up with King John’s ruling and wished to limit his powers and themselves certain rights, whereas the English Bill of Rights listed the injustice done by the monarchs and demanded a set of freedoms and rights to ensure that the Parliament will always have more power over the monarch. Although the Bill of Rights was written nearly half a century after the Magna Carta, it nonetheless has elements from the Magna Carta such as the want for a representative government and the want for the elimination of cruel punishments.
“Bad King John”
One might have hoped that the 800th anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta would have provided at least some oxygen to the argument that ‘Bad King John’ was perhaps not too ‘Bad’ after all; and – whisper it – that in some ways this traditionally most maligned of monarchs was perhaps really rather Good.
Instead, the anticipated tsunami of popular and learned articles collectively assert, inter alia, that John was at once cruel and coercive, treacherous and tyrannical, pusillanimous and pitiful, lazy and lackluster. For the large part it seems that, 800 years later, opinion has broadly backed Matthew Paris, the 13th-century chronicler who alleged that John’s greatest achievement was, by dying, to make yet more foul the existing foulness of Hell: John was not only Bad; he was diabolical.
Popular understanding of Magna Carta has significantly stunted debate on the nature and achievement of John. Magna Carta, we are told, stands for the rule of law. Invoked by those in 17th-century England who sought to thwart the allegedly despotic tendencies of Charles I, and latterly employed by the American Revolutionaries in their making of the United States Bill of Rights in 1789, Magna Carta has become totemic of the liberties by which western societies identify themselves.
Indeed, this tendency has travelled so far that Magna Carta has, according to G Hindley, “acquired an almost mystic incantatory quality”. This, he claims, is partly evidenced by the fact that the government sponsored the Magna Carta 800th anniversary website, which currently asserts that Magna Carta “is the foundation stone supporting the freedoms enjoyed today by hundreds of millions of people in more than 100 countries”. These are powerful words, and it follows that if John ignored Magna Carta – which he did – then it must surely be the case that he was indeed malign. The ever-growing extent to which Magna Carta is celebrated and elevated necessarily means that, in equal and opposite degree, the reputation of John is tarnished and diminished. In this context, to argue that John was anything other than ‘Bad’ seems inappropriate and somewhat unbelievable.
However, the Magna Carta that John chose to ignore did not purport to be a constitutional document adumbrating and guaranteeing liberties to all English people. The Magna Carta of 1215 (it is important to realise that there were many reissues of Magna Carta after the reign of John, each different to the one presented to John) is better understood as a set of flawed peace terms designed to heal the incipient civil war between John and an element of rebellious barons.
In order to try and bind John to their terms, the barons insisted that John accept a committee of 25 of their number empowered to police and enforce Magna Carta by seizing John’s castles and assets when he was judged – by them, and against criteria put forth by them – to have transgressed. No medieval monarch could have accepted for any length of time the Magna Carta of 1215, for it clearly rendered the king a phantom of a monarch. Indeed, so extreme was this impact that it is not beyond sensible contemplation that the ambition of the rebel barons was not to obtain a lasting peace, but instead absolutely to provoke John to break the newly agreed terms so that they could seize his largesse. John did indeed overturn Magna Carta, but arguably any medieval monarch would have done the same. The Magna Carta of 1215 is not the Magna Carta of popular imagination.
The Magna Carta – One Of The Vital Defining Documents In History
The Magna Carta was one of the first documents that kept power in check between a single authoritarian figure and the soon to be called bureaucrats of the land in the early medieval age period. The king was crossing lines in what he can do with his power. The nobles were the people who had most power after the king due to their status; feudalism was the structure by which all landowning was represented in England during medieval occasions. It basically allowed the ruler to control the land in his kingdom, which was worked by laborers and managed by medieval aristocrats. Everybody in the chain of importance had money related and social duties to the position above them, including the aristocrats, who detailed straightforwardly to the lord. In 1215, the noblemen revolted and compelled the ruler into marking the Magna Carta, a rundown of 63 statements attracted up to constrain John’s capacity. It was the first run through an imperial position authoritatively wound up subject to the law, rather than ruling above it.
The privilege to fair treatment and a preliminary by jury, is a widespread lawful idea today, however didn’t exist in the law books until the noblemen noted in the Magna Carta that ‘No liberated individual will be seized or detained, or deprived of his privileges or assets, or banned or banished … aside from by the legal judgment of his equivalents or by the rule that everyone must follow.’ Though the announcement wasn’t a champion component of the Magna Carta when it was first distributed, it was conjured throughout the hundreds of years – particularly during wild occasions – to protect common freedoms. The English Civil War emergence of the seventeenth century was one such time, and it was likewise during this period that numerous Englishmen set off for the American states.
King John of England disregarded various rules, laws, and traditions by which England had been administered, his subjects forced him to sign the Magna Carta, which can be seen as rights of the individual. Among them was the privilege of the congregation to be free from legislative impedance, the privileges of every free native to possess and acquire property and to be shielded from exorbitant expenses. It set up the privilege of widows who possessed property to decide not to remarry, and set up the standards of fair treatment and balance under the watchful eye of the law. It likewise contained arrangements prohibiting pay and authority unfortunate behaviors. Generally, saw as one of the most significant authoritative reports in the improvement of current majority rule government, the Magna Carta was a vital defining moment in the battle to set up an opportunities.
Medieval England encountered a long-running quarrel between the government and the respectability, each attempting to keep up or increment its privileges and powers to the detriment of the other. Occasionally, different lords endeavored to keep up their grasp on power by giving constrained sanctions of freedoms to the noblemen. The mid thirteenth century saw an expansion in strains. Lord John (ruled 1199-1216) was disliked, having more than once called upon the noblemen to help his arrangement of fruitless remote wars. The nobles loathed the required money related commitments and administration to the Crown. Particularly, they disdained the relentless disintegration of their customary benefits, while the lord picked up power. Life in the Middle Ages was somewhat carefully of something of a standing framework. A reasonable chain of command existed, a pyramid of sorts with sovereignty at the top and laborers, including the greater part of the populace, at the base. Between the laborers and sovereignty, in any case, were well-respected, favored and first class families known as nobles or rulers. The noble’s place in the public arena was largely to work as center men between the laborers and the illustrious family. Nobles gave work, land, and assurance to the laborers while giving subsidizing, supplies, and military support of the ruler. Honorable life was a long way from the customary existence of the time. Many people were laborers, and, under the medieval arrangement of the period, were obligated to and in the red to the nobles for whom they worked. Nobles, then again, had lives concentrated considerably more around military procedure, monetary commitments and obligations, and parties.
Nobles adjusted an intriguing blend of exercises and duties in their daily lives. They performed vital administrative assignments on their territories and with the laborers in their utilize, gathered and raised subsidizing for military endeavors and get-togethers, rehearsed horseback riding, chasing, and peddling, and met any extra commitments set upon them by their very own lords. Nobles of the Middle Ages, similar to every other person then, had restricted access to instructions, books, or social chances, which means ladies with little housework or difficult work to perform had a couple of choices for seeking after drawing in relaxation diversions. Rather, they invested many of energy arranging occasions, staying up with the latest on the happenings of other nearby families, and guaranteeing the family was held in high respect all through the network. All men in the kingdom were relied upon to realize how to battle and to be accessible for their ruler at any minute. Nobles had a considerable favorable position in such manner. Their lives were organized and sorted out such that fused military preparing into the everyday plan. They likewise appreciated more riches, and along these lines more prominent accessibility of weapons and protective layer.
A place of nobles would likewise employ contenders, explicitly knights. Knights served their lords in that they were accessible to go with or help on chasing undertakings or military journeys. Knights additionally prepared one next to the other with their lords, each ready to profit by the assistance and preparing of the other. Be that as it may, knights were particularly under obligation to their lords, and expected to acknowledge their requests and play out their offering. The Magna Carta demonstrated that the King had too much power against the nobility, feudalism between the different ranks was beginning to crumble and individual rights are very important to a society. Once a person’s rights have been infringed upon, this can be the main causes of chaos and disorder in any society. The consequences will be seen in future kingdoms and governments.
The Transcendental Role Of The Magna Carta In History
Have you ever wondered what would have happened if the Magna Carta had not been written in the year 1215? Well, according to a large percentage of historians, we probably would not even be able to vote, or we would be in war, or women might not even take part in any significant role apart from wives in our current society. What is sure is that Magna Carta was an undoubtedly advanced thought by the time it was written by King John as it certificated the death of Despotism in England. Although it did not mean the end of evilness, it was a further step into a wider and cutting-edge perspective of the rights of human beings. As a result, this event has had a huge impact on earth throughout history: “Social scientists and legal scholars routinely describe the Magna Carta as foundational for concepts of justice and liberty. The Magna Carta was the product of times very different from our own, yet continues to be cited by jurists and human rights activists around the globe”.
The mind-blowing purpose that this document treated was brilliant throughout history, as an example, for those who defended a parliamentary monarchy, the Whigs. However, those who defended the traditional conservative system, the Tories, were not satisfied at all with this proposal when William I invaded England and imposed the parliament monarchy. Nevertheless, what would have been the consequences if William I had not arrived at the country and imposed the already mentioned system? Taking this into account, my aim in this essay is also to examine through various articles the simulation of what would have been if the Whigs and the Tories had been forced to debate what was the best political system to establish at the time (seventeenth and eighteenth centuries) regarding the high level of relevance of the Magna Carta.
To begin with, how exactly was the importance of the Magna Carta after the Glorious Revolution (c. 1688) for the development of the rivalry between the Whigs and the Tories? To be precise, “While Magna Carta would become an important symbol for parliamentary reformers in the later eighteenth century, it was in the decades immediately following the Glorious Revolution (1688) that the framework was established in which Magna Carta would emerge as an integral part of reformist propaganda. The powerful public authority that Magna Carta had achieved as a symbolic document in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is evident in its almost ubiquitous visual representation in political cartoons and caricatures of the period” which means that parliamentary reformers would spread their ideology by means of a perfect tool, the Great Charter. Again, “Yet, Magna Carta endured and became an important instrument in political debates about the capacity of parliament to alter fundamental laws. As Anne Pallister has argued, once “the implications of the Revolution Settlement to individual liberty became obvious, the Charter once more re-emerged as a weapon to be used against the new tyranny of a class-dominated sovereign parliament.” and it is so because Carta Magna had been written with the purpose of contribute the nation has the same rights and the same opportunities as the king had in front of the law.
In connection with the last paragraph, the following article claims that the king was supposed to be loyal and upright, if not, he would not be the king “The challenge Charles I prepared to fling at his accusers on 22 January 1649 had conditioned the thinking of generations of historians. “No earthly power can justly call me, who am your king, in question as a delinquent”, he proclaimed which determined, “that the king can do no wrong” a maxim that “guards every English monarch, even the least deserving.” ” It means that the king, as he had promised to be faithful to people, could not cause any grief. Nevertheless, it was not always the case, as throughout history, monarchs, as they felt with the total control of the lands, they constantly took advantage and abused of their power and so on of the nation. The excuse given (which at those times was fairly easy to believe) was that although “the king was under no man, he was under God and the law; for the law maketh (SIC) the king.” Moreover, the Tories would add the following idea: “He could do no wrong; because if it were wrong, he did it not, he could not do it; It was void in the act, punishable in his agent” which from my point of view means that whatever he did could not be wrong nor condemned as it had been dictated by God and the mind of “the chosen one” (in the sense of being the person responsible for the good of his community). These claims were not so convincing for the Whigs, and as a result of the previous assertions, they would affirm that making illogical statements is not the solution; instead, they would rather prefer a fairer system of government. Here is where the Magna Carta comes into play: “Magna Carta, moreover, obliged the King to acknowledge and respect the primacy of law.” In addition, some other researchers had already made this point, only two years before: “English kings cannot command ill, or unlawful things. When they speak, though by Letters Patent, if the thing be evil, those Letters Patent are void.” a strong argument supported by the Great Charter of 1215.
Notwithstanding, the Tories would refuse to this proposal as for them a truthful monarch was someone always capable of enhancing the lives of the peoples of the region. Taking this into consideration, they would add that not all English monarchs had been counterproductive, with the evidence of Alfred the Great “King Alfred had understood that the law functioned for all the people equally. In reply Edmund Burke reserved Sir Edward Coke’s narrative of continuity in order to defend the monarchy – he argued that the monarch, as well as the people, has certain privileges” (Price 24) Therefore, he is believed to be the first successful king in the history of England, as he defended Wessex from the Viking raids and created a court school that encouraged vital teachings of the time (c. 9th). What is surprising here is that even the Tories would defend the Magna Carta to help them gain more votes “And it was not only those who opposed the government that invoked it. Loyalist propagandists claimed that only a strong monarch and elite parliament could defend the “constitution” and “principles” of 1215.” Again, living proof of the significance of this letter.
Having reached this point, we have already discussed a bit about the relevance of Magna Carta in the 17th and 18th England, but what about other English-speaking regions? Was its importance also present in other countries? To be precise, not only did the English peoples base on the law that dictated the Magna Carta, but also in certain colonies of America “The colonies themselves were generally willing to adopt the English common law and English legal practices. When dissatisfied with the government of their colony, they frequently attempted to redress their grievances by appealing to the rights of Englishmen, including those they believed were enshrined in Magna carta . William Penn, the first proprietor of the colony of Pennsylvania, successfully appealed to Magna Carta. In 1687 he arranged for the first printing in America of the 1225 version of Magna Carta and also the 1297 confirmation of it.” which shows clearly its importance abroad.
On the other hand, occasionally Magna Carta was not claimed to be something innovative but a mere statement that brought nothing new and which was made by a concrete village of the time to revendicate certain rights against the unfair high taxation and the injustices committed by the previous English monarchs. For instance, even when we cross the pond, we have a clear example of disagreement by an American planter of the time who did not share the same view as the reformists nor those who stood up for Magna Carta as the first Great Charter for a universal motive, as we can observe here: “In 1766, Richard Bland appealed to Magna Carta as an earlier form of contract between the monarch and his subjects. He claimed that the rights and liberties enshrined in Magna Carta had been possessed by the English people since Anglo-Saxon times, long before 1215.Thomas Jefferson also made the same point.” which claims that the universal rights of the human beings had already been demanded by earlier civilizations, a point quite controversial.
Last but not least, although I am concerned that it sets a bit aside from the stage that we have been discussing throughout this essay, I consider important to analyse the Magna Carta in connection to the following point in order to keep recognizing his value: Magna Carta in the progression in the role of women in our current society. Although it is well acknowledged that Magna Carta should not have direct connection with the progression in the rights of women as it was written in the 13th century, we consider upright to make a bit of self-reflection; Might it have been a first step into what we know today about feminism? Well, this extent is quite challenging as the debate is widely open to interpretation. Nonetheless, as what Magna Carta tried to transmit was the feeling of the necessity of liberty for all the citizens, we could thus say that it has given a hand to next assertions to develop a more open-minded worldview. At the end of the day, the term “Magna Carta” has been used to refer to those still unacquired equality rights that human beings, and especially women, have not received “Magna Carta for Women. The bill, which recognizes women’s rights as human rights, protects them against domestic violence, and ensures that women are not exploited in media and film.”
An exotic and exuberant debate is the one that this letter has presented us, but also recognized by most experts as something that, thanks to its necessity in humankind, has stood the test of time. “Josiah Tucker, a leading British critic maintained that their arguments were self-defeating. He acknowledged that Magna Carta was the great foundation of English liberties and the basis of constitution”. In conclusion, what most of the sources can assure us is that the Magna Carta was an astonishing document that has had such an enormous repercussion that it was still made references five and more centuries after its creation, due to all the liberties that it encourages and proclaims, and the quantity of positive critics that it has had throughout history.
Magna Carta: The Light In The Dark Ages
“Dark” and “light” were originally used as a metaphor by Christians to explain how people lived in the “dark” before Jesus came to the world to add “light” into people’s lives. Petrarch, an Italian scholar, used these terms of “dark” and “light” to illustrate learning, as opposed to how the Christian’s used the terms. Petrarch had the belief that the “light” was the Greek and Roman Empires, but once they were gone, Europe became “dark”. Since Petrarch’s theory of this time period being a “Dark Age”, other historians began to use the term “Dark Ages”. The “Dark Ages” were used by these historians to describe the fall of the Roman Empire and when knowledge and Roman culture was lost. From the choice of words in the term the “Dark Ages”, it caused people to have the perspective that this time period was just full of bad things. Other historians argued that the term “Dark Ages” was not the correct term for this period of time. This period of time from 400 AD to 1400 AD was argued whether it was a “Dark Age” or not. It can be proved through economy, government, and society that the “Dark Age” is not a correct term to be used.
Some historians make the argument that this time period was a “Dark Age” because of the fall of the Roman Empire and because of the rough spots during this time in history. These historians argue that this term is correct, but truthfully there are not many records from this period of time and a few of the records have been lost in history. Of the records kept, this time period can be proven not to be a “Dark Age”. Even though there were rough spots in culture when the society, politics, and economics were in a downfall, a lot of the problems caused the society to come up with new ways that improved the overall time period and future.
The Magna Carta was a document that contained the rights for England’s citizens. This document originally failed in 1215 when the charter failed in his goals with the renewed Magna Carta, which caused a civil war to quickly break out. The Magna Carta was renewed later on in 1216, 1217, and 1225. After King John’s death in 1216, the throne was passed to his son, Henry III, who was nine years old at the time. Henry’s advisors and John’s successor, together, renewed the Magna Carta and removed some conditions that were not agreed upon by the public. This seemed to cause even more conflict. The Magna Carta had few downfalls that affected the king, citizens, law, and government system. The following issues all unfolded and arose after the renewed document of the Magna Carta in 1225. The Magna Carta did not stop the king from causing war without reason and it caused taxes to rise. These were important issues, but the Magna Carta established laws for everyone, and gave citizens the right to a fair trial which influenced the future laws.
The economy and government were tense because “No sheriff, constable, coroner or any other of our bailiffs is to hold pleas of our crown”. In simpler terms, nobody lower than the highest social class is allowed or able to rule with the crown. This law can be seen as unfair in many different ways. Since only certain ranked people can rule with the crown, this shows inequality and unfairness throughout the people. The discrimination towards the people can lower their self-esteem. Low self esteem is commonly known to lower work ethics, which negatively affects the economy by not as much work getting done, or the quality of the product is decreasing. The economy is affected in a bad way because there are not equal rights. Many other economies experienced inequality too, but England’s economy is negatively affected by inequality which sets it out differently than some other countries. Another way that this law can be seen as unfair is because the highest class that rules, does not usually interact with the citizens of the towns and spends most of their time with other higher classed people. By not interacting with the citizens of the towns, the King does not personally know the needs of the poor and other citizens of the town. This causes him to not be able to make the necessary changes in society. The government is affected by this because they cannot help their citizens as well as they would be able to if the government was ran by someone in the lower class who personally experiences what the citizens need. Some historians believe that this inequality and the designated Kings helps prove that this is a “Dark Age” because the government is not run the way it should and the economy suffers from it.
Even though some laws negatively affected the government, there were laws that helped the government, and influenced the future laws of the England government. For example, “The city of London is to have all its ancient liberties and customs. Moreover we wish and grant that all other cities and boroughs and vills and the barons of the Cinque Ports and all ports are to have all their liberties and free customs”. In other words, these cities had the freedom to make their own laws and customs. This influenced some of the law that are still placed today. Currently, states in the US have their own constitutions that allow them to decide some of their own laws to a certain extent. This law from the Magna Carta influenced and developed into the law that is intact now. This law that was a part of the Magna Carta helps prove that this time period was not a “Dark Age”. This law helps prove that a “Dark Age” is not a correct term because there was still some “light” like this law that helped influence and develop future laws.
There were some laws in the Magna Carta that affected the economy negatively, but there were also many laws that helped the economy. “If, however, the heir of such a person is under age, his lord is not to have custody of him and his land until he has taken homage from the heir, and after such an heir has been in custody, when he comes of age, namely at twenty-one years old, he is to have his inheritance without relief and without fine, saving that if, whilst under age, he is made a knight, his land will nonetheless remain in the custody of his lords until the aforesaid term”. In other words, if someone dies and the family member that inherited the land is below the age of twenty one, the government takes care of the land until that family member is of age. This law assists the economy because the government takes care of the land and puts it to good use that benefits the economy. The economy is benefitted by this because the government used the land for production. The land is taken care of well until the family member is old enough and mature enough to care for the land on their own. This law of the Magna Carta helps prove that the “Dark Ages” is not a correct term because this law shows “light” or good in this time period. This law shows “light” because the government takes care of their land for free until it can properly be cared for and it benefits the economy.
A law that affects the King, along with the citizens negatively is, “Heirs are to be married without disparagement,”. The definition of disparagement is to marry someone who is not apart of the same social ranking. In clarification of this law: it is not acceptable for the King or any of his heirs to marry anyone lower in social ranking. This law negatively affects the King, his heirs and the common people. This negatively affected the King and his heirs because they are not allowed to marry anyone in a lower class, even if they fell in love with a lower class citizen. They King had only a few women to choose from to marry, a nearby country’s princess or a girl from a well- known, high ranking family. This negatively affected the King because they were usually prearranged marriages. This law also negatively affected the lower class women because they had no possible way of marrying into a more successful family. Considering that the royal family and the female citizens were negatively affected in society, some historians believe this is part of the “Dark Age” because the society was negatively affected.
A law that negatively affects the society is that they’re not “permitted to anyone to give his land to a religious house in such a way that he receives it back from such a house to hold, nor is it permitted to any religious house to accept the land of anyone in such a way that the land is restored to the person from whom it was received to hold. If anyone henceforth gives his land in such a way to any religious house and is convicted of the same, the gift is to be entirely quashed and such land is to revert to the lord of that fee”. In other words, this law forbids anyone from giving land to a church or religious house and forbids all religious houses from accepting the land. This negatively affects the citizens and religious society in many ways. If a man with land is too old, or not able to care for his land and does not have family, he cannot give his land to his religious house. This negatively affects the citizen because he is left with land that he is not able to care for. Churches or religious houses are affected by this law because they’re not able to accept this gift and acquire gifts from the land itself. The land instead of being put to use and cared for, it is left to waste. Some historians believe that this helps prove that it was a “Dark Age” since the citizens, religious society, and the economy was negatively affected.
Despite the fact that there were a few negative laws in the Magna Carta that affected society, it had many more laws that were beneficial to the society. For example, “a widow, after the death of her husband, is immediately and without any difficulty to have her marriage portion and her inheritance”. In other words, when a husband would pass away the wife would receive her inheritance from her husband and the estate from her marriage portion. This law from the Magna Carta influenced the future laws and is still in effect to this day. Nowadays, if the husband does not have a will against it, the wife and immediate family receives their share of the estate. This was an important law in the Magna Carta that proves this time period to not have the correct term of the “Dark Ages”. This term, the “Dark Ages”, does not fit this era of time because even though there were a few bad laws, this law influenced the future and helped develop laws that were beneficial to the society.
Another important law that benefitted the citizens is that “No sheriff or bailiff of ours or of anyone else is to take anyone’s horses or carts to make carriage, unless he renders the payment customarily due, namely for a two-horse cart- ten pence per day, and for a three-horse cart- fourteen pence per day. No demesne cart belonging to any churchman or knight or any other lady (sic) is to be taken by our bailiffs, nor will we or our bailiffs or anyone else take someone else’s timber for a castle or any other of our business save by the will of he to whom the timber belongs”. In other words, sheriffs or bailiffs cannot take advantage of people by using their position within the law. This law influenced the future laws and is similar to some laws that are present today. Nowadays, people working within the law have their own rules that they have to follow so that they are not able to take advantage of others, and they are not allowed to take others belongings without a warrant. This law also proves that the “Dark Ages” is not a correct term for this time period. This term is not correct, because the whole time period was not “Dark”, there was still “Light” during this time that influenced the future.
Comparison Of The Circumstances Which Led To The Signing Of The Magna Carta And The Declaration Of Independence
It is well-known that in world history, there are a great many documents that are of significant meanings and value. In British history, Magna Carta is a significant constitutional document which represents the limitation to king’s power. And in American history, the Declaration of Independence marks the founding of the United States. The signing circumstances of these two documents are of both similarities and differences. And the similarities and differences are discussed in terms of three levels: social level, economic level and ideological level, followed by the explanation of their implications.
Firstly, the social structures that contribute to the signing of the two documents are different, but both create context for such things to happen. Since 1066, Britain gradually formed the feudal system in which the king had “feudal incidents” (Turner, 2003, p. 16). According to Turner, King John exploited feudal incidents aggressively, demanding exorbitant sums from baronial heirs and controlling minors’ marriage; therefore, King John’s behavior has something to do with the social structure. And finally, conflicts arose. In addition, the idea of the feudalism is intrinsic in people’s heart. Clohesy’s PowerPoint states that for quite a long time, people believed in the rightness of the hierarchy (2019); therefore, the barons chose to let King John sign a charter rather than overthrow the government. In American colonies, the truncated society was established. Except for the slaves, people are more equal to each other. Therefore, they didn’t accept an absolute foreign power and chose to rebel. Also, since the truncated society created a totally different culture, they formed their own identity; thus, finally, they fought for independence.
The implication of this is that the way the society is organized affects the social conflicts they have and the solutions they use. If the society is organized in a hierarchical way, people tend to use less radical way to limit someone’s power, like the barons in Britain did. They chose to negotiate with the one who had the absolute power and let him sign a charter. If the society is organized in a less hierarchical way, people tend to use more radical way to solve the problem, like the colonists in America did. After some struggles, they finally declared to be independent.
Secondly, as for economic factors, the conflicts in both countries have something to do with the raising taxes. In Britain, according to Turner, “King John’s personal slights and financial extortions against individual barons set off rumblings of wider discontent as early as 1208 and 1209”. The long-lasting financial tension between barons and King John gives rise to the signing of Magna Carta. The same goes for the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The conflict in American colonies arose from the British government’s demand for high taxes to pay for the war. Since in the end, the conflict could not be solved, the colonists declared to be independent. To sum up, in both situations, the raising taxes brought people angry, and then, people used their own way to rebel.
The implication of this is that money is important in social life. When one side’s economic interest is infringed, mixed with other factors, it is very likely that conflicts can happen. Money is not only an essential part in human daily life, but also an indication of power. When King John raised taxes, actually, he was wakening the barons’ power. If the barons did not rebel, King John might raise more taxes until the barons no longer had power. The situation in the American colonies follows the same pattern. According to Eicholz, by raising taxes, “Parliament was attempting to streamline and strengthen its control over the empire”. The colonists were afraid that if the situation would not change, the whole economic system in the colonists’ society might be greatly damaged, and the colonists would only be the one who served for Britain instead of having their own identity and power.
Thirdly, judging from ideological perspective, the signing circumstances of these two documents are similar in terms of the people’s raising spirit of rebellion, but different concerning the spread of the spirit. For one thing, the barons and the American colonists share similar consciousness of resistance to the reign at that time. According to Breay and Harrison, a number of barons rebelled because they held great grievance towards King John. Also, Griffin mentions that many American colonists enjoyed using their right to fight against “a tyrannical regime’. For another, the spread of the rebellious spirit in the two countries are different. Clohesy’s PowerPoint states that in Britain, in fact, it was simply the 170 barons who worked together and conveyed the idea of rebellion against the king; however, in America, it was more than 100,000 Americans who bought Thomas Paine’s Common Sense pamphlet, which spread the idea of fighting against the British government and governing themselves. In a word, in both countries, thought of rebellion exists, which lead to the signing of the two documents, and in the American colonies, the thought of rebellion spread even further.
One implication is that books can be very useful in the spread of thoughts. It is due to Common Sense that the spirit of rebellion can be spread all over the American colonies. Another implication is that ideological change is like a momentum that speeds up the development of the society. If the barons got afraid of the power of the king, the signing of Magna Carta were likely to fail, which could cause King John’s brutal regime to continue. Besides, in the American colonies, if people’s mind were not influenced by Common Sense, it was likely that the Declaration of Independence would not come into being, needless to say the founding of the United States.
In conclusion, the similarities and differences of the signing circumstances of the two documents can be categorized into three aspects: social structure, economic factors and ideological change. Specifically, as for social structure, the social structures in the two countries are different but both contribute to the construction of the context. As for economic factors, the raising taxes cause conflicts in both countries and directly lead to the signing of the documents. And considered from ideological aspect, people’s raising spirit of rebellion accelerates the signing of the two documents. A broader implication is that as for the occurrence of historical events, social structure always creates a context; economic factors provide reasonable causes while ideological change is the momentum. All the three aspects can contribute a lot to the occurrence of historical events.
- Breay, C., Harrison, J. (2014) Magna Carta: an Introduction. Available at: https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-an-introduction (Accessed: 2 December 2019).
- Eicholz, H. (2001) Harmonizing Sentiments: The Declaration of Independence and the Jeffersonian Idea of Self-Government. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
- Griffin, P. (2008) ‘What the Declaration of Independence Meant and Means’, Orbis, 52(4), pp. 713-723. doi: 10.1016/j.orbis.2008.07.008.
- Turner, R. (2003) Magna Carta. 1st edn. Harlow: Longman.
The Creation Of Magna Carta And Its Influence On History
Life during the High Middle Ages, from roughly the 11th to the 13th century, was a prosperous and enlightening time. As the climate in Europe became warmer, agricultural technology improved, trade between European cities thrived and population increased heavily. Due to discoveries such as the three-plow system and the heavy plow, more people were able to be fed, which lead to an increase in health and population for the people. With more food available, trade increased across the lands. The area of farming land spread, which connected more which created more towns and cities. Most people lived in the country and made their living by working the land.
During this time, the church was considered the highest importance. The Pope claimed rule over all people of the clergy as well as the citizens. The nobility quickly declined in status and the church rose to power. The clergy claimed to be the overruling power head because they represented God. The autocracy saw their claim as a threat to their power and overall status. The Crusades shaped the High Middle age era as well. The Crusades were a growing conflict between the Islamic and Christian Europe over the promise land and the land surrounding Jerusalem. Even though there were nine Crusades, the First Crusade and the Fourth Crusade were the most notable. In the First Crusade, the Christian peasants and lower class joined allegiance in order to regain Jerusalem from the Islam’s. This would be the greatest accomplishment of the Crusades. The fourth crusade was where the Christians from western Europe ended up attacking the Christians from eastern Europe and taking Constantinople. King John, who ruled from 1199-1216, was said to have a very high portray of himself. He believed that he was more powerful than the church. King John was one of the most notorious diabolical kings in medieval Europe. He was credited with a lot of confidence as well as determination, but his overall leadership of the people was his downfall.
The barons, tired of King John’s tyrannical rule and heavy taxes, began to rebel against the king and forced him to agree to the limitations of power that they demanded. The Magna Carta is the law to address the clergy and the nobles and to limit force on the crown. For the first time, the idea that everybody, including the king, was subject to the law was presented. It was written by the barons, the lowest class of nobility, to protect the rights of the people as well as limit the power of the king. The Magna Carta is also referred to as the Article of Barons or the Great Charter. The Magna Carta covers a large amount of very specific legal situations. The war with France cost England many plots of land so the king issued many expeditions to gain the land back. To fund these expeditions, he heavily taxed the community. The citizens were extremely upset with the absurd amount of taxation, so they planned revolts. Other than the taxes King John I was also taking in the nobility’s revue from their fief’s or fiefdoms. After the defeat against the French at Bouvines in 1214 the barons, with the word from the clergy and citizens, were part of a public revolt against the king and his power. They forced upon him the document and made him sign the Magna Carta. This was a significant event in European history because there had been charters that were for laws but were all made by the king and was the first to declare the freedoms of the people. Because of the demand for heavy taxes to fund his unsuccessful wars in France,
The Manga Carta has 63 clauses that the king must follow so there is no absolute monarchy. Most of the clauses dealt with specific matters relating to King John’s rule and the treatment of his people but within these statements discussed the ability to limit the power of a king. These laws helped give the nobility some power and diminished specifically King John’s power. Almost two thirds of the clauses that were in the Magna Carta originally were about the fiefdoms and the power the nobility should have instead of the king. The Magna Carta although resolving problems for the future, did not act as a peace treaty. King John did meet some of the requests from the barons, but within just 10 weeks he wrote secretly to Pope Innocent III requesting to nullify the Magna Carta due to the fact that he signed it against his will. Within four months the Magna Carta was null and void by the Pope. The barons and the king once again were at each other’s throats. The barons claimed that the king was not fulfilling his duty to his citizens which justified his removal from his kingship. King John eventually died on October 18, 1216 and his son Henry came to power. The barons and his supporters then put the Magna Carta in his name and was approved by the Pope. He then went on to sign the Magna Carta in 1216, 1217 and 1225.
In the High Middle Ages, monarchies were becoming the ruling power. The idea of one ruler with no limitations started to scare the citizens and led them to think that there must be a way to prevent this from happening. The monarchy slowly weeded out the nobles and their power and quickly became the ultimate ruler. The Magna Carta although did not last long, set a good foundation for many to follow. The most important clause that was presented was the clause that gave all free men the right to justice and a jury. This at the time was not as important for the High Middle Ages but in the 14th century Parliament believed that this meant everyone was to be granted a trial by jury. Franklin Roosevelt stated, ‘The democratic aspiration is no mere recent phase in human history. It was written in Magna Carta”. The U.S. Constitution and the Habeas Corpus Act, which ensures that no one can be imprisoned unlawfully in England, were written with the Magna Carta as the guideline as well. During the American Revolution, the Magna Carta sparked initiative to act out against Parliament’s cruel behavior. They believed that they should be granted with the same power as the English had because of the Magna Carta. The colonists embedded these laws and rules from the Magna Carta into the Constitution and their daily lives.
Due Process: the Fair Treatment of the Law in Schools
Fair treatment is the legitimate prerequisite that the state must regard all lawful right that is owed to an individual. Fair treatment adjusts the intensity of tradition that must be adhered to and shields the distinctive someone from it. At the point when an administration hurts an individual without following the careful course of the law, this event establishes a fair treatment infringement, which insults the standard of law.
Fair treatment has also been much of the time deciphered as constraining laws and legitimate procedures with the goal that judges, rather than officials, may characterize and ensure central reasonableness, equity, and freedom. That translation has demonstrated dubious. Undifferentiated from the ideas of normal equity, and procedural equity utilized in different locales, the understanding of fair treatment is some of the time communicated as a direction that the legislature must not be out of line to the p individuals or misuse them physically. The term isn’t utilized in contemporary English law, however, two comparable ideas are characteristic equity, which for the most part applies just to choices of regulatory organizations and a few kinds of private bodies like worker’s guilds, and the English sacred idea of the standard of law as verbalized by A. V. Uncertain and others. In any case, neither one of the concepts lines up consummately with the American hypothesis of fair treatment, which, as clarified underneath, by and by contains many inferred rights not found in either old or present-day ideas of fair treatment in Britain.
Fair treatment created from statement 39 of Magna Carta in Britain. Reference to fair treatment previously showed up in a statutory interpretation of provision 39 of every 1354 along these lines: ‘No man of what state or condition he be, will be put out of his properties or apartments nor taken, nor excluded, nor put to death, without he be brought to reply by fair treatment of law.’ When English and American law step by step wandered, fair treatment was not maintained in Britain yet got joined in the US Constitution.
In provision 39 of Magna Carta, gave in 1215, John of Britain guaranteed: ‘No liberated individual will be seized or detained, or deprived of his privileges or assets, or prohibited or banished, or denied of his remaining in some other manner, nor will we continue with power against him, or send others to do as such, aside from by the legal judgment of his equivalents or by the rule that everyone must follow.’ Magna Carta itself quickly turned out to be a piece of the ‘rule that everyone must follow’, and Condition 61 of that contract approved a chosen assemblage of 25 noblemen to decide by larger part cast a ballot what review the Ruler must give when the Lord annoys ‘in any regard against any man’.
Shorter adaptations of Magna Carta were in this manner gave by English rulers, and Proviso 39 of Magna Carta was renumbered ’29’. The expression fair treatment of law previously showed up in a statutory interpretation of Magna Carta in 1354 during the rule of Edward III of Britain, as pursues: ‘No man of what state or condition he be, will be put out of his territories or apartments nor taken, nor excluded, nor put to death, without he be brought to reply by fair treatment of law.’
In 1608, the English law specialist Edward Coke composed a treatise in which he talked about the significance of Magna Carta. Coke clarified that no man will be denied however by legem terrae, the tradition that must be adhered to, ‘that is, by the custom-based law, rule law, or custom of England…. in the proper way, and procedure of law..’
Both the provision in Magna Carta and the later rule of 1354 were again clarified in 1704 by the Sovereign’s Seat, on account of Regina v. Paty. All things considered, the English Place of House had denied John Paty and certain different residents of the privilege to cast a ballot in a political decision and submitted them to Newgate Jail just for the offense of seeking after a lawful activity in the courts. The Sovereign’s Seat, in a feeling by Equity Powys, clarified the importance of ‘fair treatment of law’ as pursues:
Boss Equity Holt disagreed for this situation since he accepted that the respondents had not in certainty been by a legitimate power. The Place of Lodge had indicated to enact singularly, without endorsement of the English Place of Rulers, apparently to manage the appointment of its individuals. Although the Sovereign’s Seat held that the Place of Hall had not encroached or upset fair treatment, John Paty was at last liberated by Sovereign Anne when she prorogued Parliament.
English Law and American Law Separate
All through hundreds of years of English history, numerous laws and treatises stated different prerequisites as being a piece of ‘fair treatment’ or remembered for the ‘rule that everyone must follow’. That view normally held concerning what was required by existing law, as opposed to what was characteristically required by fair treatment itself. As the US Incomparable Court has clarified, a fair treatment necessity in England was not ‘basic to the possibility of fair treatment of law in the indictment and discipline of violations, however was just referenced for instance and outline of fair treatment of law as it really existed in cases in which it was usually utilized’.
Eventually, the dissipated references to ‘fair treatment of law’ in English law didn’t confine the intensity of the legislature; in the expressions of American law educator John V. Orth, ‘the extraordinary expressions neglected to hold their imperativeness.’ Orth brings up this is, for the most part, credited to the ascent of the regulation of parliamentary amazingness in the Unified Realm, which was joined by antagonistic vibe towards legal survey as an undemocratic outside creation.
Researchers have every so often translated Ruler Coke’s decision in Dr. Bonham’s Case as suggesting the plausibility of legal audit, however by the 1870s, Ruler Campbell was expelling legal survey as ‘a stupid precept claimed to have been set down extra-judicially in Dr. Bonham’s Case…, a problem should have been chuckled at’.
Without the intensity of legal audit, English courts had no methods by which to proclaim government resolutions or activities invalid as an infringement of fair treatment. Interestingly, American lawmakers and official branch officials had no methods by which to overrule legal negation of resolutions or activities as fair treatment infringement, with the sole special case of proposing a sacred revision, which is once in a while fruitful. As an outcome, English law and American law veered. In contrast to their English partners, American judges turned out to be progressively self-assured about implementing fair treatment of law. Thusly, the authoritative and official branches figured out how to stay away from such encounters in any case, by fitting rules and official activities to the sacred prerequisites of fair treatment as explained upon by the legal executive.
In 1977, an English political theory educator clarified the current circumstance in Britain to help American attorneys: An American sacred legal counselor likely could be astounded by the subtlety of references to the term ‘fair treatment of law’ in the general assortment of English legitimate writing… Today one finds no space committed to fair treatment in Halsbury’s Laws of Britain, in Stephen’s Analyses, or Anson’s Law and Custom of the Constitution. The expression rates no section in such fills in as Stroud’s Legal Word reference or Wharton’s Law Dictionary. The Preeminent Court of the US translates the provisos as giving four securities: procedural fair treatment, substantive fair treatment, a restriction against dubious laws, and as the vehicle for the consolidation of the Bill of Rights.
Different nations perceive some type of fair treatment under standard worldwide law. Even though the points of interest are regularly hazy, most countries concur that they should ensure remote guests a fundamental least degree of equity and reasonableness. A few countries have contended that they will undoubtedly concede no a greater number of rights to outsiders than they do to their very own residents, the precept of national treatment, which additionally implies that both would be defenseless against similar hardships by the administration. With the development of universal human rights law and the incessant utilization of bargains to administer treatment of outside nationals abroad, the differentiation, practically speaking, between these two points of view might be vanishing. Shipley, David E. Article talking about the procedural protections that have been perceived in the EU and the parallels between procedural fair treatment in the US and the privileges of resistance in the EU.
Sudbury Valley School. Fair treatment of Law in School. A school where request and control is accomplished by a double approach dependent on a free and law-based structure: a blend of prominently based power, when rules and guidelines are made by the network all in all, decently and fairly passed by the whole school network, administered by a decent legal framework for authorizing these laws—fair treatment of law—and creating inward discipline in the individuals from the network by upgrading their capacity to endure obligation and independence. Examining the capability of freedom rights to overwhelm balance rights. ‘It’s critical to recall that although private workers don’t have sacred or government security, they do have a fair treatment right.’