Contrary to popular belief, the 'Magna Carta' is not a document that ensures democracy to the people of England. In fact it is the opposite. It was drawn up by foreign invaders of the country who started to rule over the English people. It is in no way a Constitution, since a Constitution is made by the people themselves. A Constitution is not made by lords, kings, or rulers, but by the general public. Therefore, is it true that, in fact, England has never had a Constitution other than that foisted on them by ruling elites ?
2006-08-31 03:53:19 · 12 answers · asked by democracynow 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
I wasn't there but probably true.
In a "democracy" people should be able to vote on issues but there is supposed to be a "rule book" or "constitution".
The system of electing representatives is called a republic but there is still supposed to be a "rule book".
In the UK, we traditionally make up the rules as we go along but the ones in the Magna Carta were made by the foreign feudal landlords and their local supporters in Latin.
2006-08-31 04:25:04 · answer #1 · answered by Nothing to say? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hon, I hate to break it to you considering you're English and I'm not, but 1066 was NOT the year the Magna Carta was signed. That would be 1215. 1066 was the year the Normans conquered England and took it from the Saxons. While it is true, that the commoners had a long way to go before they were given any rights under a "Constitution" in Britain, the Magna Carta was the first time in history that lords and other aristocrats ruled by a king insisted that they be given some lawful consideration in the king's rule, especially when it came to their land.
2006-08-31 05:17:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Magna Carta 1215. Quite a long time those "foreign invaders" had been around.
A constitution cannot be made by the public except through the medium of some elected assembly and judging by the way our current one is performing I wouldn't let them anywhere near it!
2006-08-31 04:07:45 · answer #3 · answered by Tony h 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Washington and his gentrified patrician friends were the American equivalent of lords. Your founders got together just like the English lords to foist their constitution on the general public.
Do you think Washington and friends gave a damn what the tinker, tailor and candlestick maker on the American street thought? They were conceited enough not to give a damn for the views of the general public. You could call it a kind of benign facism.
2006-08-31 04:03:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
As far as I am aware we don't need a Bill of Rights (or equivalent) in the UK because our legal system is set up differently.
In the UK everything is legal - unless specifically prohibited. Whereas is the USA everything is illegal unless specifically sanctioned.
This could be complete cr@p, but that is how is has been explained to me in the past. Anyone care to comment?
2006-08-31 04:03:44 · answer #5 · answered by e404pnf 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Check out our Bill of Rights. But as already pointed out by the Questioner, this is not the complete thing. Back to the drawing board!
2006-08-31 03:57:28 · answer #6 · answered by Saudi Geoff 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is right, the UK has no constitution.
We are still official run by the Queen and her government.
Although all European Constitution takes precedence over that anyway.
2006-08-31 04:01:41 · answer #7 · answered by stickyricky 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We certainly don't live in a democracy, more a sort of semi-democracy, where the government gives the illusion of giving people rights.
2006-08-31 20:01:39 · answer #8 · answered by Phlodgeybodge 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I heard a rumour that when Harold was looking for archers for his army, one lad was such a bad shot, Harold said to him, "You might as well join the Normans, because with your aim, you'll probably take someones eye out."
2006-08-31 04:03:44 · answer #9 · answered by Boris 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Foisted, eh. The swine.
2006-08-31 04:03:20 · answer #10 · answered by Spotlight 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋