What does the Magna Carta mean to you?

Question

I'm a citizen of the United States. I value our Constitution and the history of this great country and the 50 states which comprise it. Currently I live in Texas, but I've lived in Illinois, Colorado, New Mexico and Michigan, and have strong ties to Wyoming.

I have seen one of the original copies of the Magna Carta and was in awe of this very old document. I see it as one of the first steps taken by those being ruled to limit the powers of the rulers.

It stands as one of Britain's brightest contributions to mankind, in my view. How do you regard this incredible document?

I didn't say Carta Blanca!!! I said Magna Carta. Means "Great Charter," I believe.

David M, my question was indeed inspired by the recent sale of a copy of the Magna Carta.

To the cynics among you, we have to remember that the Magna Carta came in what we now refer to as the "Dark Ages." It was a time when monarchs made all the rules with few to challenge them, especially in Europe. Forget Greek democracy--it had failed long before.

Would you choose to live under an absolute monarch (like John) or a monarch with very diluted powers, if that was the only choice available?

And--most important--where did the Magna Carta lead us?

I don't totally agree with you Kimon, but I'll give you a good mark for citing history. Most of us never even consider history.

Democracy in ancient times did not tend to last particularly well, and it is best to remember that much of the strength of Rome was in its organization in ancient times as a republic. While that eventually devolved into an empire, it did much to inspire later civilizations, and Roman common law is the basis of many modern legal systems.

Bravo, De Deuce!! Awesome answer.

Tin Can Sailor, I agree that too little emphasis is given to this important history. Some college graduates haven't heard of the Magna Carta. Regardless of how one regards its value, this is an important document.

I am LOVING this discussion!!

Cimon, I have read your response several times and I think I get the general drift of what you are trying to say.

You seem to be saying you don't think the Magna Carta was very significant. I think we agree on the overall value of John, however.

I don't believe I have anywhere "scorned history." We may not all agree on how history should be intepreted, and that certainly is any person's right--it is one of the things that to me makes history more interesting than math--there are no absolute answers.

I do not disagree that the Magna Carta didn't end abuses by the monarchy or governments in general. Those abuses continue today. It was a good topic to pose a question on, because a copy of the Magna Carta was recently sold at a rather considerable cost.

Would humanity and civilization have survived and even prospered without the Magna Carta? Yes. Was it a small step toward a better society? I think it was.

As I said, we can disagree on this and other matters.

Answer 1

It was a first step in Anglo-European limitation of executive powers - but not my much. The Magna Carta - as I understand it - was only a protection to royalty - the princes, dukes, earls etc. The King could not take away their lands. He and they could still piss on the "common" folk which they continued to do for quite a while.

But it was a step in the right direction and because it was written down, it became institutionalized and used as a premise for further "democritization."

Come to think of it Europe started the process and continued it long after we declared ourselves the "Champions of Democracy" Europe now has a superioor democratic process called "The Parlimentary System" which allows for many parties where we just have two. A Parlimentary "government" is created by forming a majority from these parties which means that various points of view are usually part of any "government" whereas our government is comprised of one party in the exectutive that listens only to itself and lately takes more power from the judicial and the Congress. (Different subject)

So perhaps the real power of the Magna Carter resides in Europe and continues to be a force where our Democracy is in decline (hopefully temporarily).
El Duces statement that the Magna Carter was created at the point of a sword is well taken. Mao said, "Revolution comes from the barrel of a gun." Patric Henry said, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" I don't think we place much value on these concepts anymore which is why our Democracy is declining. But we must remember that our own Constitution says that when our government takes away our rights, it is our DUTY to overthrow that government.
Strong words that nobody speaks.

Answer 2

As far as I can remember from school back so many years ago, 50s, it was a document that diluted the power of the monarchs and gave some rule to the people. I am guessing in the 1200s in England.
It was a basic for the US constitution, the power of the people.
It is what led to democracy.
This is all based on what I learned in school in the 50s. I guess I could go and Google it and get a lot more info. But anyone can do that.
This is 50 year old information I learned in school. How many of our kids in school now have even heard of the Magna Carta? I am really disappointed in our education system .
I Just asked my stepdaughter, who is 40 years old, "what is the Magna Carta" and she had no idea. She did high school in the 80s.
So sad.

Answer 3

There are different versions of Magna Carta in different years. The first was 1215. It simply means, sovereignty of the monarch is sold. Therefore, the subjects became slaves. It also recognizes out the freeman rights.

Answer 4

Recently I read an article that referred to the Magna Carta or at least one of its copies going on sale. I find it ironic that you asked this question because it was one I thought of presenting myself.

I think of the Magna Carter as one of the first European based, documented attempts at some version of democracy or civil rights. It is almost certain the founders of what is now our system of government were influenced by it in some ways. Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Jefferson, to name a few no doubt discovered and developed their own interpretations of democracy with a little help from this historic document.

Answer 5

It was the first document that laid down the rights of the ruled and the ruler as they attempted to cooexist, but is must NOT be forgotton or lost on us in modern times that the document was not brought forth with the benevolence of the King, but rather at the point of a sword.

They say the pen is mighter than the sword, but sometimes the sword makes the hand a bit steadier when transfering the rights of a soverign to the people.

This document makes it clear that a king is a king by way of the people. It forever puts to rest the concept of the Devine Rights of Kings although it took many years, wars, and lives to deliver on the words laid down in that document just as it did to bring forth the then radical notion that "all men are created equal..." some 560 years later.

Pens are mighty instruments but swords give impetus to make us reread then from time to time.

Answer 6

Not much really. In my country, Solon and Cleisthenes, very effectively limited the power of the aristocracy by introducing Democracy about 2500 years ago.
The Magna Carta is many a step backwards.

Gee, Warren thanks for the mark!!! The fact that Greek democracy eventually failed (not because of its shortcomings, but because Greece was overwhelmed by Rome) does not diminish the fact that it was the most liberal and advanced form of government until late1800's.
Not only this but its resonance inspired all the democratic movements throughout Europe.

Answer 7

One of the greatest frauds of all time. The Magna Carta forced the King to grant almost royal like rights to nobles, and knights-the only "free men" in existance apart from Royals. It did nothing for/gave nothing to the common person; the peasantry...not even the men, let alone the women, or children. It did not limit the power of kings so much as it gave king like powers to a whole new class of abusive SOBs. It was a step backwards more than a step forwards. It took monarchies from a 'one king' system to a 'many kings' system.

Answer 8

Now,I am Cimon (I don't know who the impostor 'Kimon' is) and since you 'invoked' my name I feel obliged to answer by setting some straight facts right:
Not much, if anything, a typical sly document typical and reflecting the personality of John Lackland,almost useless
historically,someone would say even worse legally(true if you read articles 21,29 as read with articles 51 and 52 and you can read between the lines...) since king John didn't intend to
allow the application of any provisions(very little if anything was altered in the power of the kings during middle ages) and
it is obvious that it was negating itself..now Magna Carta Libertatum was not even original since it was crudely copying
an other document to a great extent, the "Charter of Liberties";its deviousness was perceived immediately,and any and objections were voiced and three Chief Justices lost their lives in the middle ages(last of which was sir Thomas More) because they naively believed that the king would abide by the Rule of Law as set out in Magna Carta Libertatum.
Picture it if you like:the king in the same room with his thugs(butchering,robbing and opressing saxons,fattening the royal purse gave baronies those days...) who were 'proudly'illiterate,determined to persuade the king even at sword point(education was for clerks...) and if they could read as well as they could fight,they would perceive
the hollowness of the document,which their priest-scribes had
already perceived because they new of other documents and
speeches of men like Senneca and Cicero whose definitions were presented with clarity about the will of the majority as it was mentioned in the Law of the Twelve Tables the original body of laws of Rome,directly derived from the Athenian constitution with touches of Plato's Republic in them and then
adapted to Roman way of live.Neither of these systems failed
or died because even the Roman emperors during the first two hundred and fifty years of the empire kept the appearance,offices and decorum of the republic;and since Romans kept as a rule the local goverments of the provinces and religion and courts untouched(policy) the same applied to the democratic states of Greece since Romans never interfered there.The advent of Christianity destroyed them by fire and sword(the usual very...christian ways of the church...)
and since my American friend you scorn History why did you present such a historical question but at the same time you dismissed a historical reply?
History is alive today and its very lessons of the past by their repetitive nature show us what we didn't learn from it not how to dismiss it:democracy is the worse system of government once we have set aside all the others...(Winston Churchil) and that was the system your founding fathers aspired to in their declaration of independence if you care to read it again witha somewhat critical eye...
Magna Carta had one side effect though:it provided rights for commoners and since the barons borrowed money from Burgheses who were merchants they later insisted that some
of their desires should be put in the discussions of the council
of barons indepedently as "Common Petitions"(1308AD)and
that later gave birth to the House of Commons.

Answer 9

Magna Carta to me means the contract between Pilgrims and God.The first constitution.A promise to make a christian nation.

Answer 10

It means old document that I forgot about since high school. Now that you bring it up, I'm gonna take a look at it. Warren D, you rule!