General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsClearly, reestablishing Magna Carta is an unrealistic Left Wing goal....
People who walk around muttering "jury of peers" and "due process" are just NOT to be taken seriously. If we want to realistically challenge the "Divine Right of Kings", we on the Left are going to have to set our sights a tad lower.
Myself, I think I could live with a ban on Drawing and Quartering. Surely simple beheading is more merciful and there's always Burning at the Stake for more serious cases. There are some progressive states that want to introduce a new concept called Trial by Ordeal, but I just don't think that Red States are ready for that yet.
Remember: Small incremental improvements always win the day over dangerous, radical change.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)progressoid
(49,991 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)The nobles didn't like that. The Magna Carta isn't a very good document in a lot of ways, and there's a reason that phrase is nowhere in the Constitution.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm actually kind of sympathetic to John. He got a bad rap.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)The British monarchy was never that strong. What he did was assert his right to hear commoners' appeals from baronial judgements.
And unlike his brother Richard the Lionhearted, he actually spoke English and lived in England.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)The right of a person to be tried by a jury of one's peers is traditionally founded on a provision contained in Chapter 29 of that great document of English law, the Magna Carta. That provision, written in 1225, states: "No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor (condemn him), but by lawful judgment of his own peers, or by the law of the land."
Subsequent generations -- including the authors of the Bill of Rights -- came to regard this provision as one of the principal legal guarantees of liberty under the common law. This belief came on the basis that the clause not only provided for a formal trial for any alleged wrongdoer instead of arbitrary judgment and summary execution, but also on the basis that it provided for trial by jury. They felt the phrase " . . . but by lawful judgment of his peers" ensured a fair trial and provided a safeguard against unwarranted interference with the rights and liberties of the subject.
Congress, in discussing policy regarding jury service, said: "It is the policy of the United States that all litigants in federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross-section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes. It is also the policy of the United States that all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for service on grand and petit juries in the district courts of the United States, and shall have an obligation to serve as jurors when called for that purpose."
....
http://members.mobar.org/civics/jury%20of%20peers.htm
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Because it was about nobles not being tried by commoners.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)as a synonym for equal more than "a member of the peerage".
"No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor (condemn him), but by lawful judgment of his own peers, or by the law of the land."
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Earls had to be tried by earls, counts by counts, etc. It means no class could be called to account by a lower class (the classes above you had bonds of vassalage to do that). John introduced juries composed of all free men for all free men, and the nobles went apeshit.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I may not be as extreme left as you, but I only vote Democratic, so I assure you my liberal cred is intact.
I sympathize with your goals, but the best way to achieve sensible incremental goals is by listening to the the position of your most extreme opponents and find a middle ground between that and our most moderate (thus sensible) ideas, that is the only method of choosing a starting point for negotiations that will ever prove successful, your position is simply too extreme to be "electable".
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I believe you would have called this countries founders as "extreme". When people are being subjugated, it is time foe extreme measures.
Plez explain how a liberal cred like you differs from the extreme left. Tell us what issues the extreme left are fighting for that you disagree with.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)Right over their heads.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)but rather from where we could be if we allowed the Right complete, unchallenged reign.
Some will object: "Don't you see? That's WHY we've been moving backwards and why we're reduced to begging for Magna Carta to be reestablished." Fortunately, they are in a tiny minority.
tama
(9,137 posts)"Know thy enemy."
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Neither had rudders. (Irrelevant, I know, but I'm reading a naval history book right now and thought I would share.)
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)You don't really need one if you only sail with the wind ("large" ; you only need them to sail against the wind ("by" -- guess what phrase those lead to?) I guess the Arabs had already invented them, but they didn't make it to Europe until after the crusades.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)how horrific.
Herlong
(649 posts)Herlong
(649 posts)let me direct you to my frogs
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Magna Carta -- 1215. We survived almost 900 years with the rights guaranteed by the Magna Carta challenged and transgressed now and then but always the hallmark of English law. And now, here we are having to fight once again for the simple rights of a free person: the rights to notice and to be heard, the right to a jury of one's peers and, hopefully, a judge who is fair.
No president should have the right to kill someone without notice and the right to be heard, without a fair trial.
Those living or fighting in a war zone have at least some notice if no right to be heard. But these drones are being used in a way that completely violates this basic tenet of a free society.
Don't even use the word free if you don't have an inalienable right to a trial -- to notice and to be heard -- because if you don't have those rights, you are not free.
More about the Magna Carta.
The 1215 charter required King John of England to proclaim certain liberties and accept that his will was not arbitraryfor example by explicitly accepting that no "freeman" (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through the law of the land, a right that still exists.
Magna Carta was the first document forced onto a King of England by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded and directly influenced by the Charter of Liberties in 1100, in which King Henry I had specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited.
Despite its recognised importance, by the second half of the 19th century nearly all of its clauses had been repealed in their original form. Three clauses currently remain part of the law of England and Wales, however, and it is generally considered part of the uncodified constitution. Lord Denning described it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot".[3] In a 2005 speech, Lord Woolf described it as "first of a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a special constitutional status",[4] the others being the Habeas Corpus Act (1679), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689), and the Act of Settlement (1701).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
Drones should never be used within the United States or to target American citizens. Let's at least start there. And why do I say we should not use them to target American citizens? Because the Constitution prohibits our government from denying the right of habeas corpus other than in insurrection.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Very, very well put.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)T_i_B
(14,738 posts).......the only people who bring Magna Carta up in political debate are obsessive UKIP types citing Magna Carta in rants about Ted Heath and the evils of the European Union.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)You know, the gangster state, our own.
http://www.michaelparenti.org/JFKAssassination.html