10 votes

The Magna Carta - basis for Common and Constitutional Law. Is it valid?


Pay attention from 27 to 31 seconds. Is that a valid contract?

So, we need to get very clear about where our rights come from. Not from the Constitution, not from the Magna Carta.

Thanks to celeste for pointing this out to me. I've pondered it for a day or two, and want to lay this out to the rest of the people here. What is the TRUE foundation of law and justice?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

How Could Magna Charta Be At All Pertinent Today ?

The Law has always fallen back on the Articles of Confederation in order to find the INTENT of the founding fathers.

It is the Articles of Confederation that created the Sovereign States, not the Constitution.

It is the Articles of Confederation that created free inhabitants of the Sovereign States, not the Constitution.

It is the Articles of Confederation that created the union, not the Constitution.

The Articles of Confederation ARE in FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.

It is the Magna Carta of England 1215 from whence we derive our birthrights restated in the Preamble of the Constitution for the United States of America.

It is from the Holy Scriptures whence the Magna Carta of 1215 gleaned those rights, that were attached to the land itself that God gave to Abraham and it is His covenant that we break when we sell our freedoms for security under the government of the United States. The wording used to transfer the land to Abraham from God was stated in specific words, these words were used in transferring freeholds until the 1800's. The words are still found in deeds, wills and other documents transferring property. They are the words of inheritance defining the size of the freehold. To Ourselves and our Posterity are those words of inheritance. In God we Trust does not only mean, in God I have faith.

The Constitution is a Trust : http://www.The-Legacy.Info

Looks Like A Good Place For This Now :

STATES, n. plu. Nobility.

Webster's 1828

The Constitution is a Trust : http://www.The-Legacy.Info

"Jury of your peers" is of nobles like you, lest we all forget.

Webster's Dictionary, 1828 edition: peer noun

4. A nobleman; as a peer of the realm; the house of peers, so called because noblemen and barons were originally considered as the companions of the king, like Latin comes, count. In England, persons belonging to the five degrees of nobility are all peers.
Centuries come & go. Look back down the road you have traveled by & by, lest you forget why you wish to go forward. You are a sovereign unto yourself. A noble. A peer, lest you forget.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Was it just law.

The Constitution refers to the Laws of Nations.

Published be Vattel in 1852, many participants to the Constitutional Convention carried a copy.


Free includes debt-free!

Webster's Dictionary, 1828 edition: peer noun

4. A nobleman; as a peer of the realm; the house of peers, so called because noblemen and barons were originally considered as the companions of the king, You are a peer, unto yourself, lest we all forget. See Daniel Webster's dictionary citation in my recent reply above.
Webster's Dictionary, 1828 Edition. See "peer." A ~ is a noble...

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

A Touch on Magna Charta by Federalist Hamilton :

General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and

From McLEAN's Edition, New York.

It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are,
in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects,
abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of
rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained
by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the
subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such
was the PETITION OF RIGHT assented to by Charles I., in the beginning
of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by
the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards
thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of
Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive
signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly
founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate
representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people
surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need
of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United
States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United
States of America.'' Here is a better recognition of popular rights,
than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in
several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much
better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.

The Constitution is a Trust : http://www.The-Legacy.Info

Seal of the First Continental Congress :

Below is a colourised version of the Medallion which “Sealed” the Report of the First Congress.

This is the first seal of the “united States of America”. The Seal is described, saved and passed on to us by Associate Supreme Court Justice Henry Baldwin.

The seal is sacred and in heraldry every spec, leaf, object, word and part has an absolute meaning. A meaning of which the person or persons who created it were trying to convey. In this particular seal we know that:

In the surround in Latin are the words “on this we rely” “this we will defend”. We see 12 Dexter arms (right arms) representing the 12 colonies in Congress Assembled, Georgia was not present. ( Left arms are called sinister and the meaning is dark ). An arm means a person with qualities of leadership. These arms are issuing forth from the surrounding clouds. Clouds represent mystery or obscured truth. The center column represents fortitude and constancy. On top of the column is the Phrygian Cap of Liberty and all of this is resting on a solid base covered by a white scroll with the words Magna Charta written on it.

The column and cap also represent the way and means for a human being to be conceived, born and capable of inheriting an estate and claim their status to the world. It was these issues the founding fathers were fighting for, and not particularly taxation without representation. The Right to inherit Freedom as their forefathers had done, derived from the Magna Charta of 1215. This pretty much lays out the intention and mind set of the assembly for those versed in such things.

Judge Baldwin's exposition is available -

A General View Of The Origin And Nature Of The Constitution And
Government Of The United States, Deduced From The Political History And
Condition Of The Colonies And States, From 1774 Until 1788.

Pub. January 1873. Linked to page 6 from Google Books.

In toto it's a pretty thorough treatment of the subject, although he does not go into the Heraldry to any degree.

Magna Charta was republished many times, 30 or so down through history. Different publications are often amended. If you check your STATES Statutes at Large you should find Magna Charta right up front. Same with the US Statutes at Large and US Code.

In the course of my own study I collected two different versions, one from US and one from California, that contained different clauses. As I recall, the US contained reference to prohibiting certain bankers and Calif. to the right to replace government. These clauses were not in both publications.

The Constitution is a Trust : http://www.The-Legacy.Info

Magna Carta laid down rule of law in print. King obliged.

Magna Carta: who; what; where; when?

The Magna Carta, ‘Great Charter’, brought codified justice to the people of England. It reduced the King's power, and gave written rules of the realm to the Barons and the People... The Magna Carta Stated 37 English laws, new & old...

The Magna Carta was a vital agreement about the rights of individuals... Magna Carta as a peace agreement to protect his throne... a document which prevented the King from abusing his powers (e.g. Raising taxes to fund campaigns)...

... The meeting of lords and commoners, referred to as Parliaments (parler in French), to discuss laws, mainly taxes... The Magna Carta abolished trail by ordeal, and had commoners trailed by jury... Many barons, lords, and bishops forced this document upon King John. King John signed the Magna Carta reluctantly under the circumstances that his Kingdom was under control by his barons, and that he might lose his throne.

... Magna Carta was signed by King John on the 10th of June 1215. On the 15th of June 1215... in a Meadow at Runnymede, Surrey, South England. This all happened under the watch full and eager eyes of the Bishops, Barons who surprised King John a few days before in full armour. Magna Carta text.

Magna Carta versions: 1215 vs 1297. Differences abound! Why? Submitted by Mark Twain on Mon, 10/03/2011

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

It is the historical basis - not the legal one.

Even if it is a legal one historically, there is an independent basis for inalienable rights and for Constitutional government.

Monarchy is not some "de facto" authorized form of government absent the Magna Carta.

Custom is Law in the UK as I recall

I reckon it is 500 years and over.


An act under duress?

It's hard to say that any treaty signed in defeat is an act not under duress... but it still becomes law.


~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

The Magna Carta ...

... was a document that was used as a tool by the "noble" class to restrict what the king would (not could, but would) do in the future. It eventually evolved into a primary basis for common law amongst the people.

A contract must be by consenting adults, of like mind, for consideration, etc. It was not a contract. It was a POLITICAL tool used by rich men to thwart actions by an even richer man (the king), so that they (the rich men) would retain their status. It had the side effect of eventually benefiting others, as well, as it was used as a means of promoting the idea that no person should have that much power over others. It was part of the evolution from full tyranny towards more liberty. The American founders were influenced by it, as well as other works.

"Rights" do not exist. They are not tangible things we can point to. Rights is a term we use to identify what we SHOULD agree to with each other.

If you and I enter into a contract, each of us has acquired contractual rights, but no one outside of that contract is affected one way or another.

If a government is formed and a constitution is put in place, then the people who swear an oath to uphold it in the carrying out of their duties are taking on the duty to uphold constitutional rights that OTHER people (not the employees) are said to have. It is a ONE WAY street. The employees are supposed to uphold constitutional rights. They can "give" you the "right" to vote. It is a constitutional right.

If you and I form a business, we each have voting rights. If I rent your house, I have possession rights (or leasehold rights), and you have ownership rights. If we both live in a place where a "government" claims to assert authority and claims to do so by virtue of a constitution where they claim to enforce voting rights, then we both have voting rights, which are a type of constitutional right (similar to contractual rights that we both might have in voting on things having to do with our business agreement).

Fundamental rights are life, liberty, and property (which Jefferson expanded to "pursuit of happiness"). These are fundamental. If a government can take them away, then they cannot be fundamental. If they are fundamental, then not even government can take them away. They are inalienable for this reason (inalienable had to do with the noble class' rights to property back in the day in England). It just means that "even" government cannot take them away, because otherwise they would not be fundamental.

Where do fundamental rights come from? They come from common agreement among us because that is the only way we can survive as a species and live in a peaceful society. These "rights" (or more precisely, these ways of interacting with one another) were understood by humans LONG before governments came into existence. This is how we would treat each other if stranded on a deserted island with no "government" in the picture. It is an axiom that life, liberty, and property are fundamental rights, because to claim otherwise is to destroy the concept.

Some people will say these come from a god, but then where did the god get the rights or powers? They will claim they are part of his nature. In that case, we can just eliminate the middle man and state that fundamental rights must be a part of human nature itself, wherever humans came from, because there is no other reasonable viewpoint. Anything else means slavery. And slavery is the worst human condition. We are talking about what is the BEST human condition, and so we can eliminate that which is its opposite (slavery).

Fundamental rights are part of our humanity. From the fundamental rights, we can enter into voluntary agreements and we can, as individuals, acquire contractual rights vis-a-vis each other.

Constitutional rights, if they are promoted through force (which they are) are questionable. Having said that, we also live in a society that is ignorant (uninformed, misinformed, and dis-informed) when it comes to these concepts, and constitutional rights are something that most people can identify with and accept. So, defending them is not necessarily a bad thing.

However just remember that owning slaves was a "constitutional right" for the first 21 years under the US Constitution. Constitutional rights, like contractual rights, can be changed over time. Fundamental rights do not change because they are a part of humanity itself.

Was owning slaves a constitutional right originally?

I suspect this was a hypocrisy of the time. One of the purposes of the constitution was to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves". I don't think slavery was explicitly addressed. It said "importation of persons" and talked about people "bound to service for a term of years. Prisoners? Paid workers? Purposely vague. I suspect it was already rampant in the colonies and the powers-that-be took advantage of the ambiguity, (or made it ambiguous for that purpose) until the 13 Amendment was passed. To me though, it seems that the government was already prohibited from enforcing slave ownership one way or the other but allowed for it anyway. I think the real shortcomings of the original constitution were that voting rights withheld from natives and "three fifths of all other persons".

The Magna Carta only really applied to the nobility

The king, the earls, dukes, barons, knights, etc.

If the common people were of a certain opinion, it was given to them by the nobility.

But it was only a power-sharing agreement amongst the nobility at the time.



Does anyone wonder why the nobles built castles? hummmm? TO PROTECT THEM FROM THE PEASANTS THEY WERE COLLECTING TAX FROM (in the form of food and product of their work). It was the INTRODUCTION OF FEUDALISM that caused all this tax stuff. Everyone just lived on the land before that.

The peasants would regularly just burn down the nobleman's house.

The reason why the nobles were able to build those castles was with the approval of the King. The King needed his nobles to collect the tributes aka TAXES. The nobles got to live very removed from real life in the castle on standby until the King called upon them to go to war for him. That was the price of their nobility. AND OFTEN the King answered to the Pope.



"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

It doesn't need to be valid contract.

Rights are taken, not given IMO. You want to get philosophical and say they are endowed by a creator or come from some natural law, then perhaps there is an argument for that, but in the end Rights belong to those that actually take them and maintain them. A king need not give such rights for them to exist, and they may not exist even if he does. The Magna Carta has importance not because it was a contract that the govenrment is suppose to honour, but because it articulates the importance of the Rule of Law and the need to stop arbitrary power.

Folks, this is important.

The Magna Carta was never valid. It was signed under duress.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:

An Opinion !

When the Magna Carta was first written, it was a world of Kingdoms, where a ruler of the Kingdom had supreme power over his realm. {Jurisdiction}

The U.S. Constitution took some things from the Magna Carta, as the video points out, but was supposed to be a new {In 1792} concept, where the people controlled the government through the election of representatives.
The U.S. Constitution is very clear on how to limit the power of a government, however as Ron Paul has pointed out many times, the U.S. Constitution is NOT being followed, and we are seeing the end results of that transgression worldwide, right now.



Bump for MC


I use the magna carta in

I use the magna carta in parallel with the Constitution.

That the mc brings forth some rights of man and that the c explains what it takes to maintain natural rights.

That these two docs should have existed since man first came to be and until their end, if that is to be. Both docs are valid during this complete time span.

It is these basics that modern humanity has been re-educated away from.

I know it doesn't answer your question but just wanted to share some fundamentals.

so, uh, you "use" the magna carta?

How exactly do you do that? Since it is not in effect anywhere in the world at present, and specifically not in the US, it doesn't carry any level of authority with a court. So what do you "use" it for? Do you cite it to the incredulous judge at your traffic ticket hearings. Do you read it to your kids at night? How about do you wipe your butt with it after a big steamy dump? I'm just curious how you go about "using the Magna Carta". ROFL

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Why so snarky

undies in a pinch?

I dislike stupidity

I dislike stupidity

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

I'm also curious

since you so love the Magna Carta, about your feelings as pertaining to rights of scuttage, and why it contains very little in the way of rights for the common man? I mean, seeing as it is perceived by you to be this great document from time immemorial.

Hint: It wasn't. It was the powers that be throwing a very small tidbit at the landed gentry, only.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein



Is the Magna Carta a valid contract?

That is a pretty easy question to answer. No, it is not. It was signed under force. Therefore, how can an invalid contract be a valid basis for law? Neither it nor the Constitution are that old, there are MUCH older forms of law.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:

I look at the mc as "a golden

I look at the mc as "a golden rule". It would be the same basis as those who look at the ten commandments.

However, the mc has been believed to be as law. You don't hear much about it though ...