The Magna Spoiled-Tyrant Carta

How did you enjoy reading the Magna Carta? It's not to late to read it now if you're just joining us. And bring your friends.

I spent some time with my nose in the dictionary for some of those Medieval terms, that's for sure. My personal favorite was "disseisin," which according to dictionary.com means, "wrongful dispossession of one in the possession of real property." Isn't it easier just to call it theft? I think it's kind of like a Medieval version of eminent domain, minus the reimbursement part...so yeah, pretty much theft.

I was amazed at how many points in this document seemed self-evident to me, which goes to show exactly how significant this document was. Judging from the tone of the writing, before the Magna Carta, kings basically had free reign to do whatever they wish. There was no law except the law they gave to the people (which obviously didn't apply to them).

Which brings me to my main point. Most of us are familiar with the model showing a line with tyranny on one side and anarchy on the other with liberty somewhere in between. Looks something like this:

But where does our King John lie? I think that depends on who and when we ask. For King John, before this document was imposed on him, it is anarchy. There is no law restricting his actions. For the people before this document was written, there is tyranny, as absolute law is imposed on them at the whim of their King. After this document was written, I'm sure King John thought of it as tyranny, since it was the first time his rule had been restricted by written laws. But the people would call it liberty, as now there is a written law protecting their interests, while punishing criminals, including--for the first time ever--the king! To compensate for for this difference in perspective, I drew up this model:

After all, anarchy is really tyranny of a different kind, where the strongest make the rules.

That King John violated the Magna Carta as soon as his barons left is only evidence that a document's significance can't be judged entirely by its effectiveness. The ideas were out there now. And King John's violation of his oath served only to reinforce how essential a written law that applies to rulers as well as common citizens is to a free society.

Another interesting note is the creation of the council of twenty-five barons. While a far-cry from the elected citizens that form a parliament or congress, it was perhaps the first real check on a king's authority (besides the Church).

I also see a small semblance of a recognition of basic human rights. It's not strong, and not specifically mentioned as human rights, but they seemed to know that people have a right to property, and a right to liberty. I didn't see anything on life, but maybe it slipped my notice. Stolen (or "disseized") property was returned to its rightful owners and the king no longer had the authority to take without permission or payment. People wrongfully imprisoned were released, and the people now had a right to what is now called habeas corpus.

That the barons were successful in obtaining the king's oath to uphold this document to begin with is proof that a ruler can't rule without the consent of the governed. Though none of it stuck at first, it was a huge leap forward in the cause of liberty!

What do you think? Now begins the discussion. You are welcome to either comment on what I have written, or bring up points that I missed. Invite your friends to join the discussion as well. I'd also like some suggestions for what documents we should study in the future.

As for next week's assignment, I'm going to go back in time a little bit. I learned that King John's father King Henry imposed a law on himself called the Constitutions of Clarendon in 1164. I'm interested in what it said.