The Magna Carta has neither legal nor symbolic significance in Australia
The Magna Carta developed through a tumultuous period of English History. Through the verge of a revolution, attack and civil war, all within 1215, a time where the Kings abused his power by excessive royal efforts which were funded by undue taxes that supported such endeavors. In determining whether the Magna Carta has legal nor symbolic significances, it is important to consider not only the history of the Magna Carta but the significance of the article, a review of its current legal meaning, its dominance towards the symbol of power in particularly the perspectives of the individual against the state which allowed for alternative perspectives on the article and one
…show more content…
First of all, it was achieved by force. A promise brought about by coercion is rarely considered valid, least of all by the person who was forced to make that promise. King John wanted to keep his crown and was willing to sign any piece of paper in order to do that: he had no intention of keeping the promise his signature gave. In fact, through the pope, John rejected it almost immediately. All this is not to say that rejection and ignorance of this charter makes it completely insignificant, after all, it has remained in politics for hundreds of years. Instead, it is to show that at the time the document was written, the Magna Carta was not legally binding.
In determining whether there is any legal or symbolic significance in Australia, it is important to understand the original purpose of the Magna Carta. In Magna Carta King John agreed to a series of regulations of his rights under feudal custom, largely as they affected large landholders of Britain. In 1215 Magna Carta did not offer the protection of law to all the king’s subjects, but within a few years it was being quoted in individual actions in courts and in petitions, as a defence of the rights of all against
…show more content…
Clause 61 was not mentioned in 1297 and Clause 14 barely suggested at the emergence of parliament. Furthermore, it is clear that there is little any legal significance or symbolism. Furthermore, the last myth relates to the symbol of the Magna Carta as empowering the people over the state. To a certain extent, it is factual on the basis of the 1215 emphasis of the charter. Clause 61 of the Magna Carta affirmed that the King was to pledge an oath of fealty to its people who had enforceable veto power over him which was ultimately retracted. However, the initiative of a legal revolt remained but in a speech to the Senate by Harry Evans, it was mentioned that the legal significance of the charter was unrelated and unimportant as compared to the symbolism. He recognized the myths and issues of the Magna Cart “reflected in the relative successes of the English
The milestone judicial decision in Cole v Whitfield pronounced a pivotal moment in Australian jurisprudence in relation to the interpretation of s92 of the Australian constitution. This essay will critically analyse the constitutional interpretation approach utilised in Cole v Whitfield. This method will be compared with the interpretational methods exemplified in Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory. Although within these two cases there appears to be a preference towards a particular interpretational method, each mode has both strengths and weaknesses. Accordingly, the merit of each should be employed in conjunction with one another, where the court deems fit, complementing each other. This may provide a holistic approach to interpreting the constitution.
The validity of British’s occupation of Australia has been fundamentally shaken. The decision protected Aboriginal people’s cultures and lifestyles to a certain degree. Moreover, it guaranteed that some of the lands they live will not be developed. There were five key issues of importance to legal precedent in the Mabo decision for the recognition of Indigenous peoples’ rights in Australia (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, 2017). For example, it helps to promote the idea of non-discrimination. From then on, a series of laws had been introduced to help safeguard their standard legal rights and
The roots of Australian laws are similar to traditional Aboriginal laws, dating back to before the Norman Conquest in 1066, where each separate village had their own laws developed to their own customs. This changed however, after a centralized legal system was established after 1066. A common law was formed, that applied to all of England. This was later combined with equity law and mercantile law, which is the basis of Australian law today, known as ‘statute law’.
The Magna Carta provides protection for English citizens by limiting the power of the government. This protection can be explained through a parable: Sam Purcell of Sheffield is building a house for his family. On a chilly, November morning the noble that is in charge of Sheffield starts taking wood from Sam’s temporary shed, (where he is building his house,) for his castle. The Magna Carta makes this illegal without the consent of the owner, (31) Neither we nor any royal official will take wood for our castle, or for any other purpose, without the consent of the owner. King John of England undersigned the Magna Carta; this shaped the start of England’s constitutional monarchy. Instead of being an absolute monarchy, King John and his descendants had to abide the laws listed in the charter. Without the Magna Carta, the United States might exist without the constitution or might not exist at
This essay is about the land rights of of Australia and how Eddie Marbo was not happy about his land been taken away from him. In May 1982 Eddie Marbo and four other people of the Murray Islands began to take action in the high court of Australia and confirming their land rights. Eddie Marbo was a torres islander who thought that the Australian laws were wrong and who went to fight and try and change them. He was born in 1936 on Mer which is known as Murray Island. The British Crown in the form of the colony of Queensland became of the sovereign of the islands when they were annexed in1978. They claimed continued enjoyment of there land rights and that had not been validly extinguished by the sovereign. (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012)
At the commencement of European settlement, Australia inherited the system of land law that existed in England. Before the introduction of Torrens in 1875, a system of registration of deeds was in place in Western Australia. This is a system under which instruments relating to property transactions are recorded on a central register. In Western Australia, priority is decided according to the date of registration, and there is no stipulation concerning the bona fides or valuable consideration given by the...
The Magna Carta was the first document in which English subjects to force English king into power; granting and protecting the subjects’ rights. This was important since the king at the time could do anything that he so desired. However, in practice, this English legal charter did not limit the king’s power. The Magna Carta is the beginnings of American freedom. It is also the foundation of the American Constitution, reflecting English freedom and the power of the English government.
Australians by not clarifying it’s stance on it’s international obligations to Indigenous Australians or reflecting it’s international rhetoric and signature on UN conventions by implementing some in domestic law. This inadequacy in the development of Indigenous Peoples Land Rights in Australia has been declared by the Working Group on Indigenous Populations in July 1997, and highlights the Australian government policy regarding Indigenous Peoples Land Rights and may be argued as a denial of justice for Indigenous People by the Australian legal system. Australia can be said to be ineffective in achieving justice for Indigenous People due to it’s failure to recognise Indigenous Australians rights to land domestically by failing the Human Rights standards contained in international initiatives to which it is a signatory.
A Constitution is a set of rules put in place to govern a country, by which the parliament, executive and judiciary must abide by in law making and administering justice. In many countries, these laws are easily changed, while in Australia, a referendum process must take place to alter the wording of the Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia, date unknown, South Australian Schools Constitutional Convention Committee 2001). Since the introduction of the Australian Constitution in January 1901, there have been sufficient proposals to alter and insert sections within the body to reflect the societal values of the day, ensuring the Constitution remains relevant to the Australian people. Although Constitutional reform can be made on a arrangement of matters, the latest protests on Indigenous recognition and racial references within the body of the Constitution has called into question the validity of racial inclusion, and whether amendments should be made to allow for recognition. This essay will focus on the necessity of these amendments and evaluate the likelihood of change through the process of referenda.
The rights and freedoms achieved in Australia in the 20th and 21st century can be described as discriminating, dehumanising and unfair against the Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians have achieved rights and freedoms in their country since the invasion of the English Monarch in 1788 through the exploration and development of laws, referendums and processes. Firstly, this essay will discuss the effects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the Indigenous Australians through dehumanising and discriminating against them. Secondly, this essay will discuss how Indigenous Australians gained citizenship and voting
Early in British history, the establishment of the Magna Carta gave its citizens basic human rights such as the right to a fair trial by jury in circumstances of accused misdemeanor. However, this document allowed “general warrant[s which gave consent to arrest accused criminals but did not have limitations on their search or seizure and that] did not expire until t...
This next one is not really meant for literature, it was actually written for a peace treaty between King John of England and a group of rebel barons. It was originally known as the Magna Carta Libertatum. According to this charter, it guarantees protection of the church rights, as well as the protection for the said barons from illegal imprisonment. King John was actually considered to be a terrible king, hence why the barons are against him. One of the reasons is that the King raised his taxes without asking the nobles and it is actually against the law of England.
The Westminster Legal System, upon which the Australian one is based, can be traced back to 1066 when William the Conqueror won the Battle of Hastings. As king, he set out rules and sent judges around the land on horseback to ensure that they were followed and offenders punished. It is from these times that the Doctrine of Precedence originated. A log of crimes and punishments was kept: as a means of convenience, judges could hand out punishments in line with the punishments given for similar cases. In the 19th Century, this doctrine became binding. In 1215, the Magna Carta was signed by King John, putting the first check against all previous monarchs’ ‘rule by Divine Right’. It was significant because the Magna Carta also gave people the right to be judged by one’s peers. In 1689, after the Glorious Revolution, Parliament became the Supreme Law-making body, monarchs no longer reigned over Parliament, but sat in Parliament.
-Common Law: the “law of the land”(Pool 127), which was built up over many centuries
In 1603 the Scottish and English monarchies were united and at the beginning of the eighteenth century, the monarchy of the United Kingdom was deprived of the decision-making privilege they once had. For the purpose of this essay, I intend to examine the many different arguments both for and against the British monarchy being abolished. Proponents argue strongly that the monarchy symbolises all that is British throughout Britain and the Commonwealth Realms. However, contrary to this, the monarchy receives exorbitant financial aid from the British taxpayers to maintain the monarchy. Does the monarchy have a place in the twenty first century?