Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays about magna carta
Magna carta research essay
The importance of magna carta
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays about magna carta
Magna Carta
The Magna Carta was an important legal document in feudal England, where despotism oppressed the masses. Magna Carta, meaning ‘The Great Charter’, is one of the most renowned documents in the world, it was originally sealed by King John of England as an expedient response to political pressure from revolting barons at Runnymede in 1215. The Charter outlined terms of a de facto constitutional settlement between the crown, the most influential families and the entire community. The original charter, contains 63 articles, which are mostly concerned with taxation, criminal justice, public administration and royal abuses of feudal customs. The Magna Carta established the principle that all men, including the monarchy, was subject to
…show more content…
Sir Edward Coke's asserts that Magna Carta “was for the most part declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws of England,” is that the doctrines in Magna Carta are common law principles. Jurisdictions with Imperial Acts like Victoria and Queensland enact chapter 29 of the Magna Carta. While Western Australia, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Tasmania theoretically have most of the Magna Carta in force. Even though the Charter is hypothetically in force as part of inherited Imperial statute law, it needs to be suitable for local conditions. Most of the Magna Carta of 1297 are specific to the times and have been repealed by the British in the 19th Century. Furthermore, in Australia there are jurisdictions to change the common law in the highest courts. It follows from this that even on the basis that Magna Carta is an expression of common law, the High Court of Australia, for example, was free in Jago v District Court of New South Wales to declare that in Australia there is no common law right to a speedy trial. In this case, the law in the charter (other than chapter 29) has been repealed since. It also follows that if Magna Carta is part of the common law of Australia it is uniform throughout the country. However, this argument for the Magna Carta as common law clashes with statutory material such …show more content…
In legal and political history, there is a dispute as to whether Magna Carta represents the principled protection of human liberty or rather is a pragmatic declaration of baronial rights. The charter as a medieval text, if read narrowly within the grievances of a specific class displeased with King John, is simply an interesting artefact stipulating privileges endowed to the elite and are in the interests of aristocracy. This contextualised analysis of the Magna Carta reveals that many of its historical factors indicate “it was the product of a particular historical situation. ” The concept of ‘liberties’ embedded within the Charter, relies on feudal customs, meaning that a superior can remove rights for just cause. Therefore, universal inherent or civic rights cannot be attributed to the Magna Carta without historical plausibility. Rather, the charter laid out the terms for concession to a select group of nobles to use their feudal rights as they saw fit. Furthermore, the charter is specifically designed for English circumstance. Of the four articles that have not been repealed, two are not relevant to Australia. Chapter 1 is devoted to keeping the English church free, which has no implication in Australia where there is no established church. While chapter 9 is dedicated to upholding the
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 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’.
Many would state that the constitution is not a living document and therefore, it does not change to meet the needs of the nation. One purpose behind this contention would be the constitution comprising no Bill of Rights. A Bill of rights is the arrangement of the most essential rights to the natives of a nation. Australia is the main Western popularity based nation with not a protected or elected administrative bill of rights to ensure its natives (Mchugh 2007). According to Lowitja O'donoghue, previous ATSIC Chair It says very little about what it is to be Australian. It says practically nothing about how we find ourselves here - save being an amalgamation of former colonies. It says nothing of how we should behave towards each other as human beings and as Australians. This in itself obviously depicts the incapacity of the constitution as a political rule of the country. A sample would be the situation law of Gradidge v Grace Bros Pty Limited (1988). There, a hard of hearing quiet in the Compensation Court of New South Wales obliged manual/visual dialect translation. The translator kept on translaing trades between the judge and the advodates throughout lawful submissions. She persevered in doing so notwithstanding the direction of the judge that the trades did not have to be deciphered. Her emphasis after deciphering everything that happened in the general population ...
The question raised in the title of this paper is: Are the Bill of Rights, written well over 200 years ago, still relevant today? Of course, they are and probably even more so. To illustrate this fact, we will examine each of the ten amendments, rewrite each one using common everyday language of today, and if possible discuss why this was important in 1791 and why we may or may not need this document in writing today. In restating each amendment, I will try to write it as if it is a brand new document, which is a stretch to say the least. Without the struggle of the colonies through war and abuse by the English Monarchy, would one have the foresight to see how a government may take for granted the rights of its citizenry?
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.
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
The Bill of Rights was first originated from England, where it asserts for constitutional protection for individuals, and lists different types of prohibitions on government power (Bill of rights institute, 2016). The action of how Australia became a Federation, it involved complicated constitutional conventions, and how the constitutional founders addressed the complications of enacting a Bill of Rights, they decided not to enact it. McClelland (2002, pg. 138) describes how there were proposals that were rejected to incorporate fundamental rights in Australia’s constitution. Australians basic right were protected by common law, however instead, it was a mixture of
The English Bill of Rights (1689) and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789) are roughly around the same period, in that it is possible to think the both documents share similar ideologies. To the thought’s dismay, it is not. Even if both documents start from the same question of taxation, the outputs vary enormously in that each has different aims: the English Bill of Rights (shortened as the English Bill from now on) only changes the crown and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (shortened as the French Declaration) changes the whole society. However, they are similar in that both strived for the representation of the masses.
Since the dawn of time for a society to work it needs to have a level of structure that applies to everyone and is understood by everyone. Australian legal system is broad and complex. It is the nature of the encompassing laws and regulations which reflect how people, organisations and governments behave on the many different levels of operation and these are created to make sure that everyone understands their rights and obligations. There are two sources of Law in Australia: Statute Law regulated by Parliament and comprise of legislations and acts; and Judge-made Law or Common Law where decisions made by judges are based on previous cases.
Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.hcourt.gov.au/ Sueur, A., Sunkin, M. “Public Law.” Longman. London. 1997. Turpin, C. “British Government and the Constitution Text, Cases and Materials.”
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.
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.
One of the most influential and celebrated scholars of British consistutional law , Professor A.V Dicey, once declared parliamentary soverignity as “the dominant feature of our political insitutions” . This inital account of parliamentray soverginity involved two fundamental components, fistly :that the Queen-in-Parliament the “right to make or unmake any law whatever” and that secondly “no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.” . However this Diceyian notion though an established principle of our constitution now lies uneasy amongst a myriad of contemporary challenges such as our membership of the European Union, the Human Rights Act and a spread of law making authority known as ‘Devolution’. In this essay I shall set out to assess the impact of each of these challenges upon the immutability of the traditional concept of parliamentary sovereignty in the British constitution.
The case against a Bill of Rights as shown above includes the fact that it is foreign to our traditions and Australia has survived to date through its existing protection of basic rights. It is argued that a Bill of Right may provide too much power to the judges.
...(4) Sources: (1) http://www.lawteacher.net/administrative-law/essays/the-magna-carta-and-english-law-administrative-law-essay.php (2) http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/magna_carta.htm (3) http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm (4) http://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/robbins/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.html (5) http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/magna_carta/ (6) http://www.skwirk.com/p-c_s-1_u-105_t-279_c-929/causes-and-effects-of-the-magna-carta/nsw/hsie/introduction-to-democracy/democratic-development (7) http://www.historyextra.com/feature/magna-carta-turning-point-english-history (8)