What
does, or should, an 800-year-old document have to do with the present civil
rights of U.S. citizens, asylum seekers, and others seeking to live safely in this
country? 
Painting of King John signing the Magna Carta
The
Magna Carta was first signed in June 1215, although the final
version was not issued until 1225, ten years after it was first granted, under
pressure, by King John, who reigned as King of England from 1199 to 1216.
According to Britannica, “By declaring
the sovereign to be subject to the rule of law and
documenting the liberties held by ‘free men,’ the Magna Carta provided the
foundation for individual rights in Anglo-American jurisprudence.”
I was surprised to learn, though, that
the opening clause of the Magna Carta states that “the English Church shall be
free, and shall have its rights undiminished and its liberties unharmed.” I
asked Claude (my AI “buddy”) if that is related to the principle of the
separation of church and state.
Claude
stated that “while the Magna Carta's church clause wasn't the ‘basis’ for
American church-state separation, it was part of a long constitutional
tradition about limiting government overreach that ultimately influenced
American thinking about religious liberty.”
The
Magna Carta was revolutionary in many ways, though, because it established the
principle that even the king was subject to law. In addition, key provisions
included protections against arbitrary imprisonment, limits on taxation without
consent, and guarantees of due process.
Last
week, the U.S. celebrated Independence Day, and it is noteworthy
that the American colonists invoked the Magna Carta against British rule, and
concepts embodied in the Magna Carta were included in the Declaration of Independence
and the U.S. Constitution.
Several
years before July 4, 1776, there was strong opposition to the Stamp Act of 1765, an act of the British Parliament that imposed a direct tax on the British colonies in
America. Remembering the Magna Carta, the colonists strongly rejected
“taxation without representation.”*
The Boston Tea Party of 1773 was also based
on the core idea of the Magna Carta, stating that the king could not impose
taxes without the "general consent of the realm." The colonists
viewed the Tea Act of 1773 as a violation of that ancient English right.**
While there may not have been explicit
references to the Magna Carta by the British colonists who initiated the
Revolutionary War, it is quite certain that their grievances against King
George III and the British governance of the Thirteen Colonies were based on
key ideas incorporated in the Magna Carta.
What about the current U.S. government
and the Magna Carta? It
seems quite clear to most top U.S. politicians (and their supporters) who are
not MAGA adherents that the 47th President is saying and doing
things that stand in opposition to the Magna Carta—and the U.S. Constitution.
Once again, Claude came through with a
list of “several areas where President Trump’s 2025 actions have
raised concerns that relate to principles found in the Magna Carta,” a list that seems completely accurate
to me. It includes:
1)
Due Process Violations. Legal experts say
that the manner in which Trump is targeting some law firms runs afoul of the
U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process. These violations
are even more evident in Trump’s aggressive deportation of immigrants.
2) Arbitrary Executive Action.
Directly related to the above is Trump’s executive order using a wartime
authority for law enforcement purposes, targeting people for arrest based
solely on their ethnicity/nationality. This is the sort of arbitrary action
that the Magna Carta sought to prevent.
3) Targeting of Legal Professionals:
The actions against “enemy” law firms, restricting access to federal
buildings, and terminating government contracts due to their association with
former special counsel Robert Mueller resemble the kind of arbitrary punishment
that the Magna Carta was designed to prevent.
4) Immigration Enforcement Changes: Trump ended the
policy from 2011, which prohibited immigration arrests in sensitive areas such
as courthouses, schools, churches, and hospitals. Currently, my church is
considering how to respond if ICE agents show up seeking “illegals” during a
worship service.
In summary, Claude
states, “The Magna Carta’s core principle was limiting arbitrary royal power
and ensuring legal protections.” However, some of Trump's 2025 executive
actions “echo the kind of unchecked executive power the Magna Carta was
designed to constrain.” That, sadly, seems to be the case, indeed.
_____
* If you need to review what the Stamp Act was, as I did, Wikipedia, as
usual, provides a helpful explanation (click here).
** For additional information about the Boston Tea Party, see my December 15, 2013, blog post (here).
.jpg)
A few minutes after 7:00, I received the following comments from a local Thinking Friend:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy, for your essay. Grim times here in the States."
A few minutes ago, I received comments from another local Thinking Friend:
ReplyDelete"Thanks. I totally agree."
Good entry. Indee, these are “grim times.”
ReplyDeleteThe above comments are all from local friends who are Thinking Friends. I also received the following email from a friend and Thinking Friend who lives a long ways from Kansas City:
ReplyDelete"Yes, many of our current president's actions/executive orders/stated desires are contrary to our Constitution and also the Magna Carta. I've been signing petitions against them. However, when I sign, the message pops up that my support is not complete because I did not chip in financially."
Thanks for reading and responding to yesterday's blog post. I, too, get numerous requests for signing petitions and other documents in opposition to what POTUS 47 is saying and doing. Some of these are from organizations that I have supported (usually on a limited basis) financially, but some are from groups that I have never given to. I don't respond to all of them, and of course I am more likely to respond to those that I have supported or am supporting. But almost all of them ask for donations when/after I sign. They need financial support in order to keep a staff and structure to send out the requests they do. But I think there is no obligation at all to send them a contribution.
DeleteAfter reading what Wiki has to say about the Magna Carta, I am impressed by both how limited it was, and yet how controversial. King John and the barons were fighting over power, and the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote the first version of the Magna Carta trying to mediate peace. Several versions followed, as mentioned above, and also similar documents were afloat in other contests. Pope Innocent III stepped in on behalf of the king, after the king swore loyalty to the Pope, cancelling the charter. By the time of the American revolution, centuries later, the discussion had broadened from barons to rich, white, Christian, Englishmen. Women, black slaves, Chinese, Irish, LGBTQ+, and many others could still wait in line. So here we are, in 2025, in a struggle between the legacy of the Magna Carta and what we might call the MAGA Cartoon!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Craig, for adding additional information about the formation of the original Magna Carta--and for ending with a pertinent contrast between the ancient Magna Carta and the current MAGA Cartoon!
DeleteAs you found on Wikipedia, the formation of the Magna Carta was far more complex than I indicated in my short (relatively speaking) blog article. Most things are generally far more complex than we know about or even care about. And when writing about historical matters, I always struggle with how to say enough to make a point without being misleading because of saying too little.
As you know, I rarely change my opinion about what I post, but I do as soon as possible correct any factual error or misleading statement I make in my blog posts. Whenever you see an error or a misleading statement in my posts, please point those out right away, and I will correct them. And when you have additional information to share, as you did yesterday, please continue to do that, too. And when, as has been the case from time to time, you disagree with something I wrote, let's have a civil discussion about that.
One might say Trump has been given more leeway than was given to King John. The barons demanded his cooperation. Congressional Republicans have supported Trump even when his actions were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has said on one hand he can do what he wants without criminal risks and on the other hand they have delayed action on what was known to be illegal/unconstitutional until lower courts issue decisions while he continues that action. The barons had more unity with power against King John than we are seeing against Trump. Until congressional Republicans get a backbone, I see little peaceful change.
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly enjoy the above responses.
Documents are important and history is important, but when a populist comes into power, it seems to me, it's a whole new world. Public opinion may matter more than law or tradition. The hope is that public opinion can change for the better, and that documents and history and law and tradition can be guides to enlightened public opinion. We may be hard-wired to always need trial and error to confirm the wisdom of previous generations. Such is the stubbornness of our nature.
ReplyDeletePhil (and I call you by the name I know you rather than by what you posted), I am not sure I adequately grasp the point of your post. But, starting with your reference to a populist coming to power, I have had trouble seeing how Trump can be called a populist. So I asked my AI buddy Claude about that.
DeleteHere is what Claude said, in part: "The disconnect between Trump's campaign messaging about fighting for working Americans and his actual governing choices - surrounding himself with billionaires and implementing policies that often benefit the wealthy - provides strong evidence that his populist claims are rhetorical rather than substantive."
That seems correct to me: Trump campaigned as a populist, but his Administration certainly doesn't seem populist in the least. In the end, I think the principles of the Magna Carta that has been the bedrock of British and then American jurisprudence will lead to increasing opposition to Trump's actions that are contrary to the U.S. Constitution and the Magna Carta, which has stood the test of time for 800 years. I think the 47th POTUS's influence will decline much more in 800 days than the Magna Carta's has in 800 years.
I take your point, and the current kerfuffle about the Jeffrey Epstein case may define Trump's appeal: can he denounce that portion of his base which demands full disclosure and still maintain his political capital? Populism depends on public opinion, and the fear of being "primaried". If that fear subsides, Trump's populist mantra disappears. And his "mandate" to behave as a dictator vanishes. We shall soon see, and my theory that puiblic opinion is the ultimate basis of government may be verified, or disproven. Trump may be tempted to resort to martial law, and then we will see what happens.
DeleteYesterday evening, another local Thinking Friend send the following comments by email:
ReplyDelete"Sunday's NYT had a page full of brief comments by judges across the spectrum regarding their opinions on the constitutionality of recent moves by the executive branch. The ones that stand out to me are Bush appointees who seem aghast at how the Executive flaunts the Constitution. I'd like to see some influential Republicans with strong backbones & moral conviction stand up to the Executive Branch in a way similar to those who presented the Magna Carta to their king. Wishful thinking, I suppose."