King John's Rule Of Magna Carte In England
-------------------------------------------------
“Magna Carta promised a lot but delivered little in England”. Critically evaluate this claim
-------------------------------------------------
Word Count = 2195
Introduction
The year was 1215 AD, a time of much unrest and uncertainty. King John, England’s first resident King of the Norman-Angevin line ruled medieval England. History labels John as a tyrant and oppressive leader, whose abuse of power, exorbitant demands, extortionate taxes and his unpredictable administration of justice, were fuelling a revolt by his local Barons, whom had become increasingly dissatisfied with their king. The Barons using their military leverage over John secularized and established a national urge …show more content…
According to these authoritarians, there was no formal writ of summons issued and therefore the meeting and subsequent outcomes of that which took place in the fields of Runnymede in 1215 were not properly constituted. Furthermore, as the Barons had assembled in military force “compelling the King to agree to their terms, modern jurisprudence, if appealed to, would reject the claim of the Charter to be enrolled as an ordinary statute”. Lord Irvine suggests “it may be argued that Magna Carta, while something less than law, is also something more. A law made by a King in one national assembly might be repealed by a King in another…The Great Charter however, was intended by the Barons to be unchangeable. It was granted to them and their heirs forever…”.
Many authoritarians have written on Magna Carta, one of the most prominent being 17th century justice and parliamentarian, Sir Edward Coke. According to Coke, “Magna Carta saved England from the rule of tyrants, consecrated basic civil and political rights, and germinated English constitutional government”. Coke and others believed for the first time a monarch was acknowledging that no man was above the law and that the Charter had become law. Irvine however, tells us that Coke was wrong and he had gone too far, however he also concedes that he [Coke] may very well have been much closer than …show more content…
It was during the time of the Tudors of England (15th – 16th century) that scholars began to practice the rules of statutory interpretation and literary analysis and apply the methodology much in the way that Coke, Stubbs, McKechnie and others would later interpret Magna Carta; starting literally, expanding through a purposive approach whereas avoiding incongruities, . The outcome of such an interpretation allows for the expansion of meaning in the direction of contemporary applicability and relevance. Whilst Magna Carta’s original declarations maybe somewhat diminished by its many reiterations, there is no question its original purpose, to enact the rights and freedom of all men, has been replaced by contemporary interpretations, that most certainly demonstrate Magna Carta promised little, but delivered a
“Magna Carta promised a lot but delivered little in England”. Critically evaluate this claim
-------------------------------------------------
Word Count = 2195
Introduction
The year was 1215 AD, a time of much unrest and uncertainty. King John, England’s first resident King of the Norman-Angevin line ruled medieval England. History labels John as a tyrant and oppressive leader, whose abuse of power, exorbitant demands, extortionate taxes and his unpredictable administration of justice, were fuelling a revolt by his local Barons, whom had become increasingly dissatisfied with their king. The Barons using their military leverage over John secularized and established a national urge …show more content…
According to these authoritarians, there was no formal writ of summons issued and therefore the meeting and subsequent outcomes of that which took place in the fields of Runnymede in 1215 were not properly constituted. Furthermore, as the Barons had assembled in military force “compelling the King to agree to their terms, modern jurisprudence, if appealed to, would reject the claim of the Charter to be enrolled as an ordinary statute”. Lord Irvine suggests “it may be argued that Magna Carta, while something less than law, is also something more. A law made by a King in one national assembly might be repealed by a King in another…The Great Charter however, was intended by the Barons to be unchangeable. It was granted to them and their heirs forever…”.
Many authoritarians have written on Magna Carta, one of the most prominent being 17th century justice and parliamentarian, Sir Edward Coke. According to Coke, “Magna Carta saved England from the rule of tyrants, consecrated basic civil and political rights, and germinated English constitutional government”. Coke and others believed for the first time a monarch was acknowledging that no man was above the law and that the Charter had become law. Irvine however, tells us that Coke was wrong and he had gone too far, however he also concedes that he [Coke] may very well have been much closer than …show more content…
It was during the time of the Tudors of England (15th – 16th century) that scholars began to practice the rules of statutory interpretation and literary analysis and apply the methodology much in the way that Coke, Stubbs, McKechnie and others would later interpret Magna Carta; starting literally, expanding through a purposive approach whereas avoiding incongruities, . The outcome of such an interpretation allows for the expansion of meaning in the direction of contemporary applicability and relevance. Whilst Magna Carta’s original declarations maybe somewhat diminished by its many reiterations, there is no question its original purpose, to enact the rights and freedom of all men, has been replaced by contemporary interpretations, that most certainly demonstrate Magna Carta promised little, but delivered a