The Magna Carta is often considered the fundamental law undergirding our Constitution. It is cited as the basis for establishing rights we now take for granted, including due process and equal protection. As originally intended, however, its scope was not that broad. Powerful nobles in England were in an intense struggle with King John, and tried to use their leverage to extract an agreement from a sovereign, an acknowledgement that neither the King nor anyone else is above the law.
The Magna Carta, which reportedly was hastily prepared, reflected the prejudices of the times. There were provisions to bar the arrest of anyone accused of murder by a woman, except for her husband’s death, and absolution from paying certain debt owed to “the Jews.” The rights of men of property were preserved and protected. That surely was the “original intent” of the nobles at Runnymede, and the document thus underscores the dangers of interpretation on the basis of original intent. Cf. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 605 (2008) (“the public understanding of a legal text in the period after its enactment or ratification … is a critical tool of constitutional interpretation.”).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
