jcboy3

I really don’t care what you’ve said. Resorting to suggestions to move somewhere else instead of fixing where you live is immature and insulting. And your suggestions of where to move to shows a clear lack of thought. Not my concern if you don’t want to think. I see you for who you are.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Actually, you are wrong on many points, the constitution did give rights to the people other than the Indians and the Slaves, not just the land owners, the bill of rights was written because the signers wanted these rights that Madison thought were implicitly understood written into the constitution, and thank god that they did.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

I think I wold vote for the Magna Carta for that honor.

phcaan Loc: Willow Springs, MO

Why is it insulting? I lived in the Bay Area of California, and was disgusted with the laws and liberal policies there, so I moved, I am much happier in my present location, should I also feel insulted?

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I just read an english translation of the Magna Carta. It does not protect the citizenry from government. It only lays out rules of the land owners (royalty). It sets out rules for land transfer and inheritance but says nothing about a republican form or any other form (other than royalty) of government. Never mentions anything about the rights of the people or the legal system. The words, election, voting. and/or independance are not mentioned. It does not grant rights to any citizen as those rights belong to the aristocracy. Yes. it is the first time that the power of the king is deminished but it is a useless document as far as right of the people are concerned. The A merican constitution remains as the first document written with the express purpose of protecting it's people from it's government. The concept of freedom was unknown at the time of it's writing

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

It was a first step and a source document (among others) for the Framers of our Constitution. It did limit the power of the central authority.

Just like our own Constituting as drafted, did nothing to protect the citizenry either unless you were white male and landed gentry. it did not provide for direct elections of the executive, and still does not.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

So, you are saying that unless you were a land owner that you could be denied free speech, or freedom to exercise your religious beliefs? Or that you could be denied due process or the other legal protections of juris prudence that are afforded to the people of this country by our constitution?

There is a reason for the electoral college, had it not been included in the constitution there would be no United States of America, the same truths that required it in 1787 still hold true today.

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Or do you just like to put words in my mouth? I never said the Magna Carta treated all people equally or gave anywhere near the rights that most people who live in modern democracies enjoy today. But you forget that the US Constitution, as originally written, did not treat all people equally, and certainly did not give the majority of people the right to vote.

You also seem to have only read a small party of the Magna Carta, because you missed the parts that promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons.

It's also a bit strange that you call land owners "royalty". Land owners in England were never called royalty. They were called lords or barons. Do you not know the difference? Claiming that the Magna Carta only applied to royalty makes no sense. The Magna Carta was agreed to by the royalty, They wouldn't have needed a Magna Carta if they were only talking about themselves, silly. it was a charter in which the royalty conceded certain rights to the non-royalty. You need to get your terms right.

Additionally, you seem to forget that in the early history of our country, male land owners were the only people who had rights, similar to the Magna Carta. Also, you seem to forget that the original US Constitution did not leave much to elections and voting, as you claim. The President was to be elected by "electors" who are appointed by the states' governors, and the Senators were appointed by the state's legislators, not elected by the people.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Thats because we are not a democracy, but a republic. If we lived in a pure democracy if the majority voted for the excution of all people with red hair, that would be the law. The tyranny of the majority was very much on the minds of the framers. While the Magna Carta did put restraints on the central authority--the King it did not protect the people form the King's edicts. Remember the Magna Carta was signed the 13th century. Kings could and did order the deaths of many citizens. The devine right of kings came after the Magna Carta. The king ruled with absolute authority, Magna Carta not withstanding.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Yes, and we are WAY happier too!!! LoL
SS

Checkmate Loc: Southern California

Only Spermy Boi wants to have all that POOP on San FAGcisco streets and sidewalks to himself to wallow in. Yes San FAGcisco has been bestowed the title Poop Capital
of the USA for all his relatives living on it's streets.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

As originally drafted, and as a practical matter, yes.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

There is little doubt that you are correct in the matter of voting rights, but I see no evidence of the restrictions of other rights beyond maybe the Sedition Act which should have been challenged but wasn't, when Jefferson came into power he along with his party repealed it. Maybe you could enlighten us with some objective reading on the issue.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

Isn't voting rights the core right? It would be a peculiar argument to assert that other than the right to vote, all of our rights are intact and just fine. That would be like an ER doctor, upon admitting a patient, to say that other than the heart attack, this guy is just fine! Nothing to see here...

There are thousands of examples of rights being denied without accountability. I am not your research gopher. If you are genuinely interested in this topic, then do your own research. If you are not genuinely interested, then no amount of evidence I could present will have any effect whatsoever other than wasting my time.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

It is well known that only male property owners could vote early in this country's history, the other claims you made I have not previously heard of and was interested in learning more on the topic. Because you spoke as having some knowledge on the subject I thought that you might easily point to some reading on the issue. Now I am not so sure that you are just making statements from an emotional pov rather than knowledge on the issue.