What Adam Curry is reading

'Leger had rellen Haren kunnen voorkomen' - Binnenland
  Link to Article
  Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:48
  27/09/12, 10:59 '' bron: ANP
  (C) ANP. Een Leopard tank maakt een ceremoniele rit op het Lange Voorhout bij het afscheid van de cavalerieregimenten Huzaren van Sytzama en Huzaren Prins van Oranje. De regimenten worden ontbonden en dit betekent het afscheid van de tank als wapen van de Nederlandse krijgsmacht.
  UPDATEDe rellen in de Groningse plaats Haren hadden voorkomen kunnen worden als het leger was ingezet. Dat zeggen de verenigingen van Defensie-personeel GOV/MHB in een brief aan de informateurs Wouter Bos en Henk Kamp.
  '5000 militairen staan op afroep van de civiele autoriteiten gereed. In onze beleving had 'Haren' dan ook niet mogen gebeuren', aldus de Gezamenlijke Officieren Verenigingen en Middelbaar en Hoger Burgerpersoneel.
  GOV/MHB waarschuwt beide informateurs donderdag dat verdere bezuinigingen op de Nederlandse krijgsmacht volkomen onverantwoord zijn. 'Defensie is na 22 jaar van bezuinigingen tot op het bot toe uitgekleed.'
  'Veiligheid in Nederland staat hoog op de politieke agenda. De krijgsmacht heeft middelen en mensen om hieraan mede inhoud te geven', aldus GOV/MHB.
  Burgemeester Rob Bats van Haren liet donderdag in een interview met het Dagblad van het Noorden weten dat er 'zelfs bedacht is het leger in te zetten.' Volgens een woordvoerder van de gemeente behoorde de inzet van het leger vrijdagavond tot de mogelijkheden, 'maar is het op geen enkel moment een serieuze overweging geweest.' Het is volgens Bats aan de commissie onder leiding van Job Cohen om te onderzoeken waarom dat uiteindelijk niet gebeurd is.
Magna Carta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  Link to Article
  Thu, 27 Sep 2012 06:12
  Magna Carta, also called Magna Carta Libertatum or The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, is an Angevincharter, originally issued in Latin in the year 1215, translated into vernacular-French as early as 1219,[1] and reissued later in the 13th century in modified versions. The later versions excluded the most direct challenges to the monarch's authority that had been present in the 1215 charter. The charter first passed into law in 1225; the 1297 version, with the long title (originally in Latin) "The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest," still remains on the statute books of England and Wales.
  The 1215 charter required King John of England to proclaim certain liberties and accept that his will was not arbitrary, for example by explicitly accepting that no "freeman" (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through the law of the land, a right which is still in existence today.
  Magna Carta was the first document forced onto a King of England by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded and directly influenced by the Charter of Liberties in 1100, in which King Henry I had specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited.
  Despite its recognised importance, by the second half of the 19th century nearly all of its clauses had been repealed in their original form. Three clauses currently remain part of the law of England and Wales, however, and it is generally considered part of the uncodified constitution. Lord Denning described it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times '' the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot".[2] In a 2005 speech, Lord Woolf described it as "first of a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a special constitutional status",[3] the others being the Habeas Corpus Act (1679), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689), and the Act of Settlement (1701).
  The charter was an important part of the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law in the English speaking world. Magna Carta was important in the colonization of American colonies as England's legal system was used as a model for many of the colonies as they were developing their own legal systems.
  It was Magna Carta, over other early concessions by the monarch, which survived to become a "sacred text".[4] In practice, Magna Carta in the medieval period did not generally limit the power of kings, but by the time of the English Civil War it had become an important symbol for those who wished to show that the King was bound by the law. It influenced the early settlers in New England[5] and inspired later constitutional documents, including the United States Constitution.[6]
  The Great Charter of 1215Rebellion and creation of the documentSome barons began to conspire against King John in 1209 and 1212; promises made to the northern barons and John's submission to universal rule of the papacy in 1213 delayed a French invasion.[7] Over the course of his reign a combination of higher taxes, unsuccessful wars that resulted in the loss of English barons' titled possessions in Normandy following the Battle of Bouvines (1214), and an ongoing conflict with the Pope Innocent III had made King John unpopular with many of his barons.
  In 1215 some of the most important barons engaged in open rebellion against their King. Such rebellions were not particularly unusual in this period. Every king since William the Conqueror had faced rebellions. However, in every previous case there had been an obvious alternative monarch around whom the rebellion could rally. In 1215, however, John had no obvious replacement. Arthur of Brittany would have been a possibility, if he had not disappeared (widely believed to have been murdered on the orders of John). The next closest possible alternative was Prince Louis of France, but as the husband of Henry II's granddaughter, his claim was tenuous, and the English had been at war with the French for thirty years. Instead of a claimant to the throne, the barons decided to base their rebellion around John's oppressive government. In January 1215, the barons made an oath that they would "stand fast for the liberty of the church and the realm", and they demanded that King John confirm the Charter of Liberties, from what they viewed as a golden age.[8]
  John played for time. During negotiations between January and June 1215, a document was produced, which historians have termed 'The Unknown Charter of Liberties',[9] seven of the articles of which would later appear in the 'Articles of the Barons' and the Runnymede Charter.[10] In May, King John offered to submit issues to a committee of arbitration with Pope Innocent III as the supreme arbiter,[11] but the barons continued in their defiance. With the support of Prince Louis the French Heir and of King Alexander II of the Scots, they entered London in force on 10 June 1215,[12] with the city showing its sympathy with their cause by opening its gates to them. They, and many of the moderates not in overt rebellion, forced King John to agree to a document later known as the 'Articles of the Barons', to which his Great Seal was attached in the meadow at Runnymede on 15 June 1215. In return, the barons renewed their oaths of fealty to King John on 19 June 1215, which is when the document Magna Carta was created.
  In return for King John's submission to his papal and universal authority, Innocent III declared the Magna Carta annulled, though many English Barons did not accept this action.
  The contemporary, but unreliable[13]chronicler, Roger of Wendover, recorded the events in his Flores Historiarum.[14] A formal document to record the agreement was created by the royal chancery on 15 July: this was the original Magna Carta, though it was not known by that name at the time. An unknown number of copies of it were sent out to officials, such as royal sheriffs and bishops.
  Clause 61The 1215 document contained a large section that is now called clause 61 (the original document was not actually divided into clauses). This section established a committee of 25 barons who could at any time meet and overrule the will of the King if he defied the provisions of the Charter, seizing his castles and possessions if it was considered necessary.[15] This was based on a medieval legal practice known as distraint, but it was the first time it had been applied to a monarch.
  Distrust between the two sides was overwhelming. What the barons really sought was the overthrow of the King; the demand for a charter was a "mere subterfuge".[16] Clause 61 was a serious challenge to John's authority as a ruling monarch. He renounced it as soon as the barons left London; Pope Innocent III also annulled the "shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the King by violence and fear." He rejected any call for restraints on the King, saying it impaired John's dignity. He saw it as an affront to the Church's authority over the King and the 'papal territories' of England and Ireland, and he released John from his oath to obey it. The rebels knew that King John could never be restrained by Magna Carta and so they sought a new King.[17]
  England was plunged into a civil war, known as the First Barons' War. With the failure of Magna Carta to achieve peace or restrain John, the barons reverted to the more traditional type of rebellion by trying to replace the monarch they disliked with an alternative. In a measure of some desperation, despite the tenuousness of his claim and despite the fact that he was French, they offered the crown of England to Prince Louis of France.[18]
  As a means of preventing war, Magna Carta was a failure, rejected by most of the barons,[19] and was legally valid for no more than three months.[20] It was the death of King John in 1216 which secured the future of Magna Carta.[21]
  Participant listBarons, Bishops and Abbots who were party to Magna Carta.[22]
  Barons '' surety for the enforcement of Magna CartaBishops '' witnessessAbbots '' witnessess1William d'Aubigny, Lord of Belvoir CastleStephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Churchthe Abbot of St Edmunds2Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and SuffolkHenry de Loundres, Archbishop of Dublinthe Abbot of St Albans3Hugh Bigod, Heir to the Earldoms of Norfolk and SuffolkWilliam of Sainte-M¨re-‰glise, Bishop of Londonthe Abbot of Bello4Henry de Bohun, Earl of HerefordJocelin of Wells, Bishop of Bath and Wellsthe Abbot of St Augustine's in Canterbury5Richard de Clare, Earl of HertfordPeter des Roches, Bishop of Winchesterthe Abbot of Evesham6Gilbert de Clare, heir to the earldom of HertfordHugh de Wells, Bishop of Lincolnthe Abbot of Westminster7John FitzRobert Clavering, Lord of Warkworth CastleHerbert Poore (aka "Robert"), Bishop of Salisburythe Abbot of Peterborough8Robert Fitzwalter, Lord of Dunmow CastleBenedict of Sausetun, Bishop of Rochesterthe Abbot of Reading9William de Fortibus, Earl of AlbemarleWalter de Gray, Bishop of Worcesterthe Abbot of Abingdon10William Hardel, **Mayor of the City of LondonGeoffrey de Burgo, Bishop of Elythe Abbot of Malmesbury Abbey11William de Huntingfield, Sheriff of Norfolk and SuffolkHugh de Mapenor, Bishop of Herefordthe Abbot of Winchcomb12John de Lacy, Lord of Pontefract CastleRichard Poore, Bishop of Chichester (brother of Herbert/Robert above)the Abbot of Hyde13William de Lanvallei, Lord of Standway Castlethe Abbot of Chertsey14William Malet, Sheriff of Somerset and Dorsetthe Abbot of Sherborne15Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex and Gloucesterthe Abbot of Cerne16William Marshall Jr, heir to the earldom of Pembrokethe Abbot of Abbotebir17Roger de Montbegon, Lord of Hornby Castle, Lancashirethe Abbot of Middleton18Richard de Montfichet, Baronthe Abbot of Selby19William de Mowbray, Lord of Axholme Castlethe Abbot of Cirencester20Richard de Percy, Baronthe Abbot of Hartstary21Saire/Saher de Quincy, Earl of Winchester22Robert de Roos, Lord of Hamlake Castle23Geoffrey de Saye, Baron24Robert de Vere, heir to the earldom of Oxford25Eustace de Vesci, Lord of Alnwick CastleOthers
  Magna Carta of ChesterThe Runnymede Charter of Liberties did not apply to Chester, which at the time was a separate feudal domain. Earl Ranulf granted his own Magna Carta.[23] Some of its articles were similar to the Runnymede Charter.[24]
  The Great Charter 1216''1369The Charter 1216King John's nine-year-old son Henry was crowned King of England in Gloucester Abbey, though much of England lay under the usurper Prince Louis. The papal legateGuala Bicchieri declared the struggle against Louis and the Barons a holy war,[25] and the loyalists led by William Marshal rallied around the new King. Earl Ranulf of Chester left the Regency to Marshall. Marshall and Guala issued a Charter of Liberties, based on the Runnymede Charter, in the King's name on 12 November 1216 as a Royal concession, in an attempt to undermine the rebels.[26]
  The Charter differed from that of 1215 in only having 42 as compared to 61 clauses; most notably the infamous article 61 of the Runnymede Charter was removed. The Charter was also issued separately for Ireland.
  The Charters 1217: the origins of the name Magna CartaFollowing the end of the First Barons War and the Treaty of Lambeth, the Charter of Liberties (carta libertatum) was issued again in the manner of 1216, again amended and issued separately for Ireland. The 42 clauses of the 1216 issue were expanded to 47.
  Significantly, a fragment of the original charter would be expanded with new material to form a complementary charter, the Charter of the Forest; the two Charters would thereafter be linked. Magna carta libertatum was then used by scribes to differentiate the larger and more important charter of common liberties from the Forest Charter.[27] The term was used retrospectively to describe the previous Charters, with what had previously been described as carta libertatum becoming known simply as Magna Carta.
  The Great Charter 1225Having reached the age of majority, King Henry III was called upon to confirm the Charters. Henry reissued Magna Carta in a shorter version with only 37 articles, as a concession of liberties in return for a fifteenth part of moveable goods.[5] This was the first version of the Charter to enter English law.[28] The Charter of Liberties included a new statement that the Charter had been issued spontaneously and of the King's own free will. In 1227, Henry III declared all future charters had to be issued under his own seal and state under what warrant they were claimed; this proclamation questioned the validity of all previous acts done in his name or his predecessors.[29] It was not until 1237, and the carta parva, that both of the 1225 Charters were confirmed and granted in perpetuity.[30]
  The Great Charter 1297: StatuteEdward I of England reissued the Charters of 1225 in 1297 in return for a new tax.[31] "Constitutionally, the Magna Carta of Edward I is the most important".[32] This version remains in Statute today (albeit with most articles now repealed'--see below).[33][34]
  Confirmatio Cartarum and Articuli super CartasThe Confirmatio Cartarum (Confirmation of Charters) was issued by Edward I in 1297, and was similar to the parva carta issued by Henry III in 1237. In the Confirmation, Edward reaffirmed Magna Carta and the Forest Charter[35] as a concession for tax money. As part of the Remonstrances the nobles sought to add another document the De Tallagio to the Charters but without success.[36] The principle of taxation by consent was reinforced, however the precise manner of that consent was not laid down.[37]
  Pope Clement V annulled the Confirmatio Cartarum in 1305.[38]
  As part of the reconfirmation of the Charters in 1300 an additional document was granted, the Articuli super Cartas (The Articles upon the Charters). It was composed of 20 articles and sought in part to deal with the problem of enforcing the Charters.[39] In 1305 Edward I took Clement V's Papal bull annulling the Confirmatio Cartarum to effectively apply to the Articuli super Cartas though it was not specifically mentioned.[40]
  The Six StatutesDuring the reign of Edward III six measures were passed between 1331 and 1369 which were later known as the 'Six Statutes'. They sought to clarify certain parts of the Charters. In particular, the third statute, of 1354, redefined clause 29, with 'free man' becoming "no man, of whatever estate or condition he may be", and introduced the phrase "due process of law" for 'lawful judgement of his peers or the law of the land'.[41]
  Later history of the CharterReconfirmations of the CharterThe impermanence of the Charter required successive generations to petition the King to reconfirm his Charter, and hopefully abide by it. Between the 13th and 15th centuries Magna Carta would have a history of being reconfirmed, 32 times according to Sir Edward Coke, but possibly as many as 45 times.[42] The Charter was last confirmed in 1423 by Henry VI.
  Repeal of articles of the CharterThe repeal of clause 26 in 1829, by the Offences against the Person Act 1828 (9 Geo. 4 c. 31 s. 1),[43] was the first time a clause of Magna Carta was repealed. With the document's perceived inviolability broken,[citation needed] in the next 140 years nearly the whole charter was repealed, leaving just Clauses 1, 9, and 29 still in force after 1969. Most of it was repealed in England and Wales by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863, and in Ireland by the Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872.[43]
  Content of the ChartersMagna Carta was originally written in Latin. A large part of the Charter at Runnymede was copied, nearly word for word, from the Charter of Liberties of Henry I, issued when Henry became king in 1100, in which he said he would respect certain rights of the Church and the barons, for example not forcing heirs to purchase their inheritances.
  As the Charter went through various issues many of the clauses included in the Runnymede charter were removed. Some clauses would form a supplementary Charter in 1217, the Charter of the Forest.
  It is worth emphasising that the 1215 charter was not numbered and was not divided into paragraphs or separate clauses. The numbering system used today was created by Sir William Blackstone in 1759,[44] and therefore should not be used to draw any conclusions regarding the intentions of the original creators of the charter.
  Clauses still in force todayThe clauses of the 1297 Magna Carta which are still on statute are
  Clause 1, the freedom of the English Church.Clause 9 (clause 13 in the 1215 charter), the "ancient liberties" of the City of London.Clause 29 (clause 39 in the 1215 charter), a right to due process.1. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.9. THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs which it hath been used to have. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, as with all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs.29. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.[43]Clauses in Runnymede Charter but not in later ChartersClauses 10 and 11 related to money lending and Jews in England. Jews were particularly involved in money lending because Christian teachings on usury did not apply to them. Clause 10 said that children would not pay interest on a debt they had inherited while they were under age. Clause 11 said that the widow and children should be provided for before paying an inherited debt. The charter concludes this section with the words "Debts owing to other than Jews shall be dealt with likewise", so it is debatable to what extent the Jews were being singled out by these clauses.Clauses 12 and 14 state that taxes (in the language of the time, "scutage or aid") can only be levied and assessed by the common counsel of the realm. See Challenges to the King's power for more detail.Clause 15 stated that the King would not grant anyone the right to take an aid (i.e. money) from his free menClauses 25 and 26 dealt with debt and taxesClause 27 with intestacy.Clause 42 stated that it was lawful for subjects to leave the kingdom without prejudicing their allegiance (except for outlaws and during war)Clause 45 said that the King should only appoint as "justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs" those who knew the law and would keep it well. In the United States, the Supreme Court of California interpreted clause 45 in 1974 as establishing a requirement at common law that a defendant faced with the potential of incarceration is entitled to a trial overseen by a legally trained judge.[45]Clause 48 stated that all evil customs connected with forests were to be abolishedClause 49 provided for the return of hostages held by the King. (John held hostages from the families of important nobles he wished to ensure remained loyal, as other English monarchs had before him.)Clause 50 stated that no member of the d'Ath(C)e family could be a royal officer.Clause 51 called for all foreign knights and mercenaries to leave the realm.Clause 52 dealt with restoration of those "disseised" (i.e. those dispossessed of property. See (for example) Assize of novel disseisin )Clause 53 was similar to 52 but relating to forestsClause 55 regarded remittance of unjust finesClauses 57 concerned restoration of disseised WelshmenClauses 58 and 59 provided for the return of Welsh and Scottish hostagesClauses 61 provided for the application and observation of the Charter by twenty-five of the rebellious barons. See Challenges to the King's power for more on clause 61.Clause 62 pardoned those who had rebelled against the kingClause 63 said that the charter was binding on King John and his heirs. However this version of the charter was renounced by John, with the support of the Pope. The smaller 1225/1297 charters (which actually became law) contain similar text, stating that the monarch and their heirs would not seek to infringe or damage the liberties in the charter, and that the charter is to be observed "in perpetuity".Challenges to the King's powerClauses 12 and 14 of the 1215 charter state that the king will accept the "common counsel of our realm" when levying and assessing an aid or a scutage. Clause 14 goes into detail about how exactly the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls and greater barons should be consulted. These clauses effectively meant that the monarch had to ask before raising new taxes. The later charters merely said that "Scutage furthermore is to be taken as it used to be", although in practice the convention arose after Magna Carta that Parliament would be consulted by the monarch before raising new taxes.
  Clause 61 of the 1215 charter states: "The barons shall choose any twenty-five barons of the realm they wish, who with all their might are to observe, maintain and cause to be observed the peace and liberties which we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present charter". The clause goes on to say that if the king does not keep to the charter, the twenty five barons shall seize "castles, lands and possessions... until, in their judgement, amends have been made". "Anyone in the land" would be permitted by the king to swear an oath to the twenty five to obey them in these matters, and the king was in fact supposed to order people to do so even if they didn't want to swear an oath to the twenty five barons.
  The barons were trying to stop John going back on his word after agreeing to the charter, but if those who rebelled against him were able to choose a group who would have the power to seize his castles if they thought it necessary, "then the king had in effect been dethroned". No king would have agreed to this except as a manoeuvre to gain time, and the inclusion of this clause destroyed any chance of the original Magna Carta keeping the peace in the long term.[46]
  Clause 61 was removed from all later versions of the charter. Forty years later, after another confrontation between king and barons, the Provisions of Oxford forced on the king a council of twenty four members, 12 selected by the crown, 12 by the barons, which would then elect a king's council of fifteen members; this however was also annulled when Henry III finally won that power struggle.
  Clauses in Runnymede Charter and in 1216/1217 Charter but not in 1225/1297 CharterClauses 2 to 3 refer to feudal relief, specifically the regulation of the charging of excessive relief, in effect a form of "succession duty" or "death duty" payable by an heir.Clauses 4 to 5 refer to the duties of wardship, specifically forbidding the practice of the over-exploitation of a ward's property by his warder (or guardian).Clause 6 refers to a warder's power over the marriage of his ward. He was forbidden from forcing a marriage to a partner of lower social standing (possibly therefore to one such who may have been willing to pay a higher price for it).Clause 7 refers to the rights of a widow to receive promptly her dowry and inheritance.Clause 8 stated that a widow could not be compelled to marry.Clause 9 stated that a debtor should not have his lands seized as long as he had other means to pay the debt.Clause 16 was regarding a knight's fee.Clauses 17 to 19 allowed for a fixed law court, which became the chancellery, and defined the scope and frequency of county assizes.Clause 44 (1216 only) relating to forest lawClause 56 (1216 only) relating to disseised WelshmenClauses in Runnymede Charter and 1225/1297 Charter but since repealedAll of the remaining parts of the 1215 charter appear substantially unchanged in the 1225/1297 charter which became law and is still on the statute book. All except the three clauses which are still in force today were eventually repealed however, most in the 19th century. Many provisions have no bearing in the world today, since they deal with feudal liberties. Some clauses remained relevant but were replaced by later legislation which gave similar rights. Using the 1215 clause numbers:
  Clause 20 stated that fines ("amercements", in the language of the day), should be proportionate to the offence, but even for a serious offence the fine should not be so heavy as to deprive a man of his livelihood. No fines should be imposed except by the oath of honest local men.Clause 21 stated that earls and barons should only be fined by their peers, i.e. other earls and barons. Until 1948 this meant that members of the House of Lords had the right to a criminal trial in the House of Lords at first instance.Clause 22 stated that fines should not be influenced by ecclesiastical property in clergy trials.Clause 23 provided that no town or person should be forced to build a bridge across a river.Clause 24 stated that crown officials (such as sheriffs) must not try a crime in place of a judge.Clauses 28 to 32 stated that no royal officer might take any commodity such as grain, wood or transport without payment or consent or force a knight to pay for something the knight could do himself, and that the king must return any lands confiscated from a felon within a year and a day to the felon's feudal lord ("the lords of the fees concerned").Clause 33 required the removal of all fish weirs.Clause 34 forbade repossession without a "writ precipe".Clause 35 set out a list of standard measuresClause 36 stated that writs for loss of life or limb were to be freeClause 37 concerns inheritance when a "fee-farm" (fee as in knight's fee) was involved.Clause 38 stated that no-one could be put on trial based solely on the unsupported word of an official.Clause 40 disallowed the selling of justice, or its denial or delay.Clauses 41 and 42 guaranteed the safety and right of entry and exit of foreign merchants.Clause 43 gave special provision for tax on reverted estatesClause 46 provided for the guardianship of monasteries.Clauses 47 and 48 abolished most of Forest Law (these clauses were split out of the main charter and formed part of a separate charter, the Charter of the Forest).[47]Clause 54 said that no man may be imprisoned on the testimony of a woman except on the death of her husband.Clauses in the 1225/1297 Charter but not in the Runnymede CharterThere are a few clauses which are in the 1225/1297 charter but not in the 1215 charter. These have also since been repealed. Using the 1297 clause numbers:
  Clause 13 concerned the Assize of darrein presentment.Clause 32 said that a free man should not give away or sell so much of his land that he would not be able to meet his feudal obligations to his lord.Clause 35 concerned the county court, the frankpledge and tithes.Clause 36 said that it was not permitted to give land to a religious house and then receive it back; in such a case the land would revert to the feudal lord.Medieval and Tudor periodThe judgement of 1387 confirmed the supremacy of the Royal Prerogative within the constitution.[48] By the mid 15th century Magna Carta ceased to occupy a central role in English political life.[41] In part this was also due to the rise of an early version of Parliament and to further statutes, some which were based on the principle of Magna Carta. The Charter, however remained a text for scholars of law. The Charter in the statute books was correctly thought to have arisen from the reign of Henry III and was seen as no more special than any other statute and could be amended and removed. It was not seen (as it was later) as an entrenched set of liberties guaranteed for the people against the Government. Rather, it was an ordinary statute, which gave a certain level of liberties, most of which could not be relied on, least of all against the king. Therefore the Charter had little effect on the governance of the early Tudor period.
  The Tudor period would see a growing interest in history. Tudor historians would rediscover the Barnwell chronicler who was more favourable to King John than other contemporary texts. John Bale and Shakespeare would both write plays on King John. Tudor historians were not inclined to regard rebellion as anything but a crime. Those who supported Henry VIII's break with Rome ''viewed King John in a positive light as a hero struggling against the papacy, they showed little sympathy for the Great Charter or the rebel barons''.[49]
  The first printed edition of Magna Carta was probably the Magna Carta cum aliis Antiquis Statutis of 1508 by Richard Pynson.[50]George Ferrers would publish the first unabridged English language edition of Magna Carta in 1534, and effectively established the numbering of the Charter into 37 chapters; an abridged English language edition had previously been published by John Rastell in 1527.[51] By the end of the 16th century editions of the 1215 Charter would also be printed.
  The Charter had no real effect until the Elizabethan era (1558''1603). Magna Carta again began to occupy legal minds, and it again began to shape how that government was run, but in a manner entirely different to that of earlier ages. William Lambarde published ''what he thought were law codes of the Anglo-Saxon kings and William the conqueror''.[52] Lambarde would begin the process of misinterpreting English history, soon taken up by others, incorrectly dating documents and giving parliament a false antiquity. Francis Bacon would claim that Clause 39 of the 1215 Charter was the basis of the jury system and due process in a trial. Robert Beale, James Morice, Richard Cosin and the Puritans[53] began to misperceive Magna Carta as a 'statement of liberty', a 'fundamental law' above all law and government. In 1581 Arthur Hall, MP would be one of the first to suffer under this emerging new ideology, when he correctly questioned the antiquity of the House of Commons[54][55] and was without precedent expelled from Parliament.
  Edward Coke's opinionsAmong the first of respected jurists to seriously write about the great charter was Edward Coke, who influenced how Magna Carta was perceived throughout the Tudor and Stuart periods, though his views were challenged during his lifetime by Lord Ellesmere, and later in the same century by Robert Brady. Coke used the 1225 issue of the Charter.
  Coke "reinterpreted or misinterpreted" Magna Carta "misconstruing its clauses anachronistically and uncritically".[56] He would interpret liberties to be much the same as individual liberty.[57] The historian J.C. Holt excused Coke on the grounds that the Charter and its history had itself become 'distorted'.[58]
  Coke was instrumental in framing the Petition of Right, which became a substantial supplement to Magna Carta's liberties. During the debates on the matter, Coke famously sought to deny the King's sovereign rights with the claim that "Magna Carta is such a fellow, that he will have no 'sovereign'"; he believed the statutes (not the King) were absolute.[59]
  17th and 18th centuriesWhilst Sir Edward Coke would take the lead in reinterpreting Magna Carta he would soon be joined by others with a similar ideological stance, resulting in the concept of an 'ancient constitution' which entailed belief in fundamental laws supposedly existing since time immemorial and a belief in the antiquity of Parliament.[60] These beliefs would be used to challenge the constitution as it existed under the Stuart Kings.
  John Selden would link habeas corpus to Magna Carta[61] during Darnell's Case. Sir Henry Spelman, who can be largely credited with first formulating a concept of feudalism (which would ironically be later used to attack the idea of an ancient constitution, notably by Robert Brady), sought to place the origins of Common Law in Anglo-Saxon laws.[62]Antiquarians would seek out documents to support the views of their compatriots, such as Sir Robert Cotton, whose collection of manuscripts would later form the basis for the British Library, and who discovered two original copies of King John's Charter.
  The Petition of Right of 1628 sought to add to Magna Carta in the manner of the Articuli super Cartas or the Six Statutes. Charles I however, did not grant it as law and he was under no legal restriction.[63] The problem as before in history was that the King was not bound by the law as adherents of Magna Carta believed. As before in history armed force would be used, first in 1642''49 and again in 1689.
  With the advent of the republic it was questionable whether Magna Carta still applied. John Milton called for ''great actions, above the form of law and custom''. Whilst Oliver Cromwell had much disdain for Magna Carta, at one point describing it as "Magna Farta" to a defendant who sought to rely on it[64] he agreed to rule with the advice and consent of his council.[65]
  Different radical groups held differing opinions of Magna Carta. The Levellers rejected history and law as presented by their contemporaries, holding instead to an 'anti-Normanism' viewpoint.[66]John Lilburne regarded Magna Carta as being less than the freedoms which supposedly existed under the Anglo-Saxons before being crushed by the Norman yoke. Richard Overton would describe Magna Carta as a ''a beggarly thing containing many marks of intolerable bondage''.[67] Both however saw Magna Carta as a valuable declaration of liberties which could be used against governments they disagreed with. Lilburne said "the ground of my freedom, I build upon the Grand Charter of England", while Overton said that when arrested, he hung on to his copy of Coke on Magna Carta, shouting "murder, murder, murder" as they wrested "the Great Charter of England's Liberties and Freedoms from me".[68]Gerrard Winstanley leader of the more extreme Diggers stated ''The best lawes that England hath, [viz., the Magna Carta] were got by our Forefathers importunate petitioning unto the kings that still were their Task-masters; and yet these best laws are yoaks and manicles, tying one sort of people to be slaves to another; Clergy and Gentry have got their freedom, but the common people still are, and have been left servants to work for them.''
  The first attempt at a proper Historiography was undertaken by Robert Brady[69] who refuted the supposed antiquity of parliament and the belief in the immutable continuity of the law, and realised the liberties of the Charter were limited and were effective only because it was the grant of the King; by putting Magna Carta in historical context he questioned its contemporary political relevance.[70] However, Brady's history would not survive the Glorious Revolution which ''marked a setback for the course of English historiography''.[71]
  The Glorious Revolution reinforced the century's ideological interpretations of history, which would later become known as the Whig interpretation of history. Reinforced with Lockean concepts the Whigs believed England's constitution to be a Social contract, based on documents such as Magna Carta, the Petition of Right and The Bill of Rights.[72] Ideas about the nature of law in general were beginning to change. In 1716 the Septennial Act was passed, which had a number of consequences. Firstly, it showed that Parliament no longer considered its previous statutes unassailable, as this act provided that the parliamentary term was to be seven years, whereas fewer than twenty-five years had passed since the Triennial Act (1694), which provided that a parliamentary term was to be three years. It also greatly extended the powers of Parliament. Under this new constitution Monarchal absolutism was replaced by Parliamentary supremacy. It was quickly realised that Magna Carta stood in the same relation to the King-in-Parliament as it had to the King without Parliament. This supremacy would be challenged by the likes of Granville Sharp. Sharp regarded Magna Carta to be a fundamental part of the constitution, and that it would be treason to repeal any part of it. Sharp also held that the Charter prohibited slavery.[73]
  Sir William Blackstone published a critical edition of the 1215 Charter in 1759, and gave it the numbering system still used today.[44]
  In 1763 an MP, John Wilkes was arrested for writing an inflammatory pamphlet, No. 45, 23 April 1763; he cited Magna Carta incessantly. Lord Camden denounced the treatment of Wilkes as a contravention of Magna Carta.
  Prophet of a new revolutionary age, Thomas Paine in his Rights of Man would disregard Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights on the grounds they were not a written constitution devised by elected representatives.
  The United States of AmericaWhen Englishmen left their homeland for the new world, they brought with them charters establishing the colonies. The Massachusetts Bay Company charter for example stated the colonists would "have and enjoy all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects." The Virginia Charter of 1606 (which was largely drafted by Sir Edward Coke) stated the colonists would have all "liberties, franchises and immunities" as if they had been born in England. The Massachusetts Body of Liberties contained similarities to clause 29 of Magna Carta, and the Massachusetts General Court in drawing it up viewed Magna Carta as the chief embodiment of English common law.[74] The other colonies would follow their example. In 1638 Maryland sought to recognise Magna Carta as part of the law of the province but it was not granted by the King.[75]
  In 1687 William Penn published The Excellent Privilege of Liberty and Property: being the birth-right of the Free-Born Subjects of England which contained the first copy of Magna Carta printed on American soil. Penn's comments reflected Coke's, indicating a belief that Magna Carta was a fundamental law.[76] The colonists drew on English lawbooks leading them to an anachronistic interpretation of Magna Carta, believing it guaranteed trial by jury and habeas corpus.[77]
  The development of Parliamentary sovereignty in the British Isles did not constitutionally affect the Thirteen Colonies, which retained an adherence to English common law, but it would come to directly affect the relationship between Britain and the colonies.[78] When American colonists raised arms against Britain, they were fighting not so much for new freedom, but to preserve liberties and rights, as believed to be enshrined in Magna Carta and as later included in the Bill of Rights. American Revolutionaries would supplement this with ideas of natural right.
  In 1787 when the revolutionaries gathered to draft a constitution they built upon the legal system they knew and admired, English common law, and on Lockean philosophy.
  The American Constitution is the "supreme law of the land", recalling the manner in which Magna Carta had come to be regarded as fundamental law. This heritage is quite apparent. In comparing Magna Carta with the Bill of Rights: the Fifth Amendment guarantees: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." In addition, the United States Constitution included a similar writ in the Suspension Clause, article 1, section 9: "The privilege of the writ habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." Each of these proclaim no man may be imprisoned or detained without proof that they did wrong. The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The framers of the United States Constitution wished to ensure that rights they already held, such as those provided by Magna Carta, were not lost unless explicitly curtailed in the new United States Constitution.[79][80]
  The United States Supreme Court has explicitly referenced Lord Coke's analysis of Magna Carta as an antecedent of the Sixth Amendment's right to a speedy trial.[81]
  Nineteenth century and beyondWhilst radicals such as Sir Francis Burdett believed that Magna Carta could not be repealed, the 19th century would see the beginning of the repeal of many of the clauses of Magna Carta. The clauses were either obsolete and/or had been replaced by later legislation.
  William Stubbs's Constitutional History of England would be the high-water mark of the Whig interpretation of history. Stubbs believed that Magna Carta had been a major step in the shaping of the English people and he believed that the Barons at Runnymede were not just the Barons but the people.[82]
  This view of history however, was passing. At the popular level William Howitt in Cassell's Illustrated history of England would note that it was fiction that King John's Charter was the same Magna Carta as was on the statute books and stated that ''The Barons, in fact, were amongst the greatest traitors that England ever produced''.[83] A more academic history was provided by Frederic William Maitland in History of English Law before the Time of Edward I which began to move Magna Carta away from the myth that had grown up around it and return it to its historical roots. In many literary representations of the medieval past, however, Magna Carta remained the foundation for many diverse constructions of English national identity. Some authors instrumentalized the medieval roots of the document to preserve the social status quo while others utilized the precious national inheritance to change perceived economic injustice.[84]
  In 1904 Edward Jenks published in the Independent Review an article entitled ''The Myth of Magna Carta'' which undermined the traditionally accepted view of Magna Carta.[85] Historians like A. F. Pollard would agree with Jenks in considering Coke to have 'invented' Magna Carta, noting that the Charter at Runnymede had not meant popular liberty at all.[86]
  Sellar and Yeatman in their parody 1066 and All That would play on the supposed importance of Magna Carta and its supposed universal liberty: ''Magna Charter was therefore the chief cause of Democracy in England, and thus a Good Thing for everyone (except the Common People)''.
  Influences on later constitutionsMany attempts to draft constitutional forms of government, including the United States Constitution, trace their lineage back to Magna Carta.
  The British dominions, Australia and New Zealand,[87] Canada[88] (except Quebec), and formerly Union of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, reflected influence of Magna Carta in their law, and the Charter impacted generally on the states that evolved from the British Empire.[89]
  ExemplificationsNumerous copies, known as "exemplifications", were made each time it was issued, so all of the participants would each have one '' in the case of the 1215 copy, one for the royal archives, one for the Barons of the Cinque Ports, and one for each of the 40 counties of the time. If there ever was one single 'master copy' of Magna Carta sealed by King John in 1215, it has not survived. Four exemplifications of the original 1215 text remain, all of which are located in England, some on permanent display:
  The 'burnt copy', was found in the archives of Dover Castle in 1630 by Sir Edward Dering and sent to the antiquarian Sir Robert Cotton and is assumed to be the copy sent to the Cinque Ports on or after 24 June 1215. It was subsequently damaged in a fire at Ashburnham House where the Cotton Library was housed, and is now virtually illegible. It is the only one of the four to have its seal surviving, which remains however as a lump of shapeless wax. It is currently held by the British Library (Cotton Charter XIII.31a).[90]Another 1215 exemplification is held by the British Library (Cotton MS. Augustus II.106).One owned by Lincoln Cathedral, normally on display at Lincoln Castle. It has an unbroken attested history at Lincoln since 1216. We hear of it in 1800 when the Chapter Clerk of the Cathedral reported that he held it in the Common Chamber, and then nothing until 1846 when the Chapter Clerk of that time moved it from within the Cathedral to a property just outside. In 1848, Magna Carta was shown to a visiting group who reported it as "hanging on the wall in an oak frame in beautiful preservation". It went to the New York World Fair in 1939. In 1941, after war broke out with Japan, Magna Carta was sent to Fort Knox, along with the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, until 1944, when it was deemed safe to return them.[91] Having returned to Lincoln, it has been back to the United States on various occasions since then.[92] It was taken out of display for a time to undergo conservation in preparation for its visit to the United States, where it was exhibited at the Contemporary Art Center of Virginia from 30 March to 18 June 2007 in recognition of the Jamestown quadricentennial.[93][94] From 4 to 25 July 2007, the document was displayed at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia,[95] returning to Lincoln Castle afterwards. The document returned to New York to be displayed at the Fraunces Tavern Museum from 15 September to 15 December 2009 and has since returned to Lincoln.[96][97]One owned by and displayed at Salisbury Cathedral. It is the best preserved of the four.[98]Other early versions of Magna Carta survive. Durham Cathedral possesses 1216, 1217, and 1225 copies.[99]
  A near-perfect 1217 copy is held by Hereford Cathedral and is occasionally displayed alongside the Mappa Mundi in the cathedral's chained library. Remarkably, the Hereford Magna Carta is the only one known to survive along with an early version of a Magna Carta 'users manual', a small document that was sent along with Magna Carta telling the Sheriff of the county to observe the conditions outlined in the document.[100]
  Four copies are held by the Bodleian Library in Oxford. Three of these are 1217 issues and one a 1225 issue. On 10 December 2007, these were put on public display for the first time.[101] One of the Bodleian exemplifications from 1217 (once possibly held by Gloucester Cathedral) was displayed at San Francisco's California Palace of the Legion of Honor 7 May '' 6 June 2011.
  In 1952 the Australian Government purchased a 1297 copy of Magna Carta for £12,500 from King's School, Bruton, England.[102] This copy is now on display in the Members' Hall of Parliament House, Canberra. In January 2006, it was announced by the Department of Parliamentary Services that the document had been revalued down from A$40m to A$15m.
  Only one copy (a 1297 copy in cursiva anglicana handwriting with the royal seal of Edward I) is in private hands; it was held by the Brudenell family, earls of Cardigan, who had owned it for five centuries, before being sold to the Perot Foundation in 1984. This copy, having been on long-term loan to the US National Archives, was auctioned at Sotheby's New York on 18 December 2007; The Perot Foundation sold it in order to "have funds available for medical research, for improving public education and for assisting wounded soldiers and their families."[103] It fetched US$21.3 million,[104] It was bought by David Rubenstein of The Carlyle Group,[105] who after the auction said, "I thought it was very important that the Magna Carta stay in the United States and I was concerned that the only copy in the United States might escape as a result of this auction." Rubenstein's copy is on permanent loan to the National Archives in Washington, D.C.[106]
  The Rubenstein Magna Carta was removed from display 2 March 2011 for conservation treatment and reencasement in an anoxic environment provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) the government agency responsible for the 1950s encasement of the Charters of Freedom. After treatment and encasement by National Archives conservators, Magna Carta was put back on display for the public on 17 February 2012.[107]
  Usage of the definite article, spelling "Magna Carta"Since there is no direct, consistent correlate of the English definite article in Latin, the usual academic convention is to refer to the document in English without the article as "Magna Carta" rather than "the Magna Carta". According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first written appearance of the term was in 1218: "Concesserimus libertates quasdam scriptas in magna carta nostra de libertatibus" (Latin: "We concede the certain liberties here written in our great charter concerning liberties"). However, "the Magna Carta" is frequently used in both academic and non-academic speech.
  Especially in the past, the document has also been referred to as "Magna Charta", but the pronunciation was the same. "Magna Charta" is still an acceptable variant spelling recorded in many dictionaries due to continued use in some reputable sources. From the 13th to the 17th centuries, only the spelling "Magna Carta" was used. The spelling "Magna Charta" began to be used in the 18th century but never became more common despite also being used by some reputable writers.[108][109]
  Popular perceptionsSymbol and practiceMagna Carta is often a symbol for the first time the citizens of England were granted rights against an absolute king. However, in practice the Commons could not enforce Magna Carta in the few situations where it applied to them, so its reach was limited. Also, a large part of Magna Carta was copied, nearly word for word, from the Charter of Liberties of Henry I, issued when Henry I rose to the throne in 1100, which bound the king to laws which effectively granted certain civil liberties to the church and the English nobility.
  Many documents form Magna CartaAlthough Magna Carta is popularly thought of as the document which was forced upon King John in 1215, this version of the charter was almost immediately annulled. Later monarchs reissued the document, but without the most direct challenges to their power, and without the provisions which were intended to right immediate wrongs rather than make long-term constitutional changes. The version which forms part of English law is actually that of 1297. Magna Carta can therefore be used to refer to any one of several related (but not identical) 13th century documents, or indeed to the various charters as a whole.
  The document was unsignedPopular perception is that King John and the barons signed Magna Carta. There were no signatures on the original document, however, only a single seal placed by the king. The words of the charter '' Data per manum nostram '' signify that the document was personally given by the king's hand. By placing his seal on the document, the King and the barons followed common law that a seal was sufficient to authenticate a deed, though it had to be done in front of witnesses. John's seal was the only one, and he did not sign it. The barons neither signed nor attached their seals to it.[110]
  Perception in AmericaThe document is also honoured in America, where it is an antecedent of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. In 1957, the American Bar Association erected the Runnymede Memorial.[111] In 1976, the UK lent one of four surviving originals of the 1215 Magna Carta to the U.S. for its bicentennial celebrations, and also donated an ornate case to display it. The original was returned after one year, but a replica and its case are still on display in the U.S. Capitol Crypt in Washington, D.C.[112] One of four surviving originals of the 1297 Magna Carta is also on display in the U.S. National Archives.
  21st-century BritainIn 2006, BBC History held a poll to recommend a date for a proposed "Britain Day". 15 June, which was the date of the original 1215 Magna Carta, received most votes, above other suggestions such as D-Day, VE Day, and Remembrance Day. The outcome was not binding, although the then ChancellorGordon Brown had previously given his support to the idea of a new national day to celebrate British identity.[113] It was used as the name for an anti-surveillance movement in the 2008 BBC series The Last Enemy. According to a poll carried out by YouGov in 2008, 45% of the British public do not know what Magna Carta is.[114] However, its perceived guarantee of trial by jury and other civil liberties led to Tony Benn referring to the debate over whether to increase the maximum time terrorist suspects could be held without charge from 28 to 42 days as "the day Magna Carta was repealed".[115]
  See alsoReferences^"Magna Carta 1215, French translation (MC 1215 Fr)". Holt, J.C.'š 'A Verncaular-French Text of Magna Carta 1215', English Historical Review, 89 (1974), 346''64. http://www.earlyenglishlaws.ac.uk/laws/texts/mc-1215-fr/#manuscripts. ^Danny Danziger & John Gillingham, "1215: The Year of Magna Carta"(2004 paperback edition) p278^"Magna Carta: a precedent for recent constitutional change". Judiciary of England and Wales Speeches. 15 June 2005. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/speeches/2005/magna-carta-precedent-recent-constitutional-change. Retrieved 7 September 2010. ^Holt, J.C. Magna Carta (1965) p.21^ abClanchy, M.T. Early Medieval England Folio Society (1997) p.139^"United States Constitution Q + A". The Charters of Freedom. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html. Retrieved 16 February 2009. ^Thomas, Ralph V. Magna Carta Pearson 2003 pp39-40 & pp53-54^Danziger & Gillingham (2006) pp.256''258^Poole, A.L. From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 1087''1216 Oxford University Press 2nd edition (1963) p471-472^Holt, J.C. The Northerners: A Study in the Reign of King John Oxford University Press New edition (1992) p115^Holt, J.C. The Northerners: A Study in the Reign of King John Oxford University Press New edition (1992) p112^Within this article dates before 14 September 1752 are in the Julian calendar, later dates are in the Gregorian calendar.^Holt, J.C. The Northerners: A Study in the Reign of King John Oxford University Press New edition (1992) p107^"Roger of Wendover". Britannia.com. http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/runnymede.html. Retrieved 30 August 2010. ^Leeming, John Robert (1915). Stephen Langton : hero of Magna charta (1215 A.D.), septingentenary (700th anniversary), 1915 A.D.. London: Skeffington & Son. http://www.archive.org/details/stephenlangtonhe00leemuoft. Retrieved 1 November 2009. ^Poole, A.L. From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 1087''1216 Oxford University Press 2nd edition (1963) p479^Carpenter, David A. The Minority of Henry III University of California Press (1992) p12^Danziger & Gillingham (2004) p. 264^Crouch, David William Marshal Longman (1996) p114^Holt, J.C. Magna Carta Cambridge University Press 2nd Edition (1992) p1^Clanchy, M.T. A History Of England: Early Medieval England Folio Edition (1997) p141^Magna Charta translation, Barons at Runnymede, Magna Charta Period Feudal Estates, h2g2, King John and the Magna Carta^Hewitt, H.J. Mediaeval Cheshire Manchester University Press (1929) p.9^Holt, J.C. Magna Carta Cambridge University Press 2nd Edition (1992) pp.379-380^Clanchy, M.T. A History Of England: Early Medieval England Folio Edition (1997) p145^Powicke, Sir Maurice The Thirteenth Century 1216''1307 Oxford University Press 2nd edition (1962) p5^White, A.B. The Name Magna Carta in The English Historical Review (1915) pp472-475 and Note on the Name Magna Carta in The English Historical Review (1917) pp554-555^Clanchy, M.T. A History Of England: Early Medieval England Folio Edition (1997) pp141-142^Clanchy, M.T. A History Of England: Early Medieval England Folio Edition (1997) p147^Holt, J.C. Magna Carta Cambridge University Press 2nd Edition (1992) p394^Prestwich, Michael Edward I Yale (1997) p427^Halsbury Statutes Volume 10 4th edition (2007) p6^"Magna Carta (1297)". The National Archive. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/contents. Retrieved 29 July 2010. ^"UK Statute Law". Statutelaw.gov.uk. http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1517519. Retrieved 30 August 2010. ^"Confirmatio Cartarum". http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/cartarum.html. Retrieved 30 November 2007. ^Prestwich, MichaelEdward I Yale (1997) p427^Prestwich, MichaelEdward I Yale (1997) p434^Menache, Sophia Clement V Cambridge University Press (2002)p253^Robison, William B. and Fritze, Ronald H. (eds) Historical dictionary of late medieval England, 1272''1485 Greenwood Press (2002) entry on Articuli super Cartas pp34-35^Prestwich, MichaelEdward I University of California Press (1988) pp547-548^ abTurner, Ralph V. Magna Carta Pearson (2003) p123^Thompson, Faith Magna Carta '' Its Role in the Making of the English Constitution 1300''1629(1948)pp9-10^ abc"(Magna Carta) (1297) (c. 9)". UK Statute Law Database. http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1517519. Retrieved 2 September2007. ^ abTurner, Ralph V. Magna Carta Pearson (2003) pp67-68^Gordon v. Justice Court, 12 Cal. 3d 323 (1974).^Danziger, Gillingham 2004 p.262^ "Magna Carta". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913. ^Turner, Ralph V. Magna Carta Pearson (2003) p127^Turner, Ralph V. Magna Carta Pearson (2003) p138^Thompson, Faith Magna Carta '' Its Role in the Making of the English Constitution 1300''1629 University of Minnesota Press (1948) p.146^Thompson, Faith Magna Carta '' Its Role in the Making of the English Constitution 1300''1629 University of Minnesota Press (1948) pp.147-149^Turner, Ralph V. Magna Carta Pearson (2003) p.140^Thompson, Faith Magna Carta '' Its Role in the Making of the English Constitution 1300''1629 University of Minnesota Press (1948) pp.216-230^Pocock, J.G.A. The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law Cambridge University Press reisssue (1987) p.154^Wright, Herbert G. The Life and Works of Arthur Hall of Grantham, Member of Parliament, Courtier and First Translator of Homer Into English (1919) p.72^Turner, Ralph V. Magna Carta Longman (2003) 148^Holt, J.C. Magna Carta Cambridge University Press 2nd edition (1992) p12^Holt, J.C. Magna Carta Cambridge University Press 2nd edition (1992) pp20-21^Turner, Ralph V. Magna Carta Longman (2003) 157^Pocock, J.G.A. The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law Cambridge University Press (1987)^Turner, Ralph V. Magna Carta Pearson (2003) p156^Greenberg, Janelle The Radical Face of the Ancient Constitution: St Edward's 'Laws' in Early Modern Political Thought Cambridge University Press (2001) p148^Russell, Conrad Unrevolutionary England, 1603''1642 Hambledon Press (1990) p41^Magna Carta: a Precedent For Recent Constitutional Change, a speech by Harry Woolf, Baron Woolf, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, given on 15 June 2005 at Royal Holloway, University of London^Woolrych, Austyn in David L. Smith (Editor) Cromwell and the Interregnum: The Essential Readings Wiley-Blackwell (2003) p66^Pocock, J.G.A. The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law Cambridge University Press (1987) p127^Kewes, Paulina The uses of history in early modern England University of California Press (2006) 226^Danziger & Gillingham (2004) pp.281''282^Pocock, J.G.A. The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law Cambridge University Press (1987) "The Brady Controversy" chapter pp182-228^Turner, Ralph V. Magna Carta Pearson (2003) p165^Pocock, J.G.A. The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law Cambridge University Press (1987) p228^Turner, Ralph V. Magna Carta Pearson (2003) p170^Linebaugh, Peter The Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties and Commons for All University of California Press (2008) p113-114 and p96^Hazeltine, H.D. The influence of Magna Carta on American Constitutional Development in Malden, Henry Elliot (editor) Magna Carta commemoration essays (1917) p 194^Hazeltine, H.D. The influence of Magna Carta on American Constitutional Development in Malden, Henry Elliot (editor) Magna Carta commemoration essays (1917) p 195^Turner, Ralph V. Magna Carta Pearson (2003) p210^Turner, Ralph V. Magna Carta Pearson (2003) p 211^Hazeltine, H.D. The influence of Magna Carta on American Constitutional Development in Malden, Henry Elliot (editor) Magna Carta commemoration essays (1917) pp 183''184^Frederic Jesup Stimson, The Law of the Federal and State Constitutions of the United States; Book One, Origin and Growth of the American Constitutions, 2004, Introductory, Lawbook Exchange Ltd, ISBN 1-58477-369-3^Charles Lund Black, A New Birth of Freedom, 1999, p. 10, Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-07734-3^"',Klopfer v. North Carolina',, 386 U.S. 213 (1967)". Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=386&invol=213. Retrieved 2 May 2010. ^Turner, Ralph V. Magna Carta Pearson (2003) pp1990-200^Volume 6 1862 pV^Clare A. Simmons, "Absent Presence: The Romantic-Era Magna Charta and the English Constitution," in Medievalism in the Modern World. Essays in Honour of Leslie J. Workman, ed. Richard Utz and Tom Shippey (Turnhout: Brepols, 1998), pp. 69''83.^Galef, David Second thoughts: a focus on rereading Wayne State University Press (1998) p78-79^Pollard, Albert F. The History of England; a study in political evolution (1912)pp31-32^Clark, David The Icon of Liberty: The Status and Role of Magna Carta in Australian and New Zealand LawMelbourne University Law Review 34 (2000)^Kennedy, William Paul Mcclure The Constitution of Canada; An Introduction to Its Development and Law (1922) p228^Drew, Katherine Fischer Magna Carta Greenwood (2004) pxvi & pxxiii^Davis, G.R.C., Magna Carta, published by the British Library Board, 1977, p.36^Fort Knox Bullion Depository, GlobalSecurity.org^Knight, Alec (17 April 2004). "Magna Charta: Our Heritage and Yours". National Society Magna Charta Dames and Barons. Archived from the original on 28 September 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20070928064443/http://www.magnacharta.org/DeanofLincolnsRemarks2004.htm. Retrieved 2 September 2007. ^"Magna Carta & Four Foundations of Freedom". Contemporary Art Center of Virginia. 2007. http://www.cacv.org/exhibitions/MagnaCarta.asp. Retrieved 2 September 2007. ^"By Our Heirs Forever". Contemporary Art Center of Virginia. 2007. http://www.cacv.org/MagnaCarta.asp. Retrieved 2 September 2007. ^"Magna Carta on Display Beginning 4 July " (Press release). National Constitution Center. 30 May 2007. Archived from the original on 27 September 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20070927032707/http://www.constitutioncenter.org/PressRoom/PressReleases/2007_05_30_17687.shtml. Retrieved 2 September 2007. ^Copy of Magna Carta Travels to New York in Style, The New York Times, 13 September 2009^Magna Carta and the Foundations of Freedom, Fraunces Tavern Museum^Award for cathedral Magna Carta, BBC News Online, 4 August 2009^"Magna Carta: Where can I see a copy?". Icons: A Portrait of England. Culture Online. http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/magna-carta/features/where-can-i-see-a-copy. Retrieved 2 September 2007. ^"Magna Carta at Hereford Cathedral". http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandworcester/content/articles/2009/06/15/magna_carta_3108_event_feature.shtml. ^"Magna Carta on display at the Bodleian". 10 December 2007. http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2007/071210a.html. Retrieved 12 December 2007. ^Harry Evans, Bad King John and the Australian Constitution^Barron, James (25 September 2007). "Magna Carta is going on the auction block". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/nyregion/25magna.html. Retrieved 19 December 2007. ^"Magna Carta copy fetches $24m". The Sydney Morning Herald. 19 December 2007. http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/magna-carta-copy-fetches-24m/2007/12/19/1197740327098.html. Retrieved 19 December 2007. ^"Magna Carta Sells for $21.3m in New York" ('' Scholar search). The Washington Post. 19 December 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121900459.html. Retrieved 19 December 2007 [dead link]^A.E. Dick Howard "Magna Carta Comes to America", American Heritage, Spring/Summer 2008.^National Archives and Records Administration (12 February 2012). "New National Archives Video Short Documents 1297 Magna Carta Encasement Project: Magna Carta to Return to Public Display on February 17" (Press release). Archives.gov. http://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2012/nr12-63.html. ^Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, Bryan A. Garner^Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage^Browning, Charles Henry (1898). "The Magna Charta Described". The Magna Charta Barons and Their American Descendants .... Philadelphia. p. 50. OCLC 9378577. http://books.google.com/books?vid=0XPZLx6VcMoY1KO0KO&id=hTUfAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA501. ^"National Archives Featured Documents: Magna Carta". Archives.gov. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/magna_carta/. Retrieved 30 August 2010. ^[1], Architect of the Capitol Retrieved 22 July 2012^"Magna Carta tops British day poll". BBC News. 30 May 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5028496.stm. Retrieved 2 September 2007. ^"Magna Carta what? English charter 'a mystery to 45% of population'". The Daily Telegraph (UK). 13 March 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/13/ncarta113.xml. Retrieved 13 March 2008. ^"So will the revolution start in Haltemprice and Howden?". The Independent (UK). 14 June 2008. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/so-will-the-revolution-start-in-haltemprice-and-howden-846938.html. Retrieved 16 June 2008. External links
VIDEO: David Cameron ''quizzed'' on chat show
  Link to Article
  Source: BBC News - Home
  Thu, 27 Sep 2012 06:11
  This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
The Britishisation of American English
  Link to Article
  Source: BBC News - Home
  Thu, 27 Sep 2012 06:08
  26 September 2012Last updated at19:50 ETBy Cordelia HebblethwaiteBBC News, Washington DCThere is little that irks British defenders of the English language more than Americanisms, which they see creeping insidiously into newspaper columns and everyday conversation. But bit by bit British English is invading America too.
  "Spot on - it's just ludicrous!" snaps Geoffrey Nunberg, a linguist at the University of California at Berkeley.
  "You are just impersonating an Englishman when you say spot on."
  "Will do - I hear that from Americans. That should be put into quarantine," he adds.
  And don't get him started on the chattering classes - its overtones of a distinctly British class system make him quiver.
  But not everyone shares his revulsion at the drip, drip, drip of Britishisms - to use an American term - crossing the Atlantic.
  "I enjoy seeing them," says Ben Yagoda, professor of English at the University of Delaware, and author of the forthcoming book, How to Not Write Bad.
  "It's like a birdwatcher. If I find an American saying one, it makes my day!"
  Last year Yagoda set up a blog dedicated to spotting the use of British terms in American English.
  So far he has found more than 150 - from cheeky to chat-up via sell-by date, and the long game - an expression which appears to date back to 1856, and comes not from golf or chess, but the card game whist. President Barack Obama has used it in at least one speech.
  Yagoda notices changes in pronunciation too - for example his students sometimes use "that sort of London glottal stop", dropping the T in words like "important" or "Manhattan".
  Continue reading the main storyThe Britishisms are comingGinger (red hair)The use of ginger in the US to describe red hair took off with publication of the first Harry Potter book in 1998, says Kory Stamper of Merriam-Webster. Unlike in the UK, there is no anti-ginger prejudice in the US, she says - Americans think of warm, comforting things like gingerbread.
  See the full Google ngram graph
  Sell-by date (expiration)Americans use "expiration date" for the British sell-by date - the date by which supermarket food must be sold. But sell-by date is increasingly used in the US in a figurative sense. Eg "That idea is well past its sell-by date."
  See the full graph
  Go missing (disappear)This came to the fore in the US when intern Chandra Levy "disappeared", says Ben Yagoda. Go missing was widely used, he says, because it felt more nuanced. In his view, British terms can "really serve a purpose" when there is no exact equivalent in American English.
  See the full graph
  Chat up (hit on)The use of chat up to refer to flirtatious conversation really began to take off in the 1990s, says Kory Stamper. Often you can't pinpoint why a word or phrase gets picked up, she says. Chat up is a good example of a Britishism that has "snuck in on cat's feet".
  See the full graph
  Continue reading the main storyKory Stamper, Associate Editor for Merriam-Webster, whose dictionaries are used by many American publishers and news organisations, agrees that more and more British words are entering the American vocabulary.
  Continue reading the main storyAlso overheard in the US...Do the washing up - British for "wash the dishes"Keen on/ keen to - a British way of saying "to like" or "be eager to"Barman - bartenderBit - as in "the best bit" of a film... Americans would usually say "part"To book (eg a hotel) - Americans would say "reserve"CalledJoe - Americans say "named" JoeTo move house - a British way of saying "to move"Stamper is one of the powerful few who get to choose which words are included in the dictionary, as well as writing their definitions.
  One new entrant into the Merriam-Webster dictionary in 2012 was gastropub (a gentrified pub serving good food), which was first used, according to Kory Stamper, in London's Evening Standard newspaper in 1996, and was first registered on American shores in 2000.
  "The British pub is a very different critter from an American bar," she says, but bars with good beer and food are springing up in many cities in the US, and the British term is sometimes used to describe them.
  Twee (excessively dainty or cute) is another "word of the moment", says Stamper, as is metrosexual (a well-groomed and fashion-conscious heterosexual man) which "took off like wildfire", after it was used in the American TV series Queer Eye. There was even a backlash against it - a sure sign, she says, that the word had "absolutely made its way into the American vernacular".
  Continue reading the main storyWhat about Canadian English?Canadians spell many words the British way - like "colour", "neighbour" and "centre"British English was "enormously influential" from 1850-1950, largely due to a wave of immigration from Britain - an accent known as "Canadian dainty" came into being as upper middle class Canadians tried to sound BritishCanadians have tended to pronounce works like "tomato" and "leisure" the British, rather than American, way - as well as using words like "tap", when an American would say "faucet" - but this is changing"When people put on a British accent [now], we consider it affected and funny - but it doesn't happen very frequently"There has also been "a huge up-tick", says Stamper, in the use of ginger as a way of describing someone with red hair.
  She sees this as clearly tied to the publication in the US of the first Harry Potter book. Dozens of words and phrases were changed for the American market, but ginger slipped through, as did snog (meaning "to kiss amorously") - though that has not proved so popular.
  We are not seeing a radical change to the American language, says Jesse Sheidlower, American editor at large of the Oxford English Dictionary - rather a "very small, but noticeable" trend.
  Bill Kretzschmar, professor of English at the University of Georgia, makes a similar point - that while the spike in use of some British terms may look dramatic, it is often because they are rising from a very low base. Most are used "very infrequently", he says.
  And it is not so much the masses who use these terms, says Geoffrey Nunberg, as the educated elite. Journalists and other media types, like advertising agencies, are the worst offenders, in his view.
  "The words trickle down rather than trickle up," he says.
  "It sounds trendy - another borrowing we could use without - to use a British term. It just sounds kind of Transatlantic."
  Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
  Obama was "chuffed to bits" to "natter" with David Cameron in March
  But the line between trendy and plain pretentious is a fine one, says Sheidlower.
  Anyone who says bespoke - as Americans sometimes do when referring to a custom-made suit or a bicycle - is just "showing off".
  Continue reading the main storyDefining termsBriticism - Word or phrase characteristic of the English or Great Britain - first used in US in 1868Britishism - First used in US in 1853, for something "characteristic of British people" - only later applied to wordsBriticization or Britishisation - First reference is 1953 in BritainBritspeak - No specific entry in the dictionary at the moment, but "worth considering" says the OED's Jesse SheidlowerSource: Oxford English Dictionary
  But some British terms can be useful, says Sheidlower, and fill in a gap where there is no direct equivalent in American English - he cites one-off (something which is done, or made, or which happens only once) as an example.
  To go missing is another useful term, says Ben Yagoda, as it is more nuanced, conveying a greater sense of uncertainty than the standard "to disappear". Its use climbed significantly in 2001, with the high-profile case of the missing intern Chandra Levy.
  British TV shows like Top Gear, Dr Who, and Downton Abbey may be another reason more British words are slipping in, says Yagoda, as well as the popularity (and easy access via the internet) of British news sources, such as The Guardian, The Economist, The Daily Mail - and the BBC.
  Yagoda also points to a number of British journalists who have risen to influential positions in the US, including Tina Brown - who has worked as editor of Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, The Daily Beast, and Newsweek - and Anna Wintour, editor in chief of American Vogue.
  "English for everybody is becoming more international, every day that passes," says Bill Kretzschmar who is also editor in chief of the Linguistics Atlas Project, which tracks spoken English.
  Continue reading the main storyA self-confessed AnglophileLanguage is part of our self-identity. It evokes strong emotions in the same way that other elements of self-identity do - such as politics or religion.
  In my work Americanising British terms for young-adult literature, I tended to leave in any Britishism that I could get away with. If the context allowed the reader to understand, and if the word was in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, I generally left it in. I generally had no problem leaving in a word like peckish because we have no commonly used term that means exactly the same thing.
  I love Britishisms, and I liked the idea of expanding young readers' vocabulary. But I would change a word like "chips" and "crisps" because Americans do use a different, specific word for these things.
  The use of university, rather than college or school, for example, may well be used by Americans to make sure they are understood outside the country.
  The same thing might be influencing a trend that Yagoda has spotted for Americans to use the day, month, year format for dates - 26/9/12 rather than 9/26/12.
  There is not so much an "on and off switch" between versions of English, says Kretzschmar, but more of a continuum - with the same words in existence in different places, but just used at different frequencies.
  Some words, often the more formal ones, were once common on both sides of the Atlantic, but dropped out of American English usage while remaining popular in Britain, says Yagoda - amongst (instead of among), trousers (instead of pants), and fortnight (two weeks) are examples.
  And some words which Brits regard as typically American - including "candy", "the fall", and "diaper" - were originally British, but dropped out of usage in Britain between about 1850 and the early 1900s, says Kory Stamper.
  "America has always welcomed words from all over," she says.
  "If it doesn't look conspicuously foreign, I don't think anyone questions - it's just English at that point."
  The word gormless (the best American equivalent is probably "clueless") is on the rise in the US, for example, says Stamper, but no-one thinks of it as a British word. For some reason it sounds Southern to many American ears.
  Continue reading the main storyThe American 'tung'Lexicographer, author and editor Noah Webster was born in Connecticut in 1758Believed spellings were needlessly complicated, and tried to simplify themMany changes were adopted into American English - "traveled", "defense" and "color", for exampleHe also wanted to change "women" to "wimmen" and "tongue" to "tung", but neither was adoptedLearned 26 languages in order to write An American Dictionary of the English language - published in 1828 (22 years after his first dictionary) it had 70,000 entriesMany Americans learned how to read using his famous Blue Backed SpellerThere would have been no difference between British and American English when the founding fathers first crossed the Atlantic. It took time for the two to go their separate ways - a process given a jolt by Noah Webster, who published the first dictionary of American English in 1806, 30 years after the Declaration of Independence.
  Webster introduced the distinctive American spellings of words like "honour" (honor), "colour" (color), "defence" (defense), and "centre" (center), as well as including specifically American words like "skunk" and "chowder".
  "He wanted very much for this budding new nation to have its own language," says Kory Stamper, whose Merriam-Webster dictionary is the modern-day version of Webster's work.
  "If [we were] not British, but American, we needed to have an American language as well."
  These days, the "balance of payments" language-wise is very much skewed the other way - with Americanisms used far more in Britain than the other way round, says Nunberg.
  And though a few people do take umbrage to the use of British words in American English, they are in the minority, says Sheidlower.
  "In the UK, the use of Americanisms is seen as a sign that culture is going to hell."
  "But Americans think all British people are posh, so - aside from things that are fairly pretentious - no-one would mind."
U.S. actress sues anti-Islam filmmaker, YouTube in federal court
  Link to Article
  Source: Reuters: World News
  Thu, 27 Sep 2012 06:05
  Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress in the ''Innocence of Muslims'', an anti-Islam movie that has spawned violent protests across the Muslim world, attends a news conference outside her attorney's office after a court hearing in Los Angeles, California September 20, 2012.
  Credit: Reuters/Bret Hartman
  By Steve Gorman
  LOS ANGELES | Thu Sep 27, 2012 1:05am EDT
  LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - An actress who said she was duped into appearing in an anti-Islam film that stoked violent protests across the Muslim world took her legal bid to federal court on Wednesday in a renewed effort to force it off YouTube.
  The lawsuit filed by Cindy Lee Garcia names the popular online video site YouTube and its parent company Google Inc. as defendants, along with the Egyptian-American Coptic Christian from California believed to be behind the making of the film.
  Last week, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied Garcia's request for a temporary restraining order that would have required YouTube to stop posting the crudely made 13-minute video, finding the actress was unlikely to prevail on the merits of her case in state court.
  As in her previous lawsuit, Garcia accused the purported filmmaker of fraud, libel and unfair business practices. But her federal lawsuit also asserts a copyright claim to her performance in the video, titled "The Innocence of Muslims."
  Garcia's case was the first known civil litigation stemming from the video, billed as a film trailer, which depicts the Prophet Mohammad as a fool and a sexual deviant. The clip sparked a torrent of anti-American unrest in Egypt, Libya and dozens of other Muslim countries over the past two weeks.
  The outbreak of violence coincided with an attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.
  U.S. and other foreign embassies were also stormed in various cities across the Middle East, Asia and Africa. For many Muslims, any depiction of the prophet is considered blasphemous.
  Google has refused to remove the film from YouTube, despite pressure from the White House and others to take it down, though the company has blocked the trailer in Egypt, Libya and other Muslim countries.
  COPYRIGHT ISSUE
  Garcia's lawyer argued in court last week that her client, who is from Bakersfield, California, has suffered harm similar to a person whose privacy is violated by the unauthorized release of a sex tape.
  But Google's attorneys said that the rights of an actor do not protect that person from how a film is perceived.
  In her latest lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Santa Clara, California, Garcia says that Google is infringing on the copyright she holds to her performance in the film by distributing the video without her approval via YouTube.
  Garcia's lawsuit identifies Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, a Los Angeles-area Coptic man who has served time in federal prison for bank fraud, as the film's producer.
  On Saturday, a Pakistani cleric offered a $100,000 reward to anyone who killed the film's maker. Garcia said in her lawsuit that an Egyptian cleric had issued a fatwa, or religious edict, against anyone who served as a director, producer or actor in the video.
  According to Garcia, Nakoula operated under the assumed name of Sam Bacile, misleading her and other actors into appearing in a film they believed was an adventure drama called "Desert Warrior."
  After the fact, however, she learned that some of her lines spoken in the production had been dubbed over.
  The alteration made it look like Garcia "voluntarily performed in a hateful, anti-Islamic production," the lawsuit says, adding that she has "been subjected to credible death threats and is in fear for her life and the life and safety of anyone associated with her."
  Nakoula has been in hiding for much of the past two weeks after being questioned by federal authorities looking into whether he may have violated terms of his probation in the making or promotion of the video.
  (Reporting by Steve Gorman)
  Link thisShare thisDigg thisEmailReprints
This Is What Islamic Supremacism Looks Like
  Link to Article
  Source: FrontPage Magazine
  Thu, 27 Sep 2012 06:04
  President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is in New York. According to the regime's official FARS News Agency, he is ''set to meet American university students, artists, intellectuals and elites, including Occupy Wall Street anti-capitalist protestors, despite the ongoing efforts made by the pro-Zionist lobbies to prevent direct link between American people and the Iranian president.''
  The irony of this announcement must be lost on all of the above, including the Occupy Wall Street anti-capitalist fighters against all things supremacist: they are about to offer a propagandistic platform to a leading figure of Islamic supremacism, whose ''news'' agency can't even file a short report without an anti-Semitic jab.
  Wikipedia defines supremacism as ''the belief that a particular race, species, ethnic group, religion, gender, sexual orientation, class, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not.''
  Whoa! Wait one oppression-fighting minute! Species? Sexual orientation? Is there an article in Wikipedia where the sneaky ''progressives'' haven't laid their silly post-modernist eggs? But let's play ''which word doesn't belong'' some other time. A more pressing issue here is that the above definition perfectly describes Islam, states its goals and motivations, and explains the origins and purpose of the segregationist Sharia legal system that purports to be superior to individual equality and liberty.
  According to a former FBI counter-terror expert Jeffrey Imm, ''Islamic supremacism is an activist, transnational ideology that seeks the transformation or assimilation of every human being, with the ultimate goal to establish a global Islamic caliphate to govern Earth. Islamic supremacism may provide the ideological basis for Jihadist terrorism, but its adherents seek to attack and undermine equality and liberty using many other tactics.''
  Not only is Islam today's most potent, long-lasting, and threatening form of supremacism '' it is also the one that is being willfully overlooked by its potential victims, who are all too busy welcoming it in New York: the aforementioned ''American university students, artists, intellectuals and elites, including Occupy Wall Street anti-capitalist protestors.'' Might I add that deemed inferior are also those who plant words like ''species'' and ''sexual orientation'' into the Wikipedia definition of supremacism.
  The latter themselves represent a loosely organized ''religion of peace,'' united by their faith that word manipulation can somehow alter reality. They may even feel superior to others due to their skills in ''framing the debate.'' And yet, despite their ritualistic lying to themselves and others, there is no such thing as ''moderate supremacism'' or ''the supremacism of peace.''
  An example of their intellectual and moral contortionism is found in the same Wikipedia article, which laughably claims that Islamic supremacism is an illusion caused by ''misinterpreting'' Islam's history of invasions, massacres, oppression, and slave trade.
  Some academics and writers have alleged Muslim or Islamic supremacism. The Qur'an and other Islamic documents always speak of tolerant and protective beliefs which have been misused, misquoted and misinterpreted by supremacists and anti-Islamic elements. Specific examples of how supremacists have exploited the name of Islam includes Muslim participation in the African slave trade, the early 20th century pan-Islamism promoted by Abdul Hamid II, the jizya and rules of marriage in Muslim countries being imposed on non-Muslims, the majority Muslim interpretations of the rules of pluralism in Malaysia, and ''defensive'' supremacism practised [sic] by some Muslim immigrants in Europe.
MSNBC Cuts Off Ahmadinejad "The Nations That Accept Nazi Germany Arrogance & Expansionist Powers"
  Link to Article
  Source: Uploads by MOXNEWSd0tC0M
  Thu, 27 Sep 2012 02:32
CNN Cuts Off Ahmadinejad As He Talks About Countries & Religions Having NO PROBLEM With Each Other
  Link to Article
  Source: Uploads by MOXNEWSd0tC0M
  Thu, 27 Sep 2012 02:32
"I Don't Care If You Like Netanyahu Or You Don't!" Rudy Giuliani (AUDIO OUT OD SYNC SORRY!)
  Link to Article
  Source: Uploads by MOXNEWSd0tC0M
  Thu, 27 Sep 2012 02:31