[SES1066]

From the NYT Opinion pages "But its fame rests on several myths. First, it wasn’t effective. In fact, it was a failure." Could it be that a liberal publication does not like DWEMs (Dead White European Males) and iconic historical documents (US Constitution?) unless liberals are permitted to freely interpret at will?

Of course if the Magna Carta was such a failure, why are we celebrating it 4/5s of a millennium later?

[Busko]

As we slowly watch our rights being taken by our so called elected officials.

[a fool in paradise]

NYet Times can't have this:

"[1] In the first place we grant to God and confirm by this our present charter for ourselves and our heirs in perpetuity that the English Church is to be free and to have all its rights fully and its liberties entirely."

[Ohioan]

In the original version, there were enforcement provisions, which called for a committee of Barons--25, I believe--who were supposed to raise the nation, if the Crown (Government) violated the terms. Ultimately, like our own Constitution, it requires a will to preserve the rights recognized. Without that will to preserve, all human devices intended to protect liberty, are useless.

That said, such documents have a powerful beacon effect. In the case of Magna Carta, it is quite possible that what Jefferson penned 561 years later, would never have taken the form it did--had it happened at all;--had Magna Carta never been forced upon King John.