-
Disabling American Sovereignty
May 22, 2013 | 13 comments
-
Another Correa Problem
April 15, 2013 | 9 comments
-
The Lady Wasn’t for Turning
April 8, 2013 | 20 comments
-
Let’s Lose LOST
March 26, 2013 | 25 comments
-
The Missing Word on Trade
February 15, 2013 | 4 comments
Constitutional Opinions
Did Magna Carta Die in Vain?
It does appear so, if David Cameron’s cluelessness is any indication.
It’s rare that an interview by David Letterman gives you deep insight into a troubling problem, but his interview with British Prime Minister David Cameron last week certainly did. Letterman did part of his usual shtick, asking the Prime Minister a series of quiz questions about British history. He failed to answer two of them correctly. One was, “Who wrote Rule Britannia?” — which is not generally known. More troublingly, he also missed, “What is the literal translation of Magna Carta?” The fact that the Prime Minister of Great Britain did not know that the answer was “The Great Charter” is deeply worrying — and should serve as a warning to America.
Britons have always taken some amusement in the fact that such an important part of their nation’s history has a Latin name, which very few people have ever been taught. British political commenter Mark Wallace found a good illustration of that, in this clip in which comedian Tony Hancock asks, “Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?”
David Cameron went to an extremely good school — Eton College — where Latin is taught as a matter of course, and much of social media buzz lamented the state of Latin teaching at Eton. But for once, Cameron’s privileged upbringing was not the point. The problem with his answer isn’t the state of Latin instruction at elite British academies. It is that not knowing that Magna Carta is the Great Charter displays a fundamental lack of constitutional understanding.
Magna Carta is one of the foundational documents of Anglo-American constitutionalism. It formed the basis of constitutional jurisprudence in the 16th century. In the 17th, it served as the foundation for the drafting of first, the Petition of Right, then the Declaration of Right, and eventually the British Bill of Rights. In the 19th century, a mass political movement, the Chartists, arose to demand a new Charter of fundamental rights in a democracy. All of the Chartists’ “6 points” bar one — annual Parliaments — have since been enacted into law.
So David Cameron didn’t just flunk Latin, he flunked History as well. More troublingly, he also flunked Political Philosophy, the subject he supposedly studied at Oxford. Even if he hadn’t, one might suppose a decent working knowledge of Britain’s legal and governing tradition would be a prerequisite for a Conservative Prime Minister trying to undo the damage of over a decade of constitutional vandalism wrought by the governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
That is because at heart, Magna Carta is about one thing — restricting government. That goal may be unfashionable among the chattering classes these days, but the document articulating it has been resilient for a reason. The fact that putting bounds on government and constraining what it is allowed to do is essential to progress and prosperity was recognized as far back as 1215. For instance, when King John declared, “No scutage nor aid shall be imposed on our Kingdom unless by common council,” he recognized that the taxes he had arbitrarily imposed were damaging to England. It is the source of the idea that taxation must be levied only by consent of the governed, and thereby laid the foundation for the need for separation of powers.
Those of us who carry pocket copies of the U.S. Constitution may shake our heads at such ignorance, but we should not be smug about it. All around us we see evidence that the central lesson of Magna Carta is being ignored. Legislators — federal, state and local — continually seek to expand not only their own statutory powers, but also that of executives. Executives, especially at the federal level, use broad discretionary powers to regulate the minute affairs of business, commerce, and property ownership. Perhaps worst of all, judges often turn a blind eye to the central principle behind both Magna Carta and the American Founding — that government must be constrained.
That the United Kingdom has nationally forgotten this lesson, as evidenced by its nominally Conservative Prime Minister, should be a wake-up call to Americans. We cherish our Constitution, but if we allow its principles to be undermined by politically expedient executive actions, legislation, and court rulings, it might as well have been written in Latin.
About the Author
Iain Murray heads the Center for Economic Freedom at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and is the author of Stealing You Blind: How Government Fatcats Are Getting Rich Off of You.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (25) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Iain Murray
More Articles From Constitutional Opinions
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/04/did-magna-carta-die-in-vain
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The (Real) Great Divide
- Self-Righteous Republic
- A President Loses His Power
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
drudge ette obama| 10.4.12 @ 7:07AM
I surmise that crooked lipped David Letterman, when he isn't chasing skirts around the tv studio, wouldn't know a Magna Carta from a cold Carta Blanca.
Also, why did Obama let David Letterman sit higher than him during the tv interview? Letterman likes to lord over his guests.
A. C. Santore| 10.4.12 @ 12:45PM
Letterman knows less about the Magna Carta than Cameron. He read his question off a prompt card.
In this article, Iain Murray just demonstrated his predilection for Labour/Liberal Democrat anti-Cameron snideness.
Flatdog | 10.4.12 @ 1:45PM
"In this article, Iain Murray just demonstrated his predilection for Labour/Liberal Democrat anti-Cameron snideness.".
Can't see how that's a problem. A large chunk of the Conservative Party, and most of us living here in Britain have a predeliction for anti-Cameron snideness. He attracts it because he's out for number one, to Hell with the people or the country, has lost control of his party and is openly a Socialist in thrall to his Marxist Comrades in the European Union.
MelvinNC| 10.4.12 @ 7:58AM
How to these political popinjays regardless of what Country they are from are only able to do this trampling of rights, only because we let them, and we reelect them.
Do we threaten to string them up like stuck squealing hogs for ignoring our Constitution. Apparently so. Because the, "The Tan Man, " from Ohio is sitting behind the Speaker of the House's podium and is diligently diddling himself, and is much to busy to enforce the Constitution's protections from usurping Banana Republic dictators.
If anyone has paid any attention to what has happen to England in the last twenty years, is noting short of a multicultural coup.
England has lost it's identity in kowtowing to the migrant masses who flooded the Country and overloaded the Social Services along with England's much vaunted and hyped health care.
Don't go to England's public health care system without anything more than venereal disease, because the doctors will be unable to treat you.
David Cameron is a bumbling self-gratifying, and promoting buffoon. Not that Nick Clegg or Ed Balls are any better. Their all cut from the same toilet paper, just like our politicians.
markenoff| 10.4.12 @ 12:00PM
"For instance, when King John declared, "No scutage nor aid shall be imposed on our Kingdom unless by common council," he recognized that the taxes he had arbitrarily imposed were damaging to England."
This quote implies that the Magna Carta was a document drafted by or at the behest of King John. It wasn't. The Magna Carta was forced on King John by his barons who were interested not in establishing a document codifying rights for all but in forcing a weakened king who needed their financial and military support to recognize that he did not have unlimited arbitrary power over them. The only reason the rebellious barons accepted John's signature on the document as opposed to simply deposing him was because there was no obvious alternative to John as king.
Derek Leaberry| 10.4.12 @ 12:36PM
Like Mitt Romney, David Cameron is the type of conservative who is unable to conserve anything of value. Consider Cameron's support of homosexual marriage. He has explained that he supports homosexual marriage for conservative reasons. That sort of nonsense would be similar to a socialist arguing that he supports smaller government to render a more socialist state.
Flatdog | 10.4.12 @ 1:33PM
Cameron is not Conservative. His politics is closer to the "Liberal Democrats" than the Conservatives.
The Coalition Government and the Labour Party are two cheeks of the same arse. While any of that shower are lording it over us, we will continue to be dumped on.
By 2015, The Libertarian Party of the United Kingdom will be the most credible to form a government.
Liam Hillman
Nominating Officer
Libertarian Party of the UK
http://libertarianpartyuk.com/
Bill8472| 10.4.12 @ 12:37PM
He should have answered that wise guy question with "It was written in English and doesn't need to be translated."
Bill8472| 10.4.12 @ 12:39PM
Actually, on second thought, I think it was written in Latin in its original draft. Cameron could have said, "It was written in Latin and I don't know Latin."
Flatdog | 10.4.12 @ 1:25PM
It was written in Latin because the only people capable of reading and writing were monks and priests, and they used Latin. It wasn't signed by the King, because he was illiterate, and incapable of doing so.
That doesn't excuse Cameron from not knowing what Magna Carta meant in English, unless he misunderstood the question, and thought that he was being asked to translate the entire document from memory, which I doubt even Dr David Sparkey could do.
Bill8472| 10.4.12 @ 2:19PM
I think a dumb question from David Letterman begs for a dumb answer.
Butch| 10.4.12 @ 5:27PM
Flatdog, I saw an original copy when it was still in the British Museum. Don't I remember the King's seal on it in what appeared to be wax?
cicero| 10.4.12 @ 1:44PM
The really sad thing about the whole episode is that not one in fifty of the viewers would know what they were talking about. They would have viewed it as a "gotcha" question, and may have even felt sorry for Cameron for not knowing the answer to a question about an "obscure" item. He should have know the answer to that question without pause, and been able to recite the first paragraph of it by heart.
However, when half of our college grads can't place the century in which our Civil Was was fought, or answer questtion about our own history, why is anyone surprised? We don't teach history, anymore. All our students, and citizens, know is the hollywood version of what may or may not have happened. For shame. No wonder our leadders lack critical thinking skills. Everything is confronted as if it is new under the sun.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.4.12 @ 2:46PM
I fear you are largely correct about ignorance of history. This week, I asked an under age 30 college graduate (bachelor's degree) who also attended a military college (and private schools ) who is about to enter US Army boot camp (and eventually deploy to Afghanistan with a local National Guard unit) to briefly construct a timeline of American history since the Revolution by the major conflicts we participated in with disappointing results (with help, he scored around 65%).
Floyd R Turbo (American)| 10.4.12 @ 1:45PM
The Magna Carta is a bit different from the US Constitution. The MC was written to limit the power of the King over the nobles - quite unlike the US Constitution which was written to limit the power of the US government over the common people.
The UK equivalent of the US Constitution would be the UK bill of rights.
Unfortunately I believe that sometime in the 1960s the UK bill of rights was determined by the UK legal authorities to not apply to individuals, but were rather collective rights.
It thus became meaningless.
Flatdog | 10.4.12 @ 1:55PM
The Bill of Rights 1689 pertained only to England, as neither Great Britain nor the United Kingdom existed at the time. It is just as well that it is little used nowadays, because it contains a lot of religious bigotry of the sort seldom seen outside Northern Ireland in present times.
Floyd R Turbo (American)| 10.4.12 @ 4:14PM
The US Constitution had some portions that modern people consider unfortunate as well. That is why we have the amendment process.
Absent the Bill of Rights it is not clear to me what protects the English people from absolute despotism.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.4.12 @ 2:49PM
"the US Constitution which was written to limit the power of the US government over the common people"
I would quibble to the extent that I would add "and/ or the States" after people, and drop common before it.
Floyd R Turbo (American)| 10.4.12 @ 4:17PM
"Common" as distinct from the "nobility" (in England).
The States are more capable of defending themselves against the Federal government than are the people.
Tafuna| 10.4.12 @ 8:44PM
I chanced to see an original copy of the Magna Carta at Salisbury Cathedral some years ago. Might I suggest Mr. Cameron take a peak at it sometime.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.4.12 @ 9:09PM
That reminds me of the old joke about the tourist couple who went there, and their guide told them that this was where the Magna Carta was signed. The husband asked when it was signed, and the guide responded 1215. The husband looked at his watch, and then at his wife, and said “It’s one clock now. If you hadn’t taken an hour to get ready, we’d have been here in time to see it.”
Mnestheus| 10.4.12 @ 9:26PM
This fella Murray should be sent back up the Isis without a paddle, debagged , belabored with Bollinger bottles and trussed up like a vile NeoWhig for taking a Tory PM's name in vain.
Mistral| 10.6.12 @ 3:44PM
His ignorance hardly comes as a surprise when he pretends the British people want homosexual marriage when well over 70% do not and he thinks that the baby in the womb is not a human being and even less when its head is already in the world. He is a snobbish scoffer of an ex-public school-Oxbridge education and an "old-boy" of the worst type. Many of us will cheer very loudly when he is deposed. This incident demonstrates what an intellectually impoverished minority leader the UK has who displays his ignorance everywhere he goes.
kingjohn| 10.7.12 @ 2:03PM
Cameron actually gives a simple but correct précis of the significance of the Magna Carta during the Letterman interview. For domestic, political reasons he had to pretend not to know the translation: he saw a brickbat about his Classical education coming and ducked. So the author of this article and everyone who has commented so far has missed the point. He's a conservative who has enough political nous to avoid getting caught on camera saying something that will reduce his electability - something about which American conservatives could learn a thing or two.
Ralph Novy| 12.6.12 @ 5:54PM
Hear, hear, sir, on balance.
But bear in mind that "being heard" -- being able to be heard -- is rather the essence of the thing, eh?