Is there an implicit right to rebel in the Constitution?

The following author suggest that it exists within a broader understanding of the right to petition, which is in the Magna Carta, and as a result in our First Amendment. I'm not sure how much I agree with all his points, but its an interesting read.

Expect something on Magna Carta - and the development of governing institutions throughout British history. There might be something about the British Bill of Rights as well. And while I'm at it - the notes touched on Roman history and how it applies to the design of U.S. institutions.

- Click here for: Right to rebel is 800 year old!

When right to petition was thought of in Magna Carta, it included a significant right, right to rebel if grievance is not redressed. Article 61 provided for the presentation of grievances to the king, and required the king to redress grievances within 40 days or risk rebellion. The Magna Carta’s Right to Petition includes, if the right is abridged, the right to wage whatever war against government needed to get just redress. The Magna Carta’s Petition Right included a Right to Rebel in the event that the Right to Petition were abridged, Right to rebel? It’s unimaginable.

One might be free to file a petition, but unless it is legally recognised as specific right, petitioner faces the risk of being prosecuted for sedition, libel or seditious libel. Jailing a petitioner for requesting something is atrocious. A mere mention of Right to petition is of no use without guaranteeing protection from the criminal prosecution. 

Happy Belated 800th Birthday Magna Carta

It's not an especially fancy document. As you can see. This has been argued to be a reflection of its utilitarian character.

We cover the document repeatedly in class, so no reason to hammer on it.

From You Tube: Magna Carta and the Emergence of Parliament

This might be a helpful way for 2305 students to get a handle on the gradual process by which the power of British Monarchs were contained. The most effective way to do so - in a relatively permanent manner - was for the barons to get the king to agree that they could establish a group that could oversee the actions of the king and ensure that he could be held to the agreements he made in the Magna Carta.

The Magna Carta to come to Houston

Thanks to the student who sent this in.

A date is not given, but it will come to the Museum of Natural Science sometime soon, just before its 800the birthday!

2305's will dig through portions of the document soon.

Fifth Amendment, RIP?

A writer at the Atlantic thinks we've been slowly losing our 5th Amendment rights:

What everyone must understand is that American politics doesn't work the way you'd think it would. Most people presume that government officials would never willfully withhold penicillin from men with syphilis just to see what would happen if the disease went untreated. It seems unlikely that officers would coerce enlisted men into exposing themselves to debilitating nerve gas. Few expected that President Obama would preside over the persecution of an NSA whistle-blower, or presume the guilt of all military-aged males killed by U.S. drone strikes. But it all happened.

He's specifically referring to a provision in the reauthorization of the National Defense Authorization Act - now being considered in a conference committee - to allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens suspected of terrorism, without proof or due process. You can't defend yourself of the charges.

He points out that with the exception of one journalist at the New York Times, and a small handful of others - no one is covering this story.

Catching up on New Hampshire's Magna Carta Bill

It died in committee.

The Magna Carta in the news

I'm preparing material for next week's 2301 and 2302, both of which will include discussions of the Magna Carta and its role in the establishment of the foundation for our Constitution and our governing institutions.

Here are a couple stories where the document has been recently cited.

First, three freshmen members of the New Hampshire legislature have introduced legislation - HB 1580 - that will require legislation to find its origins in the Magna Carta.

From the bill: "All members of the general court proposing bills and resolutions addressing individual rights or liberties shall include a direct quote from the Magna Carta which sets forth the article from which the individual right or liberty is derived," is the bill's one sentence.

Commentators wonder whether this is in fact feasible. Plus there are some problmatic parts of the charter dealing with religious minorities. The authors of the bill have admitted to not actually having read much of the document.

Second, the Supreme Court - in a unanimous decision - ruled that religious organizations are exempt from following laws limiting unequal treatment for the disabled because doing so would allow government to wade into the issue of who is and is not a minister. The decision introduces logic dating back to language in the Magna Carta (see section one) stating that the "church shall be free." Here's quote from the decision:

Controversy between church and state over religious offices is hardly new. In 1215, the issue was addressed in the very first clause of Magna Carta. There, King John agreed that "the English church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished and its liberties unimpaired." [*7] The King in particular accepted the "freedom of elections," a right "thought to be of the greatest necessity and importance to the English church." J. Holt, Magna Carta App. IV, p. 317, cl. 1 (1965).
The ministerial exception - where laws applying to you and I may not necessarily apply to ministers - builds off this statement. It continues to discuss the evolving nature of the separation between church and state after this episode. I suggest you try reading through it.

- The entire case from ScotusBlog.

From The Lion in Winter

I showed this to a couple of classes today to give them an idea about how King John was portrayed in The Lion In Winter. I noticed that it also fits with our discussion of human nature. The Queen seems to wonder why her sons can't quell their ambitions. Possibly because it is against their natures to do so.