Universal Voter Registration

The founding fathers? The ones that said a slave was not a whole vote? Those guys? And I mean guys, because you know full well the women couldn't vote. I have no problem raising the bar a little.

Yes those founding fathers..

What they accomplished was a major step in the history of mankind. They acknowledged that every man would receive the same treatment under the law. Now you can debate that they didn't include women, blacks, indians...but keep in mind we are talking late 18th century.
In the 18th century the status quo was a strict caste structure with royalty having unique rights and privledges. The idea that an illiterate farm hand would recieve the same rights as a member of royalty was truly radical
What a crock!!! Ever heard of the Magna Carta? It was drafted in 1215.....

British Royalty had more rights than field workers. Magna Carta put restrictions on the King but still mostly protected the nobles and the clergy
 
Yes those founding fathers..

What they accomplished was a major step in the history of mankind. They acknowledged that every man would receive the same treatment under the law. Now you can debate that they didn't include women, blacks, indians...but keep in mind we are talking late 18th century.
In the 18th century the status quo was a strict caste structure with royalty having unique rights and privledges. The idea that an illiterate farm hand would recieve the same rights as a member of royalty was truly radical
What a crock!!! Ever heard of the Magna Carta? It was drafted in 1215.....

British Royalty had more rights than field workers. Magna Carta put restrictions on the King but still mostly protected the nobles and the clergy
Nice try leftwinger......why not just admit you were wrong?
 
What a crock!!! Ever heard of the Magna Carta? It was drafted in 1215.....

British Royalty had more rights than field workers. Magna Carta put restrictions on the King but still mostly protected the nobles and the clergy
Nice try leftwinger......why not just admit you were wrong?

You ready?

Magna Carta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Magna Carta was originally written in Latin. A large part of Magna Carta was copied, nearly word for word, from the Charter of Liberties of Henry I, issued when Henry I ascended to the throne in 1100, which bound the king to certain laws regarding the treatment of church officials and nobles, effectively granting certain civil liberties to the church and the English nobility.

Note: It refered to the church and nobility not the common fieldhand

Magna Carta was the first document forced onto an English King by a group of his subjects (the barons) in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded by the 1100 Charter of Liberties in which King Henry I voluntarily stated what his own powers were under the law.

In practice, Magna Carta in the medieval period mostly did not 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.

Note: Nowhere in the Magna Carta does it provide the commoner with all the rights and privledges of Royalty
 
I don't really have a problem with this until you get to the state lists of deported illegal aliens and the likes.

One question: does a person get one vote for each list s/he is on?

Another question: how does one join a political shit cannery (aka party) if he/she is automatically registered to vote?

Immie
 
Oh gawd, leave it to the right wing extremists to take an idea (yes, folks, it's just an IDEA for the timebeing) and turn it viral so that the most stupid Americans by tomorrow will think this is a done deal.

Improvement in our entire voting system is ESSENTIAL!!! There will be many suggestions for improving it, some will be implemented and some won't. That said, we're the only civilized country in the world that uses such a backward voting system (including a garden variety of "machines" to count the votes city-to-city all across the country).

Universal Voter Registration

We need complete and accurate voter rolls, which is the international norm. Every citizen turning 18 and every person becoming a citizen should be automatically registered.

Complete and accurate voter rolls are essential to the integrity of the electoral process and the legitimacy of results. Yet, as evidenced by recent elections, voter rolls are littered with duplicate registrants and errors. Nearly a third of eligible American voters are not registered to vote and voter registration drives result in a surge of registrations close to an election that are difficult to process and that create unanticipated demands on polling places. As a result, millions of eligible voters are effectively shut out of the political process.

While no voter registration process is perfect, ours is riddled with flaws. The United States is one of only a few democracies in the world where the government does not take responsibility for registering voters. Instead, our government leaves the construction of voter rolls up to partisan and non-partisan voter registration organizations, political parties, election officials and active citizens. Sadly, this hands off approach invites voter registration fraud. It is not surprising that voter rolls are neither complete nor accurate.

In contrast, the international norm is an orderly process of automatic registration of every citizen who reaches voting age and of every person who becomes a citizen. Citizens are automatically placed on voter rolls upon reaching voting age and/or government officials actively work to register all citizens. For example, in Iraq's first democratic elections, election officials automatically transferred the names of Iraqis from ration lists to voter rolls.

Voter registration should be the mutual responsibility of citizens and their government. The government should not only facilitate registration; it should actively register adults who are eligible to vote as part of its responsibility to have accurate rolls. 100% voter registration should be the goal. Moreover, universal voter registration has the potential to bring together conservatives who are concerned about fraudulent voter registrations and liberals who are concerned about anemic political participation.

The most comprehensive way to move toward universal voter registration is to establish federal standards that states must follow to ensure all eligible voters are on their states' voter roll. These standards must also be twined with a fail safe to ensure citizens that are not on the rolls can register and vote on Election Day. The federal standards should also set a national uniform voter registration age of 16-years-old, where youth are systematically regisered to vote and automatically added to the voter rolls upon reaching voting age.

Even before we have a national standard, states can take immediate action. States like Florida and Hawaii have already set a uniform voter registration age of 16. Several states are also working toward automatic voter registration policies, where citizens filing state tax returns are systematically registered to vote. States can also tie Post Office Change of Address forms to the voter registration database and utilize existing state databases to move toward a system of universal voter registration.

However best achieved, we believe that such changes would register far more citizens in an orderly way, generate more understanding of the value of 100% registration and provide a means to systematically introduce young people to the importance of political participation. We see a natural complement to this proposal being a "voting curriculum" for high school students.

Find more information on the 100% Youth Registration Project
Read FairVote's State Voter Registration Agenda

Policy Recommendations:

* Federal action to require that states use existing government databases to systematically register citizens

* Systematically register 16-year-olds in high school and at the DMV, twined with a comprehensive "voting curriculum"

* State action that includes automatic voter registration using state tax forms, Post Office change of address and other statewide databases

FairVote - Universal Voter Registration
 
British Royalty had more rights than field workers. Magna Carta put restrictions on the King but still mostly protected the nobles and the clergy
Nice try leftwinger......why not just admit you were wrong?

You ready?

Magna Carta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Magna Carta was originally written in Latin. A large part of Magna Carta was copied, nearly word for word, from the Charter of Liberties of Henry I, issued when Henry I ascended to the throne in 1100, which bound the king to certain laws regarding the treatment of church officials and nobles, effectively granting certain civil liberties to the church and the English nobility.

Note: It refered to the church and nobility not the common fieldhand

Magna Carta was the first document forced onto an English King by a group of his subjects (the barons) in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded by the 1100 Charter of Liberties in which King Henry I voluntarily stated what his own powers were under the law.

In practice, Magna Carta in the medieval period mostly did not 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.

Note: Nowhere in the Magna Carta does it provide the commoner with all the rights and privledges of Royalty

Read your own words Leftwingnut,
Leftwingnut said:
The idea that an illiterate farm hand would recieve the same rights as a member of royalty was truly radical
The IDEA was around for over 500 years in Europe. You are just spinning now...
 
Last edited:
If it were left up to me, anyone who isn't an invalid would have to hoof it to the county court house... where I'd hide the registration office in a coat closet with only one tiny sign to point it out. :eusa_angel:

Voters should have to demonstrate a certain amount of gumption... prove they're motivated enough to pay attention. Think how much we could improve the democratic process if we insisted that voters at least be smart enough to find the voter registration office. :lol:

Hell, I'd have 'em running like rats through a maze. Last thing we need is more apathetic, politically illiterate voters.


p.s. Let's not forget that all it took for Taylor Hicks to win American Idol is for people to know how to dial a phone. :lol::lol::lol:
 
Last edited:
Nice try leftwinger......why not just admit you were wrong?

You ready?

Magna Carta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Note: It refered to the church and nobility not the common fieldhand



Note: Nowhere in the Magna Carta does it provide the commoner with all the rights and privledges of Royalty

Read your own words Leftwingnut,
Leftwingnut said:
The idea that an illiterate farm hand would recieve the same rights as a member of royalty was truly radical
The IDEA was around for over 500 years in Europe. You are just spinning now...


Still waiting for you to provide some proof. As usual, I imagine I will wait a long time before you can prove your nonsense
 
You ready?

Magna Carta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Note: It refered to the church and nobility not the common fieldhand



Note: Nowhere in the Magna Carta does it provide the commoner with all the rights and privledges of Royalty

Read your own words Leftwingnut,
Leftwingnut said:
The idea that an illiterate farm hand would recieve the same rights as a member of royalty was truly radical
The IDEA was around for over 500 years in Europe. You are just spinning now...


Still waiting for you to provide some proof. As usual, I imagine I will wait a long time before you can prove your nonsense
Lemme guess. Public School education? :razz: Clearly, you're suffering from historical myopia. There was nothing radical about the IDEA of equality in the 18th century.
"Tyranny is the rule of one man to the advantage of the ruler, oligarchy to the advantage of the rich, democracy to the advantage of the poor." -Aristotle
Ancient Greece practiced Direct Democracy similar to the form (representative democracy) we use in the USA. Even a moron can see that the idea was around for thousands of years.
PS- Since you are historically challenged, Aristotle lived from 384 BC – 322 BC.
 
Read your own words Leftwingnut, The IDEA was around for over 500 years in Europe. You are just spinning now...


Still waiting for you to provide some proof. As usual, I imagine I will wait a long time before you can prove your nonsense
Lemme guess. Public School education? :razz: Clearly, you're suffering from historical myopia. There was nothing radical about the IDEA of equality in the 18th century.
"Tyranny is the rule of one man to the advantage of the ruler, oligarchy to the advantage of the rich, democracy to the advantage of the poor." -Aristotle
Ancient Greece practiced Direct Democracy similar to the form (representative democracy) we use in the USA. Even a moron can see that the idea was around for thousands of years.
PS- Since you are historically challenged, Aristotle lived from 384 BC – 322 BC.

As I fully expected Zander, you have no proof

Show me where in the Magna Carta it gives working field hands the same rights as British Royalty. You are starting to embarass yourself
 
Still waiting for you to provide some proof. As usual, I imagine I will wait a long time before you can prove your nonsense
Lemme guess. Public School education? :razz: Clearly, you're suffering from historical myopia. There was nothing radical about the IDEA of equality in the 18th century.
"Tyranny is the rule of one man to the advantage of the ruler, oligarchy to the advantage of the rich, democracy to the advantage of the poor." -Aristotle
Ancient Greece practiced Direct Democracy similar to the form (representative democracy) we use in the USA. Even a moron can see that the idea was around for thousands of years.
PS- Since you are historically challenged, Aristotle lived from 384 BC – 322 BC.

As I fully expected Zander, you have no proof

Show me where in the Magna Carta it gives working field hands the same rights as British Royalty. You are starting to embarass yourself
As I fully expected Leftwingnut, you have no proof that the IDEA of equality was radical in the 18th century. That is what you wrote.

PS- You've already embarrassed yourself.
 
The founding fathers? The ones that said a slave was not a whole vote? Those guys? And I mean guys, because you know full well the women couldn't vote. I have no problem raising the bar a little.

Yes those founding fathers..

What they accomplished was a major step in the history of mankind. They acknowledged that every man would receive the same treatment under the law. Now you can debate that they didn't include women, blacks, indians...but keep in mind we are talking late 18th century.
In the 18th century the status quo was a strict caste structure with royalty having unique rights and privledges. The idea that an illiterate farm hand would recieve the same rights as a member of royalty was truly radical
What a crock!!! Ever heard of the Magna Carta? It was drafted in 1215.....

Hello?? Still waiting Zander......Show me words in the Magna Carta :eusa_whistle:
 
JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, Greeting.


KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter Bishop of Worcester, William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the knighthood of the Temple in England, William Marshal earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan de Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin Fitz Gerald, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeny, Robert de Roppeley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects:

+ (1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.

TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:

(2) If any earl, baron, or other person that holds lands directly of the Crown, for military service, shall die, and at his death his heir shall be of full age and owe a `relief', the heir shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient scale of `relief'. That is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl shall pay £100 for the entire earl's barony, the heir or heirs of a knight l00s. at most for the entire knight's `fee', and any man that owes less shall pay less, in accordance with the ancient usage of `fees'

(3) But if the heir of such a person is under age and a ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without `relief' or fine.

(4) The guardian of the land of an heir who is under age shall take from it only reasonable revenues, customary dues, and feudal services. He shall do this without destruction or damage to men or property. If we have given the guardianship of the land to a sheriff, or to any person answerable to us for the revenues, and he commits destruction or damage, we will exact compensation from him, and the land shall be entrusted to two worthy and prudent men of the same `fee', who shall be answerable to us for the revenues, or to the person to whom we have assigned them. If we have given or sold to anyone the guardianship of such land, and he causes destruction or damage, he shall lose the guardianship of it, and it shall be handed over to two worthy and prudent men of the same `fee', who shall be similarly answerable to us.

(5) For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, he shall maintain the houses, parks, fish preserves, ponds, mills, and everything else pertaining to it, from the revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, he shall restore the whole land to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as the season demands and the revenues from the land can reasonably bear.

(6) Heirs may be given in marriage, but not to someone of lower social standing. Before a marriage takes place, it shall be' made known to the heir's next-of-kin.

(7) At her husband's death, a widow may have her marriage portion and inheritance at once and without trouble. She shall pay nothing for her dower, marriage portion, or any inheritance that she and her husband held jointly on the day of his death. She may remain in her husband's house for forty days after his death, and within this period her dower shall be assigned to her.

(8) No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband. But she must give security that she will not marry without royal consent, if she holds her lands of the Crown, or without the consent of whatever other lord she may hold them of.

(9) Neither we nor our officials will seize any land or rent in payment of a debt, so long as the debtor has movable goods sufficient to discharge the debt. A debtor's sureties shall not be distrained upon so long as the debtor himself can discharge his debt. If, for lack of means, the debtor is unable to discharge his debt, his sureties shall be answerable for it. If they so desire, they may have the debtor's lands and rents until they have received satisfaction for the debt that they paid for him, unless the debtor can show that he has settled his obligations to them.

* (10) If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond.

* (11) If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing towards the debt from it. If he leaves children that are under age, their needs may also be provided for on a scale appropriate to the size of his holding of lands. The debt is to be paid out of the residue, reserving the service due to his feudal lords. Debts owed to persons other than Jews are to be dealt with similarly.

* (12) No `scutage' or `aid' may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes ouly a reasonable `aid' may be levied. `Aids' from the city of London are to be treated similarly.

+ (13) The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs.

* (14) To obtain the general consent of the realm for the assessment of an `aid' - except in the three cases specified above - or a `scutage', we will cause the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons to be summoned individually by letter. To those who hold lands directly of us we will cause a general summons to be issued, through the sheriffs and other officials, to come together on a fixed day (of which at least forty days notice shall be given) and at a fixed place. In all letters of summons, the cause of the summons will be stated. When a summons has been issued, the business appointed for the day shall go forward in accordance with the resolution of those present, even if not all those who were summoned have appeared.

* (15) In future we will allow no one to levy an `aid' from his free men, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry his eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable `aid' may be levied.

(16) No man shall be forced to perform more service for a knight's `fee', or other free holding of land, than is due from it.

(17) Ordinary lawsuits shall not follow the royal court around, but shall be held in a fixed place.

(18) Inquests of novel disseisin, mort d'ancestor, and darrein presentment shall be taken only in their proper county court. We ourselves, or in our absence abroad our chief justice, will send two justices to each county four times a year, and these justices, with four knights of the county elected by the county itself, shall hold the assizes in the county court, on the day and in the place where the court meets.

(19) If any assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county court, as many knights and freeholders shall afterwards remain behind, of those who have attended the court, as will suffice for the administration of justice, having regard to the volume of business to be done.

(20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.

(21) Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence.

(22) A fine imposed upon the lay property of a clerk in holy orders shall be assessed upon the same principles, without reference to the value of his ecclesiastical benefice.

(23) No town or person shall be forced to build bridges over rivers except those with an ancient obligation to do so.

(24) No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other royal officials are to hold lawsuits that should be held by the royal justices.

* (25) Every county, hundred, wapentake, and tithing shall remain at its ancient rent, without increase, except the royal demesne manors.

(26) If at the death of a man who holds a lay `fee' of the Crown, a sheriff or royal official produces royal letters patent of summons for a debt due to the Crown, it shall be lawful for them to seize and list movable goods found in the lay `fee' of the dead man to the value of the debt, as assessed by worthy men. Nothing shall be removed until the whole debt is paid, when the residue shall be given over to the executors to carry out the dead man s will. If no debt is due to the Crown, all the movable goods shall be regarded as the property of the dead man, except the reasonable shares of his wife and children.

* (27) If a free man dies intestate, his movable goods are to be distributed by his next-of-kin and friends, under the supervision of the Church. The rights of his debtors are to be preserved.

(28) No constable or other royal official shall take corn or other movable goods from any man without immediate payment, unless the seller voluntarily offers postponement of this.

(29) No constable may compel a knight to pay money for castle-guard if the knight is willing to undertake the guard in person, or with reasonable excuse to supply some other fit man to do it. A knight taken or sent on military service shall be excused from castle-guard for the period of this servlce.

(30) No sheriff, royal official, or other person shall take horses or carts for transport from any free man, without his consent.

(31) Neither we nor any royal official will take wood for our castle, or for any other purpose, without the consent of the owner.

(32) We will not keep the lands of people convicted of felony in our hand for longer than a year and a day, after which they shall be returned to the lords of the `fees' concerned.

(33) All fish-weirs shall be removed from the Thames, the Medway, and throughout the whole of England, except on the sea coast.

(34) The writ called precipe shall not in future be issued to anyone in respect of any holding of land, if a free man could thereby be deprived of the right of trial in his own lord's court.

(35) There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the London quarter), throughout the kingdom. There shall also be a standard width of dyed cloth, russett, and haberject, namely two ells within the selvedges. Weights are to be standardised similarly.

(36) In future nothing shall be paid or accepted for the issue of a writ of inquisition of life or limbs. It shall be given gratis, and not refused.

(37) If a man holds land of the Crown by `fee-farm', `socage', or `burgage', and also holds land of someone else for knight's service, we will not have guardianship of his heir, nor of the land that belongs to the other person's `fee', by virtue of the `fee-farm', `socage', or `burgage', unless the `fee-farm' owes knight's service. We will not have the guardianship of a man's heir, or of land that he holds of someone else, by reason of any small property that he may hold of the Crown for a service of knives, arrows, or the like.

(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

+ (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

+ (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

(41) All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, and may stay or travel within it, by land or water, for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions, in accordance with ancient and lawful customs. This, however, does not apply in time of war to merchants from a country that is at war with us. Any such merchants found in our country at the outbreak of war shall be detained without injury to their persons or property, until we or our chief justice have discovered how our own merchants are being treated in the country at war with us. If our own merchants are safe they shall be safe too.

* (42) In future it shall be lawful for any man to leave and return to our kingdom unharmed and without fear, by land or water, preserving his allegiance to us, except in time of war, for some short period, for the common benefit of the realm. People that have been imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the land, people from a country that is at war with us, and merchants - who shall be dealt with as stated above - are excepted from this provision.

(43) If a man holds lands of any `escheat' such as the `honour' of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other `escheats' in our hand that are baronies, at his death his heir shall give us only the `relief' and service that he would have made to the baron, had the barony been in the baron's hand. We will hold the `escheat' in the same manner as the baron held it.

(44) People who live outside the forest need not in future appear before the royal justices of the forest in answer to general summonses, unless they are actually involved in proceedings or are sureties for someone who has been seized for a forest offence.

* (45) We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.

(46) All barons who have founded abbeys, and have charters of English kings or ancient tenure as evidence of this, may have guardianship of them when there is no abbot, as is their due.

(47) All forests that have been created in our reign shall at once be disafforested. River-banks that have been enclosed in our reign shall be treated similarly.

* (48) All evil customs relating to forests and warrens, foresters, warreners, sheriffs and their servants, or river-banks and their wardens, are at once to be investigated in every county by twelve sworn knights of the county, and within forty days of their enquiry the evil customs are to be abolished completely and irrevocably. But we, or our chief justice if we are not in England, are first to be informed.

* (49) We will at once return all hostages and charters delivered up to us by Englishmen as security for peace or for loyal service.

* (50) We will remove completely from their offices the kinsmen of Gerard de Athée, and in future they shall hold no offices in England. The people in question are Engelard de Cigogné', Peter, Guy, and Andrew de Chanceaux, Guy de Cigogné, Geoffrey de Martigny and his brothers, Philip Marc and his brothers, with Geoffrey his nephew, and all their followers.

* (51) As soon as peace is restored, we will remove from the kingdom all the foreign knights, bowmen, their attendants, and the mercenaries that have come to it, to its harm, with horses and arms.

* (52) To any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without the lawful judgement of his equals, we will at once restore these. In cases of dispute the matter shall be resolved by the judgement of the twenty-five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace (§ 61). In cases, however, where a man was deprived or dispossessed of something without the lawful judgement of his equals by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once render justice in full.

* (53) We shall have similar respite in rendering justice in connexion with forests that are to be disafforested, or to remain forests, when these were first a-orested by our father Henry or our brother Richard; with the guardianship of lands in another person's `fee', when we have hitherto had this by virtue of a `fee' held of us for knight's service by a third party; and with abbeys founded in another person's `fee', in which the lord of the `fee' claims to own a right. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice to complaints about these matters.

(54) No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman for the death of any person except her husband.

* (55) All fines that have been given to us unjustiy and against the law of the land, and all fines that we have exacted unjustly, shall be entirely remitted or the matter decided by a majority judgement of the twenty-five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace (§ 61) together with Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and such others as he wishes to bring with him. If the archbishop cannot be present, proceedings shall continue without him, provided that if any of the twenty-five barons has been involved in a similar suit himself, his judgement shall be set aside, and someone else chosen and sworn in his place, as a substitute for the single occasion, by the rest of the twenty-five.

(56) If we have deprived or dispossessed any Welshmen of lands, liberties, or anything else in England or in Wales, without the lawful judgement of their equals, these are at once to be returned to them. A dispute on this point shall be determined in the Marches by the judgement of equals. English law shall apply to holdings of land in England, Welsh law to those in Wales, and the law of the Marches to those in the Marches. The Welsh shall treat us and ours in the same way.

* (57) In cases where a Welshman was deprived or dispossessed of anything, without the lawful judgement of his equals, by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. But on our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice according to the laws of Wales and the said regions.

* (58) We will at once return the son of Llywelyn, all Welsh hostages, and the charters delivered to us as security for the peace.

* (59) With regard to the return of the sisters and hostages of Alexander, king of Scotland, his liberties and his rights, we will treat him in the same way as our other barons of England, unless it appears from the charters that we hold from his father William, formerly king of Scotland, that he should be treated otherwise. This matter shall be resolved by the judgement of his equals in our court.

(60) All these customs and liberties that we have granted shall be observed in our kingdom in so far as concerns our own relations with our subjects. Let all men of our kingdom, whether clergy or laymen, observe them similarly in their relations with their own men.

* (61) SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the following security:

The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter.
If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chiefjustice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us.

Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join with them in assailing us to the utmost of his power. We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command.

If-one of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country, or is prevented in any other way from discharging his duties, the rest of them shall choose another baron in his place, at their discretion, who shall be duly sworn in as they were.

In the event of disagreement among the twenty-five barons on any matter referred to them for decision, the verdict of the majority present shall have the same validity as a unanimous verdict of the whole twenty-five, whether these were all present or some of those summoned were unwilling or unable to appear.

The twenty-five barons shall swear to obey all the above articles faithfully, and shall cause them to be obeyed by others to the best of their power.

We will not seek to procure from anyone, either by our own efforts or those of a third party, anything by which any part of these concessions or liberties might be revoked or diminished. Should such a thing be procured, it shall be null and void and we will at no time make use of it, either ourselves or through a third party.

* (62) We have remitted and pardoned fully to all men any ill-will, hurt, or grudges that have arisen between us and our subjects, whether clergy or laymen, since the beginning of the dispute. We have in addition remitted fully, and for our own part have also pardoned, to all clergy and laymen any offences committed as a result of the said dispute between Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215) and the restoration of peace.

In addition we have caused letters patent to be made for the barons, bearing witness to this security and to the concessions set out above, over the seals of Stephen archbishop of Canterbury, Henry archbishop of Dublin, the other bishops named above, and Master Pandulf.

* (63) IT IS ACCORDINGLY OUR WISH AND COMMAND that the English Church shall be free, and that men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably in their fulness and entirety for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things and all places for ever.

Both we and the barons have sworn that all this shall be observed in good faith and without deceit. Witness the abovementioned people and many others.

Given by our hand in the meadow that is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of our reign

The Text of Magna Carta

I like 39 & 40 especially. Pretty revolutionary for its time don't you think?
 
Yes those founding fathers..

What they accomplished was a major step in the history of mankind. They acknowledged that every man would receive the same treatment under the law. Now you can debate that they didn't include women, blacks, indians...but keep in mind we are talking late 18th century.
In the 18th century the status quo was a strict caste structure with royalty having unique rights and privledges. The idea that an illiterate farm hand would recieve the same rights as a member of royalty was truly radical
What a crock!!! Ever heard of the Magna Carta? It was drafted in 1215.....

Hello?? Still waiting Zander......Show me words in the Magna Carta :eusa_whistle:

You sure are thickheaded.....http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/100254-universal-voter-registration-3.html#post1875870
 
What a crock!!! Ever heard of the Magna Carta? It was drafted in 1215.....

Hello?? Still waiting Zander......Show me words in the Magna Carta :eusa_whistle:

You sure are thickheaded.....http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/100254-universal-voter-registration-3.html#post1875870

Still waiting limpdick.....

I didn't ask for a reprint of the Magna Carta. You claim that the document gave the same rights to a fieldhand and a member of Royalty. Show me

Show me where it discusses voting rights
 
Hello?? Still waiting Zander......Show me words in the Magna Carta :eusa_whistle:

You sure are thickheaded.....http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/100254-universal-voter-registration-3.html#post1875870

Still waiting limpdick.....

I didn't ask for a reprint of the Magna Carta. You claim that the document gave the same rights to a fieldhand and a member of Royalty. Show me

Show me where it discusses voting rights

TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:

(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

I don't think it is equal rights, but a move toward that end. Extending rights to free men was basically what you spoke of in an earlier post. Zander is right on that count.
 
Hello?? Still waiting Zander......Show me words in the Magna Carta :eusa_whistle:

You sure are thickheaded.....http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/100254-universal-voter-registration-3.html#post1875870

Still waiting limpdick.....

I didn't ask for a reprint of the Magna Carta. You claim that the document gave the same rights to a fieldhand and a member of Royalty. Show me

Show me where it discusses voting rights
keep a-spinnin Leftwingnut!! I said nothing of the sort. You said
leftwingnut said:
the idea that an illiterate farm hand would recieve the same rights as a member of royalty was truly radical
I have proven that the idea wasn't radical at all. I have proven that it was thousands of years old. You, by contrast, have proven that you don't know when to admit you are wrong. It's no biggie, you'll grow up someday. When you do grow up, maybe you'll have the courage to change your name to Leftwinger? :rofl:
 

Still waiting limpdick.....

I didn't ask for a reprint of the Magna Carta. You claim that the document gave the same rights to a fieldhand and a member of Royalty. Show me

Show me where it discusses voting rights

TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:

(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

I don't think it is equal rights, but a move toward that end. Extending rights to free men was basically what you spoke of in an earlier post. Zander is right on that count.

Your perception of "free men" is different than it was in the 13th century. Free men were a small portion of the population

Free men formed only a small proportion of the population of 13th-century England. The distinction between the free and the unfree peasantry (the villeins) varied considerably across the country. Generally, though, in contrast to an unfree villein, a free man could leave his manor, could buy or sell land and owned his goods and chattels. He was not required to make numerous customary payments to his lord, nor to undertake onerous labour services for the cultivation of his lord's lands. Free men still had to attend their lord's court, but they also had access to the royal courts, which offered greater protection for their rights and property.

Although Magna Carta focused primarily on the interests of the barons, a significant proportion of its clauses dealt with all free men, from the barons, through the knights, down to the free peasantry. The most famous clause, providing protection against arbitrary imprisonment and the seizure of property by the king, applied to all free men.


It was a far cry from the "All men created equal"
 
Fortunately, in part because of new federal laws, states have made it easier to register to vote over the last several decades. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 struck down racially discriminatory barriers to voter registration, but did not require government to take more affirma tive steps to ensure registration. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), popularly known as “Motor Voter,” required government agencies such as departments of motor vehicles and public assistance offices to make voter registration services available to citizens. After the 2000 election, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which mandated that states maintain computerized voter databases at the state level, rather than county by county. These databases are now in place in every state and can facilitate more complete and accurate voter rolls.
Voter Registration Modernization | Brennan Center for Justice

This issue while complex rightly belongs in the hands of the states, what is very constant throughout all of the legislation passed that refers to voter registration is that it is "state centered" For the the Federal Govt. to assume the function of actually reaching into what is CLEARLY a state function to universally register anyone, is a large over-reach in terms of constitutional authority. What the Federal Govt. can do is compel the states to comply with registration laws and devise policy that does not take away the right to vote, from it's citizens. Universal registration is not one of them. What is striking , when President Carter, and President Ford looked at this matter was, the fact that in this nation it is the citizen that exercises the "right" to vote and not the state or the federal Govt. that exercises that right for them or assumes they wish to. This is where a law such as Universal registraion will fail, because it assumes the responsiblity of registration on behalf of the citizens who clearly hold that right themselves.
 

Forum List

Back
Top