Statute of Marlborough 1267

[them]

Statute of Marlborough 1267 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Marlborough)

Does anybody here have pertinent information for the freeman in regards to this set of Laws passed in 1267 by King Henry III of England?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3375/3647141364_4d1d743922.jpg?v=0


Four of them are still in force. (http://www.easy-share.com/1907253299/act-3.pdf)

Chapter23 (http://www.easy-share.com/1907253376/act-4.pdf)

[yozhik]

As a side note, I read Wiki's entry with some amusement :)

Notes

1. ^ The famous Magna Carta was originally passed in 1215, but the version currently in force only dates to a reissue in 1297 (25 Edw. I).

Magna Carta 1215 was not "passed".
It was not statute.
The "version currently in force" is the codified version of the original charter of 1215; codified in 1297 to form a statute, making it subject to repeal, but not THE Magna Carta, as we are deceived to believe.

[jonahmc]

Quotes taken from the Magna Carta society website:

"The Act of Supremacy is now largely repealed, but its central intentions live on through the use of almost identical words 129 years later, when The Declaration of Rights of 1688 was written. This, too, is a settlement treaty, and not an Act of Parliament. It too, therefore, cannot be repealed by parliament.

The Convention Parliament which drew up the Declaration was called when the Bishop of Salisbury invoked clause 61 of Magna Carta, and demanded the attendance of 25 barons to address his grievances - evidence that clause 61 has teeth, and that there is a precedent for such action today."

OK then. I take it that, because the infamous clause 61 was invoked by the Bishop in 1688. It must be presumed that the original charter (Magna Carta) was still in force at that time. As the charter was not an act of Parliament, therefore, cannot be repealed, it still must be in force today???

[yozhik]

Quotes taken from the Magna Carta society website:

"The Act of Supremacy is now largely repealed, but its central intentions live on through the use of almost identical words 129 years later, when The Declaration of Rights of 1688 was written. This, too, is a settlement treaty, and not an Act of Parliament. It too, therefore, cannot be repealed by parliament.

The Convention Parliament which drew up the Declaration was called when the Bishop of Salisbury invoked clause 61 of Magna Carta, and demanded the attendance of 25 barons to address his grievances - evidence that clause 61 has teeth, and that there is a precedent for such action today."

OK then. I take it that, because the infamous clause 61 was invoked by the Bishop in 1688. It must be presumed that the original charter (Magna Carta) was still in force at that time. As the charter was not an act of Parliament, therefore, cannot be repealed, it still must be in force today???

The question becomes what is meant by "in force".

Does the Magna Carta 1215 still exist?
Of course; as does any historical document.
Is it still relevant?
Debatable.
Is it "in force"?
Hmmm ... does this ask; is it enforced?

It could be argued that the only documents that are enforced are the policies known as statutes and acts, which have the "force of law" and the might and weapons of the policy enforcers to ensure the "citizens" comply; whether with or without their consent.

So the Magna Carta 1215 cannot be repealed; you are correct.
Whether it will be - as opposed to can be - enforced, is a completely separate question.

You could try to invoke the Magna Carta 1215 in terms of using it for the premise of your standing ... just as any one can call upon any document as a founding document for any purpose.

The question then becomes whether those chosen to reside over the issue will "recognise" the document or see it in the same light as you do.

I could call upon my favourite Spiderman comic as my founding document ... it exists ... it doesn't mean it will automatically be recognised by an independent adjudicator or by a jury of 12 of my peers.