History of democracy.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

1
Contents....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Antiquity[edit]................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Historic origins[edit]................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Proto-democratic societies[edit].................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Athens[edit]................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2
Roman Republic[edit].................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Roman Empire and Late Antiquity[edit]........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4
Medieval institutions[edit]................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Indigenous peoples of the Americas[edit]............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Rise of democracy in modern national governments[edit]...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Early Modern Era milestones[edit]............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Eighteenth and nineteenth century milestones[edit]...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
The secret ballot[edit].................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
20th century waves of democracy[edit]........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Post World War II[edit]................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Decolonisation and Civil Rights Movements[edit]......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Late Cold War and after[edit]....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
21st century waves of democracy[edit]........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Contemporary trends[edit]................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7
See also[edit]................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Documents[edit]......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
People[edit]................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Notes[edit]...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Magna Carta................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Contents....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Great Charter of 1215[edit]................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Rebellion and creation of the document[edit]................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Clause 61[edit]............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Magna Carta of Chester[edit]..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Great Charter 12161369[edit]......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
The Charter 1216[edit]............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
The Charters 1217: origins of the name Magna Carta[edit]........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
The Great Charter 1225[edit]...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
The Great Charter 1297: Statute[edit]......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Later history[edit].......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Reconfirmations[edit]................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11
Repeal of articles[edit]............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Content[edit]................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 12
Clauses still in force[edit].......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Clauses in Runnymede Charter but not in later Charters[edit]..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Challenges to the King's power[edit].......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Clauses in Runnymede Charter and in 1216/1217 Charter but not in 1225/1297 Charter[edit]......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Clauses in Runnymede Charter and 1225/1297 Charter but since repealed[edit]........................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Clauses in the 1225/1297 Charter but not in the Runnymede Charter[edit].................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Medieval and Tudor period[edit]...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Edward Coke's opinions[edit].......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
17th and 18th centuries[edit]........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
United States[edit].................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Nineteenth century and beyond[edit]................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14
Influences on later constitutions[edit]............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Exemplifications[edit].................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Usage of the definite article, spelling "Magna Carta"[edit].................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Popular perceptions[edit]................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 15
Symbol and practice[edit].......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Many documents form Magna Carta[edit]................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
The document was unsigned[edit]............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Perception in America[edit]....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
21st-century Britain[edit]........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
See also[edit]................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 16
Bill of Rights 1689........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 16
Contents..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Provisions of the Act[edit]............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Augmentation and effect[edit]......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Historical recognition[edit]............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17
See also[edit]................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17
References[edit]............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17
Virginia Declaration of Rights..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Contents..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Drafting and adoption[edit]............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18
Contents[edit]............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Text[edit]...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Influence[edit]............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Quotations derived from the Declaration[edit]................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
 Notes[edit].................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
United States Bill of Rights.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Contents..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Background.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 21
The Philadelphia Convention.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
The Anti-Federalists................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 21
The Federalists........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 21
Massachusetts compromise..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Proposal and ratification................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 22
Anticipating amendments......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Crafting amendments............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Ratification process................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 23
Unratified amendments proposed with the Bill of Rights............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 23
Application.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 23
First Amendment...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Second Amendment................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 23
Third Amendment..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Fourth Amendment................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Fifth Amendment...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Sixth Amendment..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Seventh Amendment................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 24
Eighth Amendment................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Ninth Amendment.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Tenth Amendment.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Display and honoring of the Bill of Rights......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Contents..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
History[edit]................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25
Philosophical and theoretical context[edit]........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 25
Substance[edit].............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25
Active and passive citizenship[edit]........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Women's rights[edit]................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26
Slavery[edit]............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26
Legacy[edit].................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26
Constitution of the French Fifth Republic[edit]........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Conspiracy theories[edit].......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
See also[edit]................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26
Other early declarations of rights[edit]....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
References[edit]............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 26
Other languages[edit]................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 26
External links[edit]........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 26
Notes[edit].................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26

History of democracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. (June 2014)
This article needs additional citations for verification. (June 2014)

The Acropolis of Athens by Leo von Klenze.

Part of the Politics series

Democracy
History

Basic forms
Direct
Representative

Variants
Authoritarian
Anticipatory
Christian
Consensus
Delegative
Deliberative
Demarchy
Economic
Electronic
Grassroots
 Illiberal
Inclusive
Industrial
Islamic
Liberal
Non-partisan
Ochlocracy
Participatory
Polyarchy
Radical
Religious
Representative direct
Social
Sociocracy
Soviet
Totalitarian
Tyranny of the majority
others

Politics portal
V
T
E

The history of democracy traces back from classical Athens in the 6th century B.C.E. to the present day. According to one definition, democracy is a political system in which all the members of the society have an equal
share of formal political power.[citation needed] In modern representative democracy, this formal equality is embodied primarily in the right to vote.

Contents
[hide]

1 Antiquity

o 1.1 Historic origins

o 1.2 Proto-democratic societies

1.2.1 Mesopotamia

1.2.2 India

1.2.3 Sparta

o 1.3 Athens

1.3.1 Solon and the foundations of democracy

1.3.2 Democracy under Cleisthenes and Pericles

1.3.3 Birth of political philosophy

1.3.4 The decline, its critics and revival

o 1.4 Roman Republic

1.4.1 The Republic

1.4.2 Transition to Empire

o 1.5 Roman Empire and Late Antiquity

2 Medieval institutions

3 Indigenous peoples of the Americas

4 Rise of democracy in modern national governments

o 4.1 Early Modern Era milestones

o 4.2 Eighteenth and nineteenth century milestones

o 4.3 The secret ballot

o 4.4 20th century waves of democracy

o 4.5 Post World War II

o 4.6 Decolonisation and Civil Rights Movements

o 4.7 Late Cold War and after

o 4.8 21st century waves of democracy

5 Contemporary trends

6 See also

o 6.1 Documents

o 6.2 People

7 Notes

8 Footnotes

9 References

10 Further reading

11 External links

Antiquity[edit]
Historic origins[edit]
Although it is generally believed that the concepts of democracy and constitution were created in one particular place and time identified as Ancient Athens circa 508 BCEi[] there is evidence to suggest that democratic
forms of government, in a broad sense, may have existed in several areas of the world well before the turn of the 5th century.[1] Within that broad sense it is plausible to assume that democracy in one form or another arises
naturally in any well-bonded group, such as a tribe. This is tribalism or primitive democracy. A primitive democracy is identified in small communities or villages when the following take place: face-to-face discussion in the
village council or a headman whose decisions are supported by village elders or other cooperative modes of government. [2]Nevertheless, on a larger scale sharper contrasts arise when the village and the city are examined as
political communities. In urban governments, all other forms of rule monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, and oligarchy have flourished.[1]
Proto-democratic societies[edit]
In recent decades scholars have explored the possibility that advancements toward democratic government occurred somewhere else (i.e. other than Greece) first, as Greece developed its complex social and political
institutions long after the appearance of the earliest civilizations in Egypt and the Near East.[3]
Mesopotamia[edit]

The tablet containing the epic of Gilgamesh.

Thorkild Jacobsen has studied the pre-Babylonian Mesopotamia and uses Sumerian epic, myth and historical records to identify what he calls primitive democracy. By this he means a government in which ultimate power
rests with the mass of free male citizens, although "the various functions of government are as yet little specialized, the power structure is loose". In the early period of Sumer, kings such as Gilgamesh did not hold
the autocratic power which later Mesopotamian rulers wielded. Rather, major city-states had a council of elders and a council of "young men" (likely to be comprised by free men bearing arms) that possessed the final political
authority, and had to be consulted on all major issues such as war.[4][5]
This pioneering work, while constantly cited, has invoked little serious discussion and less outright acceptance. The criticism from other scholars focuses on the use of the word "democracy", since the same evidence also can
be interpreted convincingly to demonstrate a power struggle between primitive monarchs and the nobility, a struggle in which the common people act more as pawns than the sovereign authority. [6] Jacobsen concedes that the
vagueness of the evidence prohibits the separation between the Mesopotamian democracy from a primitive oligarchy.[7]
India[edit]
A serious claim for early democratic institutions comes from the independent "republics" of India, sanghas and ganas, which existed as early as the sixth century BCE and persisted in some areas until the fourth century CE.
The evidence is scattered and no pure historical source exists for that period. In addition, Diodorus (a Greek historian writing two centuries after the time of Alexander the Great's invasion of India), without offering any detail,
mentions that independent and democratic states existed in India. [8] However, modern scholars note that the word democracy at the third century BCE and later had been degraded and could mean any autonomous state no
matter how oligarchic it was.[9][10]
The main characteristics of the gana seem to be a monarch, usually called raja and a deliberative assembly. The assembly met regularly in which at least in some states attendance was open to all free men, and discussed all
major state decisions. It had also full financial, administrative, and judicial authority. Other officers, who are rarely mentioned, obeyed the decisions of the assembly. The monarch was elected by the gana and apparently he
always belonged to a family of the noble K'satriya Varna. The monarch coordinated his activities with the assembly and in some states along with a council of other nobles. [11] The Licchavis had a primary governing body of
7,077 rajas, the heads of the most important families. On the other hand, the Shakyas, the Gautama Buddha's people, had the assembly open to all men, rich and poor.[12]
Scholars differ over how to describe these governments and the vague, sporadic quality of the evidence allows for wide disagreements. Some emphasize the central role of the assemblies and thus tout them as democracies;
other scholars focus on the upper class domination of the leadership and possible control of the assembly and see an oligarchy or an aristocracy.[13][14] Despite the obvious power of the assembly, it has not yet been established
if the composition and participation was truly popular. The first main obstacle is the lack of evidence describing the popular power of the assembly. This is reflected in the Artha' shastra, an ancient handbook for monarchs on
how to rule efficiently. It contains a chapter on dealing with the sangas, which includes injunctions on manipulating the noble leaders, yet it does not mention how to influence the mass of the citizens a surprising omission if
democratic bodies, not the aristocratic families, actively controlled the republican governments. [15] Another issue is the persistence of the four-tiered Varna class system.[13] The duties and privileges on the members of each
particular caste which were rigid enough to prohibit someone sharing a meal with those of another order might have affected the role members were expected to play in the state, regardless of the formal institutions. The
lack of the concept of citizen equality across caste system boundaries lead many scholars to believe that the true nature of ganas and sanghas would not be comparable to that of truly democratic institutions.[14]
Sparta[edit]
For more details on this topic, see Sparta.

Bas-relief of Lycurgus, one of 23 great lawgivers depicted in the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Ancient Greece, in its early period, was a loose collection of independent city states called poleis. Many of these poleis were oligarchies.[16] The most prominent Greek oligarchy, and the state with which democratic Athens is
most often and most fruitfully compared, was Sparta. Yet Sparta, in its rejection of private wealth as a primary social differentiator, was a peculiar kind of oligarchy [17] and some scholars note its resemblance to democracy.[18][19]
[20]
In Spartan government, the political power was divided between four bodies: two Spartan Kings (diarchy), gerousia (Council of Gerontes (Elders), including the two kings), the ephors (representatives who oversaw the
Kings) and theapella (assembly of Spartans).
The two kings served as the head of the government. They ruled simultaneously but came from two separate lines. The dual kingship diluted the effective power of the executive office. The kings shared their judicial functions
with other members of the gerousia. The members of the gerousia had to be over the age of 60 and were elected for life. In theory, any Spartan over that age could stand for election. However, in practice, they were selected
from wealthy, aristocratic families. The gerousia possessed the crucial power of legislative initiative. Apella, the most democratic element, was the assembly where Spartans above the age of 30 elected the members of the
gerousia and the ephors, and accepted or rejected gerousia's proposals. [21] Finally, the five ephors were Spartans chosen in apella to oversee the actions of the kings and other public officials and, if necessary, depose them.
They served for one year and could not be re-elected for a second time. Over the years the ephors held great influence into forming foreign policy and acted as the main executive body of state. Additionally, they had full
responsibility of the Spartan educational system, which was essential for maintaining the high standards of the Spartan army. As Aristotle noted, ephors were the most important key institution of state, but because often they
were appointed from the whole social body it resulted in very poor men holding office, with the ensuing possibility that they could easily be bought. [22][23]
The creator of the Spartan system of rule was the legendary lawgiver Lycurgus. He is associated with the drastic reforms that were instituted in Sparta after the revolt of the helots in the second half of the 7th century BCE. In
order to prevent another helot revolt, Lycurgus devised the highly militarized communal system that made Sparta unique among the city-states of Greece. All his reforms were directed towards the three Spartan virtues:
equality (among citizens), military fitness and austerity. It is also probable that Lycurgus delineated the powers of the two traditional organs of the Spartan government, the gerousia and the apella.[24]
The reforms of Lycurgus were written as a list of rules/laws called Great Rhetra; making it the world's first written constitution.[25] In the following centuries Sparta became a military superpower, and its system of rule was
admired throughout the Greek world for its political stability.[26] In particular, the concept of equality played an important role in Spartan society. The Spartans referred to themselves as (Homoioi, men of equal status). It
was also reflected in the Spartan public educational system, agoge, where all citizens irrespective of wealth or status had the same education. [20] This was admired almost universally by contemporaries, from historians such
as Herodotus and Xenophon to philosophers such asPlato and Aristotle. In addition, the Spartan women, unlike elsewhere, enjoyed "every kind of luxury and intemperance" including elementary rights such as the right to
inheritance, property ownership and public education. [27]
Overall the Spartans were remarkably free to criticize their kings and they were able to depose and exile them. However, despite these democratic elements in the Spartan constitution, there are two cardinal criticisms,
classifying Sparta as an oligarchy. First, individual freedom was restricted, since as Plutarch writes "no man was allowed to live as he wished", but as in a "military camp" all were engaged in the public service of their polis.
And second, the gerousia effectively maintained the biggest share of power of the various governmental bodies. [28][29]
The political stability of Sparta also meant that no significant changes in the constitution were made. The oligarchic elements of Sparta became even stronger, especially after the influx of gold and silver from the victories in
the Persian Wars. In addition, Athens, after the Persian Wars, was becoming the hegemonic power in the Greek world and disagreements between Sparta and Athens over supremacy emerged. These lead to a series of
armed conflicts known as the Peloponnesian War, with Sparta prevailing in the end. However, the war exhausted both poleis and Sparta was in turn humbled by Thebes at the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BCE. It was all brought to
an end a few years later, when Philip II of Macedon crushed what remained of the power of the factional city states to his South.
Athens[edit]
For more details on this topic, see Athenian democracy.
Athens is regarded as the birthplace of democracy and it is considered an important reference point of democracy.i[]
Athens emerged in the 7th century BCE, like many other poleis, with a dominating powerful aristocracy.[30] However, this domination led to exploitation causing significant economic, political, and social problems. These
problems were enhanced early in the sixth century and as "the many were enslaved to few, the people rose against the notables".[31] At the same period in the Greek world many traditional aristocracies were disrupted by
popular revolutions, like Sparta in the second half of the 7th century BCE. Sparta's constitutional reforms by Lycurgus introduced a hoplite state and showed how inherited governments can be changed and lead to military
victory.[32] After a period of unrest between the rich and the poor, the Athenians of all classes turned to Solon for acting as a mediator between rival factions, and reaching to a generally satisfactory solution of their problems. [33]
[34]

Solon and the foundations of democracy[edit]

For more details on this topic, see Solon.
Bas-relief of Solon, one of 23 great lawgivers depicted in the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Solon, an Athenian (Greek) of noble descent but moderate means, was a Lyric poet and later a lawmaker; Plutarch placed him as one of the Seven Sages of the ancient world.[34] Solon attempted to satisfy all sides by
alleviating the suffering of the poor majority without removing all the privileges of the rich minority.[35] Solon divided the Athenians into four property classes, with different rights and duties for each. As the Rhetra did in the
Lycurgian Sparta, Solon formalized the composition and functions of the governmental bodies. Now, all citizens were entitled to attend the Ecclesia (Assembly) and vote. Ecclesia became, in principle, the sovereign body,
entitled to pass laws and decrees, elect officials, and hear appeals from the most important decisions of the courts.[34] All but those in the poorest group might serve, a year at a time, on a new Boule of 400, which was to
prepare business for Ecclesia. The higher governmental posts, archons (magistrates), were reserved for citizens of the top two income groups. The retired archons became members of the Areopagus (Council of the Hill of
Ares), and like the Gerousia in Sparta, it was able to check improper actions of the newly powerful Ecclesia. Solon created a mixed timocratic and democratic system of institutions.[36]
Overall, the reforms of the lawgiver Solon in 594 BC, devised to avert the political, economic and moral decline in archaic Athens and gave Athens its first comprehensive code of law. The constitutional reforms eliminated
enslavement of Athenians by Athenians, established rules for legal redress against over-reaching aristocratic archons, and assigned political privileges on the basis of productive wealth rather than noble birth. Some of his
reforms failed in the short term, yet he is often credited with having laid the foundations for Athenian democracy.[37][38]
Democracy under Cleisthenes and Pericles[edit]
See also: Cleisthenes, Ephialtes and Pericles

The Pnyx with the speaker's platform, the meeting place of the people of Athens.
Even though the Solonian reorganization of the constitution improved the economic position of the Athenian lower classes, it did not eliminate the bitter aristocratic contentions for control of the archonship, the chief executive
post.Peisistratus became tyrant of Athens three times and remained in power until his death in 527 BCE. His sons Hippias and Hipparchus succeeded him.[39]
After the fall of tyranny and before the year 508507 was over, Cleisthenes proposed a complete reform of the system of government, which later was approved by the popular Ecclesia.[40] Cleisthenes reorganized the
population into ten tribes, with the aim to change the basis of political organization from the family loyalties to political ones, [41] and improve the army's organization.[42] He also introduced the principle of equality of rights for
all,isonomia,[40] by expanding the access to power to more citizens.[43] During this period, the word "democracy" (Greek: "rule by the people") was first used by the Athenians to define their new system of
government.[44] In the next generation, Athens entered in its Golden Age by becoming a great center of literature and art.[45] The victories in Persian Wars encouraged the poorest Athenians (who participated in the military
exhibitions) to demand a greater say in the running of their city. In the late 460s Ephialtes and Pericles presided over a radicalization of power that shifted the balance decisively to the poorest sections of society, by passing
laws, which severely limited the powers of the Council of the Areopagus and allow thetes (Athenians without wealth) to occupy public office.[46] Pericles was distinguished as its greatest democratic leader, even though he has
been accused of running a political machine. In the following passage, Thucydides recorded Pericles, in the funeral oration, describing the Athenian system of rule:

Its administration favors the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancemen

A bust of Pericles bearing the inscription Pericles, son ofXanthippus, Athenian. Marble, Roman copy after a Greek original from ca. 430 BCE.
The Athenian democracy of Cleisthenes and Pericles, was based on freedom, through the reforms of Solon, and equality (isonomia), introduced by Cleisthenes and later expanded by Ephialtes and Pericles. To preserve these
principles the Athenians used lot for selecting officials. Lot's rationale was to ensure all citizens were "equally" qualified for office, and to avoid any corruption allotment machines were used. [48] Moreover, in most positions
chosen by lot, Athenian citizens could not be selected more than once; this rotation in office meant that no-one could build up a power base through staying in a particular position. [49]
Another important political institution in Athens was the courts; they were composed with large number of juries, with no judges and they were selected by lot on a daily basis from an annual pool, also chosen by lot. The courts
had unlimited power to control the other bodies of the government and its political leaders. [1] Participation by the citizens selected was mandatory,[50] and a modest financial compensation was given to citizens whose livelihood
was affected by being "drafted" to office. The only officials chosen by elections, one from each tribe, were the strategoi (generals), where military knowledge was required, and the treasurers, who had to be wealthy, since any
funds revealed to have been embezzled were recovered from a treasurer's private fortune. Debate was open to all present and decisions in all matters of policy were taken by majority vote in Ecclesia (compare direct
democracy), in which all male citizens could participate (in some cases with a quorum of 6000). The decisions taken in Ecclesia were executed by Boule of 500, which had already approved the agenda for Ecclesia. The
Athenian Boule was elected by lot every year[51] and no citizen could serve more than twice.[52]
Overall, the Athenian democracy was not only direct in the sense that decisions were made by the assembled people, but also directest in the sense that the people through the assembly, boule and courts of law controlled the
entire political process and a large proportion of citizens were involved constantly in the public business. [53] And even though the rights of the individual (probably) were not secured by the Athenian constitution in the modern
sense,ii[] the Athenians enjoyed their liberties not in opposition to the government, but by living in a city that was not subject to another power and by not being subjects themselves to the rule of another person. [44]
Birth of political philosophy[edit]
See also: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle
Within the Athenian democratic environment many philosophers from all over the Greek world gathered to develop their theories. Socrates was the first to raise the question, and further expanded by his pupil Plato, about what
is the relation/position of an individual within a community. Aristotle continued the work of his teacher, Plato, and laid the foundations of political philosophy. The political philosophy created in Athens was in words of Peter
Hall, "in a form so complete that hardly added anyone of moment to it for over a millennium".[54] Aristotle systematically analyzed the different systems of rule that the numerous Greek city-states had and categorized them into
three categories based on how many ruled; the many (democracy/polity), the few (oligarchy/aristocracy), a single person (tyranny or today autocracy/monarchy). For Aristotle, the underlying principles of democracy are
reflected in his work Politics:

Now a fundamental principle of the democratic form of constitution is libertythat is what is usually asserted, implying that only under this constitution do men participate in liberty, for they assert this as
share; so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign. This then is one mark of liberty wh
 way in which the second principle contributes to equalitarian liberty.[55]

The decline, its critics and revival [edit]

The Athenian democracy, in its two centuries of life-time, twice voted against its democratic constitution, both during the crisis at the end of the Pelopponesian War, creating first the Four Hundred (in 411 BCE) and second
Sparta's puppet rgime of the Thirty Tyrants(in 404 BCE). Both votes were under manipulation and pressure, but democracy was recovered in less than a year in both cases. Athens restored again its democratic constitution,
after the unification by force of Greece from Phillip II of Macedon and later Alexander the Great, but it was politically shadowed by the Hellenistic empires. Finally after the Roman conquest of Greece in 146 BC, Athens was
restricted to matters of local administration.
However, the decline of democracy was not only due to external powers, but from its citizens, such as Plato and his student Aristotle. Through their influential works, after the rediscovery of classics during renaissance,
Sparta's political stability was praised,[56][57][58]while the Periclean democracy was described as a system of rule, where either the less well-born, the mob (as a collective tyrant) or the poorer classes, were holding power. [44] It
was only centuries afterwards, with the publication of "A history of Greece" by George Grote in 1846, that the Athenian democracy of Pericles started to be viewed positively by political thinkers. [59] Over the last two decades
scholars have re-examined the Athenian system of rule as a model of empowering citizens and a "post-modern" example for communities and organizations alike.[60]
Roman Republic[edit]
See also: Roman Republic
Even though Rome is classified as a Republic and not a democracy, its history has helped preserve the concept of democracy over the centuries. The Romans invented the concept of classics and many works from Ancient
Greece were preserved.[61] Additionally, the Roman model of governance inspired many political thinkers over the centuries, [62] and today's modern (representative) democracies imitate more the Roman than the Greek models.
[63]

The Republic[edit]
See also: History of the Constitution of the Roman Republic

Representation of a sitting of the Roman Senate:Cicero attacks Catilina, from a 19th-century fresco
Rome was a city-state in Italy next to powerful neighbors; Etruscans had built city-states throughout central Italy since 13th century BCE and in the south were Greek colonies. Similar to other city-states, Rome was ruled by a
king. However, social unrest and the pressure of external threats led in 510 BCE the last king to be deposed by a group of aristocrats led by Lucius Junius Brutus.[64][65] A new constitution was crafted, but the conflict between
the ruling families (patricians) and the rest of the population, the plebeians continued. The plebs were demanding for definite, written, and secular laws. The patrician priests, who were the recorders and interpreters of the
statutes, by keeping their records secret used their monopoly against social change. After a long resistance to the new demands, the Senate in 454 BCE sent a commission of three patricians to Greece to study and report on
the legislation of Solon and other lawmakers.[64][65] When they returned, the Assembly in 451 BCE chose ten men a decemviri to formulate a new code, and gave them supreme governmental power in Rome for two years.
This commission, under the supervision of a resolute reactionary, Appius Claudius, transformed the old customary law of Rome into Twelve Tables and submitted them to the Assembly (which passed them with some changes)
and they were displayed in the Forum for all who would and could read. The Twelve Tables recognised certain rights and by the 4th century BCE, the plebs were given the right to stand for consulship and other major offices of
the state.
The political structure as outlined in the Roman constitution resembled a mixed constitution [66] and its constituent parts were comparable to those of the Spartan constitution: two consuls, embodying the monarchic form;
the Senate, embodying the aristocratic form; and the people through the assemblies.[67] The consul was the highest ranking ordinary magistrate.[68] Consuls had power in both civil and military matters. While in the city of Rome,
the consuls were the head of the Roman government and they would preside over the Senate and the assemblies. While abroad, each consul would command an army. The Senate passed decrees, which were called senatus
consultum and were official advices to a magistrate. However, in practice it was difficult for a magistrate to ignore the Senate's advice. [68] The focus of the Roman Senate was directed towards foreign policy. Though it
technically had no official role in the management of military conflict, the Senate ultimately was the force that oversaw such affairs. Also it managed Rome's civil administration. The requirements for becoming a senator
included having at least 100,000 denarii worth of land, being born of the patrician (noble aristocrats) class, and having held public office at least once before. New Senators had to be approved by the sitting members. [68] The
people of Rome through the assemblies had the final say regarding the election of magistrates, the enactment of new laws, the carrying out of capital punishment, the declaration of war and peace, and the creation (or
dissolution) of alliances. Despite the obvious power the assemblies had, in practice the assemblies were the least powerful of the other bodies of government. An assembly was legal only if summoned by a magistrate [68] and it
was restricted from any legislative initiative or the ability to debate. And even the candidates for public office as Livy writes "levels were designed so that no one appeared to be excluded from an election and yet all of the clout
resided with the leading men".[69] Moreover the unequal weight of votes was making a rare practice for asking the lowest classes for their votes. [69][70]
Roman stability, in Polybius assessment, was owing to the checks each element put on the superiority of any other: a consul at war, for example, required the cooperation of the Senate and the people if he hoped to secure
victory and glory, and could not be indifferent to their wishes. This was not to say that the balance was in every way even: Polybius observes that the superiority of the Roman to the Carthaginian constitution (another mixed
constitution) at the time of the Hannibalic War was an effect of the latters greater inclination toward democracy than to aristocracy.[71] Moreover, recent attempts to posit for Rome personal freedom in the Greek sense
eleutheria: living as you like have fallen on stony ground, since eleutheria (which was an ideology and way of life in the democratic Athens [72]) was anathema in the Roman eyes.[73] Romes core values included order,
hierarchy, discipline, and obedience. These values were enforced with laws regulating the private life of an individual. The laws were applied in particular to the upper classes, since the upper classes were the source of
Roman moral examples.
Rome became the ruler of a great Mediterranean empire. The new provinces brought wealth to Italy, and fortunes were made through mineral concessions and enormous slave run estates. Slaves were imported to Italy and
wealthy landowners soon began to buy up and displace the original peasant farmers. By the late 2nd century this led to renewed conflict between the rich and poor and demands from the latter for reform of constitution. The
background of social unease and the inability of the traditional republican constitutions to adapt to the needs of the growing empire led to the rise of a series of over-mighty generals, championing the cause of either the rich or
the poor, in the last century BCE.
Transition to Empire[edit]
See also: History of the Roman Empire

A fragment of a bronze equestrian order statue of Augustus, Roman Emperor, 1st century AD.
Over the next few hundred years, various generals would bypass or overthrow the Senate for various reasons, mostly to address perceived injustices, either against themselves or against poorer citizens or soldiers. One of
those generals was Julius Caesar, where he marched on Rome and took supreme power over the republic. Caesar's career was cut short by his assassination at Rome in 44 BCE by a group of Senators including Marcus
Junius Brutus. In the power vacuum that followed Caesar's assassination, his friend and chief lieutenant, Marcus Antonius, and Caesar's grandnephew Octavian who also was the adopted son of Caesar, rose to prominence.
Their combined strength gave the triumvirs absolute power. However, in 31 BC war between the two broke out. The final confrontation occurred on 2 September 31 BCE, at the naval Battle of Actium where the fleet of
Octavian under the command of Agrippa routed Antony's fleet. Thereafter, there was no one left in the Roman Republic who wanted to, or could stand against Octavian, and the adopted son of Caesar moved to take absolute
control. Octavian left the majority of Republican institutions intact, though he influenced everything using personal authority and ultimately controlled the final decisions. Having military might to back up his rule if necessary. By
27 BCE the transition, though subtle, disguised, and relying on personal power over the power of offices, was complete. In that year, Octavian offered back all his powers to the Senate, and in a carefully staged way, the
Senate refused and titled Octavian Augustus "the revered one". He was always careful to avoid the title of rex "king", and instead took on the titles of princeps "first citizen" and imperator, a title given by Roman troops
to their victorious commanders.
Roman Empire and Late Antiquity[edit]
The Roman Empire had been born. Once Octavian named Tiberius as his heir, it was clear to everyone that even the hope of a restored Republic was dead. Most likely, by the time Augustus died, no one was old enough to
know a time before an Emperor ruled Rome. The Roman Republic had been changed into a despotic rgime, which, underneath a competent and strong Emperor, could achieve military supremacy, economic prosperity, and a
genuine peace, but under a weak or incompetent one saw its glory tarnished by cruelty, military defeats, revolts, and civil war.
The Roman Empire was eventually divided between the Western Roman Empire which fell in 476 AD and the Eastern Roman Empire (also called the Byzantine Empire) which lasted until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD.

The Germanic tribal thing assemblies described by Tacitus in his Germania.

The Christian Church well into the 6th century AD had its bishops elected by popular acclaim.

The collegia of the Roman period: associations of various social, economic, religious, funerary and even sportive natures elected officers yearly, often directly modeled on the Senate of Rome.
Medieval institutions[edit]
Further information: Medieval commune

orgnr the Lawspeaker is teaching the Swedish king Olof Sktkonung that the power resides with the people, 1018,Uppsala, by C. Krogh
Most of the procedures used by modern democracies are very old. Almost all cultures have at some time had their new leaders approved, or at least accepted, by the people; and have changed the laws only after consultation
with the assembly of the people or their leaders. Such institutions existed since before the Iliad or the Odyssey, and modern democracies are often derived or inspired by them, or what remained of them.
Nevertheless, the direct result of these institutions was not always a democracy. It was often a narrow oligarchy, as in Venice, or even an absolute monarchy, as in Florence, in renaissance period but during medieval period
they were guild democracies.
These early institutions include:

continuations of the early Germanic thing:

The Witenagemot (folkmoot) of Early Medieval England, councils of advisors to the kings of the petty kingdoms and then that of a unified England before the Norman Conquest.

The Frankish custom of the Mrzfeld or Camp of Mars.[74]

Tynwald, on the Isle of Man, is the oldest continuous parliament in the world, which began in 979, although its roots go further back to the late 9th century. Tynwald was also the first place to offer universal
suffrage in 1893.

The Althing, the parliament of the Icelandic Commonwealth, founded in 930. It consisted of the 39, later 55, goar; each owner of a goar; and membership, which could in principle be lent or sold, was kept
tight hold of by each hereditary goi. Thus, for example, when Burnt Njal's stepson wanted to enter it, Njal had to persuade the Althing to enlarge itself so a seat would be available. But as each independent farmer in
the country could choose what goi represented him the system could be claimed as an early form of democracy. The Aling has run nearly continuously to the present day. The Althing was preceded by less elaborate
"things" (assemblies) all over Northern Europe.[75]

The Thing of all Swedes, which was held annually at Uppsala in the end of February or early March. Like in Iceland, the assemblies were presided by the lawspeaker, but the Swedish king functioned as a
judge. A famous incident took place circa 1018, when King Olof Sktkonung wanted to pursue the war against Norway against the will of the people. orgnr the Lawspeaker reminded the king in a long speech that
the power resided with the Swedish people and not with the king. When the king heard the din of swords beating the shields in support of orgnr's speech, he gave in. Adam of Bremen wrote that the people used to
obey the king only when they thought his suggestions seemed better, although in war his power was absolute.

the Swiss Landsgemeinde

The tatha system in early medieval Ireland. Landowners and the masters of a profession or craft were members of a local assembly, known as a tath. Each tath met in annual assembly which approved all common
policies, declared war or peace on othertuatha, and accepted the election of a new "king"; normally during the old king's lifetime, as a tanist. The new king had to be descended within four generations from a previous king,
so this usually became, in practice, a hereditary kingship; although some kingships alternated between lines of cousins. About 80 to 100 tatha coexisted at any time throughout Ireland. Each tath controlled a more or
less compact area of land which it could pretty much defend from cattle-raids, and this was divided among its members.

the guilds, of economic, social and religious natures, in the later Middle Ages elected officers for yearly terms.

The city-states (republics) of medieval Italy, as Venice and Florence, and similar city-states in Switzerland, Flanders and the Hanseatic league had not a modern democratic system but a guild democratic system. The
Italian cities in middle medieval period had "lobbies war" democracies without institutional guarantee systems (a full developed balance of powers). During late medieval and renaissance periods, Venice became an
oligarchy and others became "Signorie". They were, in any case in late medieval not nearly as democratic as the Athenian-influenced city-states of Ancient Greece (discussed in the above section), but they served as focal
points for early modern democracy.

Veche, Wiec popular assemblies in Slavic countries. In Poland wiece have developed in 1182 into Sejm Polish parliament. The veche was the highest legislature and judicial authority in the republics
of Novgorod until 1478 and Pskov until 1510.

The elizate system of the Basque Country in which farmholders of a rural area connected to a particular church would meet to reach decisions on issues affecting the community and to elect representatives to the
provincial Batzar Nagusiak/Juntos Generales.[76]

Rise of democratic parliaments in England and Scotland: Magna Carta (1215) limiting the authority of powerholders, first elected parliament (1265).[77][78] The emergence of petitioning is some of the earliest evidence of
this parliament being used as a forum to address the general grievances of ordinary people.

The Ibadites of Oman, a minority sect distinct from both Sunni and Shia Muslims, have traditionally chosen their leaders via community-wide elections of qualified candidates starting in the 8th century.[79][80] They were
distinguished early on in the region by their belief that the ruler needed the consent of the ruled. [81] The leader exercised both religious and secular rule.[80]

Indigenous peoples of the Americas[edit]

Historian Jack Weatherford has argued that the ideas leading to the American Constitution and democracy derived from various indigenous peoples of the Americas including the Iroquois. Weatherford claimed this democracy
was founded between the years 10001450, and lasted several hundred years, and that the American democratic system was continually changed and improved by the influence of Native Americans throughout North
America.[82]
Temple University professor of anthropology and an authority on the culture and history of the Northern Iroquois Elizabeth Tooker has reviewed these claims and concluded they are myth rather than fact. The idea that North
American Indians had a democratic culture is several decades old, but not usually expressed within historical literature. The relationship between the Iroquois League and the Constitution is based on a portion of a letter
written by Benjamin Franklin and a speech by the Iroquois chief Canasatego in 1744. Tooker concluded that the documents only indicate that some groups of Iroquois and white settlers realized the advantages of a
confederation, and that ultimately there is little evidence to support the idea that eighteenth century colonists were knowledgeable regarding the Iroquois system of governance. [83]
What little evidence there is regarding this system indicates chiefs of different tribes were permitted representation in the Iroquois League council, and this ability to represent the tribe was hereditary. The council itself did not
practice representative government, and there were no elections; deceased chiefs' successors were selected by the most senior woman within the hereditary lineage in consultation with other women in the clan. Decision
making occurred through lengthy discussion and decisions were unanimous, with topics discussed being introduced by a single tribe. Tooker concludes that "...there is virtually no evidence that the framers borrowed from the
Iroquois" and that the myth that this was the case is the result of exaggerations and misunderstandings of a claim made by Iroquois linguist and ethnographer J.N.B. Hewitt after his death in 1937.[83]
The Aztecs also practiced elections, but the elected officials elected a supreme speaker, not a ruler.[82]

Rise of democracy in modern national governments [edit]

Early Modern Era milestones[edit]

The election of Augustus II at Wola, outside Warsaw, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in 1697. Painted by Bernardo Bellotto
 Norman Davies notes that Golden Liberty, the Nobles' Democracy (Rzeczpospolita Szlachecka) arose in the Kingdom of Poland and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This foreshadowed a democracy of about ten
percent of the population of the Commonwealth, consisting of the nobility, who were an electorate for the office of the King. [84] They observed Nihil novi of 1505, Pacta conventa and King Henry's Articles (1573). See
also: Szlachta history and political privileges, Sejm of the Kingdom of Poland and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Organisation and politics of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.[85]

The Virginia House of Burgesses, established in 1619, is the first representative legislative body in the New World.

The Mayflower Compact, signed in 1620, an agreement between the Pilgrims, on forming a government between themselves, based on majority rule.

The idea of the political party with factions took form in Britain around the time of the English Civil War (16421651). Soldiers from the Parliamentarian New Model Army and a faction of Levellersfreely debated rights to
political representation during the Putney Debates of 1647. The Levellers published a newspaper (The Moderate) and pioneered political petitions, pamphleteering and party colours. Later, the pre-
war Royalist (then Cavalier) and opposing Parliamentarian groupings became the Tory party and the Whigs in the Parliament.

English Act of Habeas Corpus (1679), safeguarding individual freedom against unlawful imprisonment with right to appeal. See also: other documents listed at the Constitution of the United Kingdom, History of the
parliament of the United Kingdom.

William Penn wrote his Frame of Government of Pennsylvania in 1682. The document gave the colony a representative legislature and granted liberal freedoms to the colony's citizens.

The first bill of rights to protect the rights of the citizens of a country is enacted by the Parliament of England on 16 December 1689.[86] The Bill set out the rights of Parliament, rules for freedom of speech in Parliament
and limited the power of the monarch. It ensured (with the Glorious Revolution of 1688) that, unlike much of the rest of Europe, royal absolutism would not prevail.[87][88]
Eighteenth and nineteenth century milestones[edit]

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen approved by the National Assembly of France, 26 August 1789.

1707: The first Parliament of Great Britain is established after the merger of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland under the Acts of Union 1707.

1755: The Corsican Republic led by Pasquale Paoli with the Corsican Constitution

The United States

1776, Virginia Declaration of Rights

United States Constitution ratified in 1788, created bicameral legislature with members of the House of Representatives elected "by the People of the several states," and members of the Senate elected by the
state legislatures.

1791, the United States Bill of Rights ratified.

1790s, First Party System in U.S. involves invention of locally-rooted political parties in the United States; networks of party newspapers; new canvassing techniques; use of caucus to select candidates; fixed
party names; party loyalty; party platform (Jefferson 1799);

1800, peaceful transition between parties

1780s: development of social movements identifying themselves with the term 'democracy': Political clashes between 'aristocrats' and 'democrats' in Benelux countries changed the semi-negative meaning of the word
'democracy' in Europe, which was until then regarded as synonymous with anarchy, into a much more positive opposite of 'aristocracy'.

17891799: the French Revolution

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen adopted on 26 August 1789 which declared that "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights" and proclaimed the universal character of human rights.

Universal male suffrage established for the election of the National Convention in September 1792, but revoked by the Directory in 1795.

Slavery abolished in the French colonies by the National Convention on 4 February 1794, with Black people made equal to White people ("All men, without distinction of color, residing in the colonies are French
citizens and will enjoy all the rights assured by the Constitution"). [89] Slavery was re-established by Napoleon in 1802.

The establishment of universal male suffrage in France in 1848 was an important milestone in the history of democracy.

From late 1770s: new Constitutions and Bills explicitly describing and limiting the authority of powerholders, many based on the English Bill of Rights (1689). Historian Norman Davies calls the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth Constitution of May 3, 1791 "the first constitution of its kind in Europe".[90]

1791: The Haitian Revolution a successful slave revolution, established a free republic.

The United Kingdom

1807: The U.K. Slave Trade Act banned the trade across the British Empire after which the Royal Navy began to combat foreign slave traders.

1832: The passing of the Reform Act, which gave representation to previously under represented urban areas and extended the franchise to a wider population.

1833: The U.K. passed the Slavery Abolition Act.

1848: Universal male suffrage was definitely established in France in March of that year, in the wake of the French Revolution of 1848.[91]

1848: Following the French, the Revolutions of 1848, although in many instances forcefully put down, did result in democratic constitutions in some other European countries among them Denmark andNetherlands.

1850s: introduction of the secret ballot in Australia; 1872 in UK; 1892 in USA
 1853: Black Africans given the vote for the first time in Southern Africa, in the British-administered Cape Province.

1870: USA 15th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibits voting rights discrimination on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of slavery.

1879 and 1880: William Ewart Gladstone's UK Midlothian campaign ushered in the modern political campaign.

1893: New Zealand is the first nation to introduce universal suffrage by awarding the vote to women (universal male suffrage had been in place since 1879).
The secret ballot[edit]
Main article: Secret ballot
The notion of a secret ballot, where one is entitled to the privacy of their votes, is taken for granted by most today by virtue of the fact that it is simply considered the norm. However, this practice was highly controversial in the
19th century; it was widely argued that no man would want to keep his vote secret unless he was ashamed of it. [citation needed]
The two earliest systems used were the Victorian method and the South Australian method. Both were introduced in 1856 to voters in Victoria and South Australia. The Victorian method involved voters crossing out all the
candidates whom he did not approve of. The South Australian method, which is more similar to what most democracies use today, had voters put a mark in the preferred candidate's corresponding box. The Victorian voting
system also was not completely secret, as it was traceable by a special number.
The stone inscriptions in a temple say that ballot elections were held in South India by a method called Kudavolai system. Kudavolai means the ballot sheet of leaf that was put secretly in a pot vessel called kudam.The
details are found inscribed on the walls of the village assembly hall. Actually, the once- village-assembly hall is the present temple. The details show that the village had a secret ballot electoral system and a written
Constitution, prescribing the mode of elections.
20th century waves of democracy[edit]
The end of the First World War was a temporary victory for democracy in Europe, as it was preserved in France and temporarily extended to Germany. Already in 1906 full modern democratic rights, universal suffrage for all
citizens was implemented constitutionally inFinland as well as a proportional representation, open list system. Likewise, the February Revolution in Russia in 1917 inaugurated a few months of liberal democracy
under Alexander Kerensky until Lenin took over in October. The terrible economic impact of theGreat Depression hurt democratic forces in many countries. The 1930s became a decade of dictators in Europe and Latin
America.
The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 granted full U.S. citizenship to America's indigenous peoples, called "Indians" in this Act. (The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to persons born in the U.S., but only if "subject
to the jurisdiction thereof"; this latter clause excludes certain indigenous peoples.) The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924. The act further enfranchised the rights of peoples resident within
the boundaries of the USA.
Post World War II[edit]
World War II was ultimately a victory for democracy in Western Europe, where representative governments were established that reflected the general will of their citizens. However, many countries of Central and Eastern
Europe became undemocratic Soviet satellite states. In Southern Europe, a number of right-wing authoritarian dictatorships (most notably in Spain and Portugal) continued to exist.
Japan had moved towards democracy during the Taish period during the 1920s, but it was under effective military rule in the years before and during World War II. The country adopted a new constitution during the
postwar Allied occupation, with initial elections in 1946.
Decolonisation and Civil Rights Movements[edit]
World War II also planted seeds of democracy outside Europe and Japan, as it weakened, with the exception of the USSR and the United States, all the old colonial powers while strengthening anticolonial sentiment
worldwide. Many restive colonies/possessions were promised subsequent independence in exchange for their support for embattled colonial powers during the war.
The aftermath of World War II also resulted in the United Nations' decision to partition the British Mandate into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. On 14 May 1948 the state of Israel declared independence and thus was
born the first full democracy in the Middle East. Israel is a representative democracy with a parliamentary system and universal suffrage. [92][93]
India became a Democratic Republic in 1950 after achieving independence from Great Britain in 1947. After holding its first national elections in 1952, India achieved the status of the world's largest liberal democracy
with universal suffrage which it continues to hold today. Most of the former British and French colonies were independent by 1965 and at least initially democratic. The process of decolonisation created much political upheaval
in Africa and parts of Asia, with some countries experiencing often rapid changes to and from democratic and other forms of government.
In the United States of America, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act enforced the 15th Amendment. The 24th Amendment ended poll taxing by removing all tax placed upon voting, which was a technique
commonly used to restrict the African American vote. The Voting Rights Act also granted voting rights to all Native Americans, irrespective of their home state. The minimum voting age was reduced to 18 by the 26th
Amendment in 1971.
Late Cold War and after[edit]
New waves of democracy swept across Southern Europe in the 1970s, as a number of right-wing nationalist dictatorships fell from power. Later, in Central and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, the communist states in
the USSR sphere of influence were also replaced with liberal democracies.
Much of Eastern Europe, Latin America, East and Southeast Asia, and several Arab, central Asian and African states, and the not-yet-state that is the Palestinian Authority moved towards greater liberal democracy in the
1990s and 2000s.

Countries highlighted in blue are designated "electoral democracies" in Freedom House's survey Freedom in the World
An analysis by Freedom House shows that there was not a single liberal democracy with universal suffrage in the world in 1900, but that in 2000, 120 of the world's 192 nations, or 62% were such democracies. They count 25
nations, or 13% of the world's nations with "restricted democratic practices" in 1900 and 16, or 8% of the world's nations today. They counted 19 constitutional monarchies in 1900, forming 14% of the world's nations, where a
constitution limited the powers of the monarch, and with some power devolved to elected legislatures, and none in the present. Other nations had, and have, various forms of non-democratic rule. [94] While the specifics may be
open to debate (for example, New Zealand actually enacted universal suffrage in 1893, but is discounted due to a lack of complete sovereignty and certain restrictions on the Mori vote), the numbers are indicative of the
expansion of democracy during the twentieth century.
21st century waves of democracy[edit]
In the 21st century, democracy movements have been seen across the world. In the Arab world, an unprecedented series of major protests occurred with citizens of Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, Syria and other
countries across the MENA region demanding democratic rights. This revolutionary wave was given the term Tunisia Effect, as well as the Arab Spring. The Palestinian Authority also took action to address democratic rights.
In Iran, following a highly disputed presidential vote fraught with corruption, Iranian citizens held a major series of protests calling for change and democratic rights (see: the 20092010 Iranian election protests and the 2011
Iranian protests). The 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq led to a toppling of Saddam Hussein and a new constitution with free and open elections and democratic rights. [citation needed][neutrality is disputed]
In Asia, the country of Burma (also known as Myanmar) had long been ruled by a military junta, however in 2011, the government changed to allow certain voting rights and released democracy-leader Aung San Suu Kyi from
house arrest. However, Burma still will not allow Suu Kyi to run for election and still has major human rights problems and not full democratic rights. In Bhutan, in December 2005, the 4th King Jigme Singye
Wangchuck announced to that the first general elections would be held in 2008, and that he would abdicate the throne in favor of his eldest son. Bhutan is currently undergoing further changes to allow for a constitutional
monarchy. In the Maldives protests and political pressure led to a government reform which allowed democratic rights and presidential elections in 2008.

Contemporary trends[edit]
E-democracy
Under the influence of the theory of deliberative democracy, there have been several experiments since the start of the new millennium with what are called deliberative fora, places (in real life or in cyber space) where citizens
and their representatives assemble to exchange reasons. One type of deliberative forum is called a minpublic: a body of randomly chosen or actively selected citizens that represents the whole population. Examples of this
are citizens' assemblies and peoples' juries. Citizens' assemblies have been used in Canada (2004, 2006) and the Netherlands (2006) to debate electoral reform, and in Iceland (2009 and 2010) for broader constitutional
change.

See also[edit]
Documents[edit]

Magna Carta of 1215

English Bill of Rights of 1689

Corsican Constitution of 1755 (see Pasquale Paoli)

Swedish Constitution of 1772

United States Constitution of 1789

Polish Constitution of 3 May 1791

Indian Constitution of 1950

People[edit]
 Edmund Burke

Cornelius Castoriadis

Anders Chydenius

Francis Fukuyama

Samuel P. Huntington

Thomas Jefferson

Hugo Kotaj

John Locke

Niccol Machiavelli

James Madison

John Stuart Mill

John Stewart

Karl Marx

Simon de Montfort

Thomas Paine

Pasquale Paoli

Cola di Rienzi

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu

Amartya Sen

Alexis de Tocqueville

John Wilkes

Notes[edit]
^ i: Literature about the Athenian democracy spans over centuries with the earliest works being The Republic of Plato and Politics of Aristotle, continuing with Discourses of Niccol Machiavelli. The latest,
listed in the References section, include works from scholars such as J. Dunn, J. Ober, T. Buckley, J. Thorley and E. W. Robinson, who examine the origins and the reasons of Athens being the first [18][44][58][95]
[96][97]
to developed a sophisticated system of rule that we today call democracy. Despite its flaws (slavery, no women's rights) it is often considered the closest to the ideal democracy and called
as classical democracy. It is often compared with modern (representative) democracies. [98][99]
^ ii: The ancient Greeks did not have a word to use for "rights". [100]
^ iii: The United States of America was and is, a republic, not a direct democracy. A direct democracy can be defined as a form of government in which the people decide matters directly, with prime
example the Athenian democracy. A democratic republic, is a form of government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and
representatives responsible to them and governing according to law. The Framers of the Constitution were fearful of democracy; in the words of James Madison: "[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles
of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their
deaths."[101] Nevertheless, the Framers recognized that the public is required to impose a check to the government, in Madison words: "dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the
government".[102]
By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" came to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In
this sense the United States be called a democratic republic. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums. (Initiatives originate
with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by, a state's legislative body.)

Magna Carta
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the charter issued on 15 June 1215, and later modified. For other uses, see Magna Carta (disambiguation).
"Great Charter" redirects here. For the Irish law, see Great Charter of Ireland.

Magna Carta

One of only four surviving exemplifications of the 1215

text,Cotton MS. Augustus II. 106, held by the British

Library

Created 1215

Location Various copies

Author(s) Barons of King John of

England

Part of a series of articles on

Monarchy
 Central concepts[show]

Types[show]

History[show]

Related topics[show]

Politics portal

V
T
E

Magna Carta (Latin for Great Charter),[1] also called Magna Carta Libertatum or The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, is an Angevin charter originally issued in Latin. It was sealed under oath byKing
John at Runnymede, on the bank of the River Thames near Windsor, England, on 15 June 1215.[2]
Magna Carta was the first document imposed upon a King of England by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their rights.
The charter is widely known throughout the English speaking world as an important part of the protracted historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law in England and beyond.
The 1215 charter required King John to proclaim certain liberties and accept that his will was not arbitraryfor example by explicitly accepting that no "freeman" (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through
the law of the land, a right that still exists under English law today. The Witan, Witenagemot or Council of the Anglo-Saxon kings of the 7th to 11th centuries was held from time to time at Runnymede during the reign of Alfred
the Great. The Council met usually in the open air. Succeeding versions of the Council influenced the creation of England's 13th-century parliament.
The water-meadow at Runnymede is the most likely location at which, on 15 June 1215, [2] King John sealed the Magna Carta, and is the site of the Magna Carta Memorial. Magna Carta Island on the opposite bank of the river
is another possible site. The charter indicates Runnymede by name. The Magna Carta influenced common and constitutional law, as well as political representation and the development of parliament. The charter's
association with ideals of democracy, limitation of power, equality and freedom under law has attracted placement at Runnymede of monuments and commemorative symbols.
It was preceded and directly influenced by the Charter of Liberties in 1100, in which King Henry I had specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited. Magna Carta was important in the colonisation of America,
as England's legal system was used as a model for many of the colonies when they were developing their own legal systems.
It was translated into vernacular French as early as 1219,[3] and reissued later in the 13th century in modified versions. The later versions excluded the most direct challenges to the monarch's authority that had been present in
the 1215 charter. The charter first passed into law in 1225; the 1297 version, with the long title (originally in Latin) "The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest", still remains on
the statute books of England and Wales.[4]
Despite its recognised importance, by the second half of the 19th century nearly all of its clauses had been repealed in their original form. Three clauses currently remain part of the law of England and Wales, however, and it
is generally considered part of the uncodified constitution. Lord Denning described it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the
despot".[5] In a 2005 speech, Lord Woolf described it as the "first of a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a special constitutional status", [6] the others being the Habeas Corpus Act (1679), thePetition of
Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689), and the Act of Settlement (1701).
It was Magna Carta, over other early concessions by the monarch, which survived to become a "sacred text". [7] In practice, Magna Carta did not generally limit the power of kings in the medieval period, but by the time of
theEnglish Civil War it had become an important symbol for those who wished to show that the King was bound by the law. It influenced the early settlers in New England[8] and inspired later constitutional documents, including
the United States Constitution.[9]

Contents
[hide]

1 Great Charter of 1215

o 1.1 Rebellion and creation of the document

o 1.2 Clause 61

1.2.1 List of participants

o 1.3 Magna Carta of Chester

2 Great Charter 12161369

o 2.1 The Charter 1216

o 2.2 The Charters 1217: origins of the name Magna Carta

o 2.3 The Great Charter 1225

o 2.4 The Great Charter 1297: Statute

2.4.1 Confirmatio Cartarum and Articuli super Cartas

2.4.2 Six Statutes

3 Later history

o 3.1 Reconfirmations

o 3.2 Repeal of articles

4 Content

o 4.1 Clauses still in force

o 4.2 Clauses in Runnymede Charter but not in later Charters

o 4.3 Challenges to the King's power

o 4.4 Clauses in Runnymede Charter and in 1216/1217 Charter but not in 1225/1297 Charter

o 4.5 Clauses in Runnymede Charter and 1225/1297 Charter but since repealed

o 4.6 Clauses in the 1225/1297 Charter but not in the Runnymede Charter

5 Medieval and Tudor period

6 Edward Coke's opinions

7 17th and 18th centuries

o 7.1 United States

8 Nineteenth century and beyond

 9 Influences on later constitutions

10 Exemplifications

11 Usage of the definite article, spelling "Magna Carta"

12 Popular perceptions

o 12.1 Symbol and practice

o 12.2 Many documents form Magna Carta

o 12.3 The document was unsigned

o 12.4 Perception in America

o 12.5 21st-century Britain

13 See also

14 References

15 External links

Great Charter of 1215[edit]

Rebellion and creation of the document[edit]
Main article: John, King of England

Pope Innocent III (d.1216; mural 1219)

A group of barons began to conspire against King John in 1209 and in 1212; promises made to the northern barons and John's submission to universal rule of the papacy in 1213 delayed a French invasion. [10] Over the course
of his reign a combination of higher taxes, unsuccessful wars that resulted in the loss of English barons' titled possessions in Normandy following the Battle of Bouvines (1214), and the conflict with Pope Innocent III (ending
with John's submission in 1213) had made King John unpopular with many of his barons.
In 1215 some of the most important barons engaged in open rebellion against their king. Such rebellions were not particularly unusual in this period. Every king since William the Conqueror had faced rebellions. What was
unusual about the 1215 rebellion was that the rebels had no obvious replacement for John; in every previous case there had been an alternative monarch around whom the rebellion could rally. Arthur of Brittany would have
been a possibility, if he had not disappeared years earlier while he was John's prisoner; Arthur was widely believed to have been murdered by John. The next closest alternative was Prince Louis of France, but as the husband
of Henry II's granddaughter, his claim was tenuous, and the English had been at war with the French for thirty years. Instead of a claimant to the throne, the barons decided to base their rebellion around John's oppressive
government. In January 1215, the barons made an oath that they would "stand fast for the liberty of the church and the realm", and they demanded that King John confirm the Charter of Liberties, from what they viewed as a
golden age.[11]
John attempted to use the lengthy negotiations to avoid a confrontation while he waited for support from the Pope and hired mercenaries, adopting various measures to weaken the rebels' position and improve his own,
including taking the cross as a crusader in March 1215 (which the Pope applauded but most other observers considered insincere), demanding a new oath of allegiance, and confirming London's city charter in May 1215.
[12]
During negotiations between January and June 1215, a document was produced, which historians have termed 'The Unknown Charter of Liberties', [13] seven of the articles of which later appeared in the 'Articles of the
Barons' and the Runnymede Charter.[14] In May, King John offered to submit issues to a committee of arbitration with Pope Innocent III as the supreme arbiter,[15] but the barons continued in their defiance. With the support of
Prince Louis the French Heir and of King Alexander II of the Scots, they entered London in force on 10 June 1215,[16] with the city showing its sympathy with their cause by opening its gates to them. They, and many of the
moderates not in overt rebellion, forced King John to agree to a document later known as the 'Articles of the Barons', to which his Great Seal was attached in the meadow at Runnymede on 15 June 1215. In return, the barons
renewed their oaths of fealty to King John on 19 June 1215, which is when the document Magna Carta was created.

John of England signs Magna Carta. Illustration fromCassell's History of England(1902)

In return for King John's submission to his papal and universal authority, Innocent III declared Magna Carta annulled, though many English Barons did not accept this action.
The contemporary, but unreliable[17] chronicler, Roger of Wendover, recorded the events in his Flores Historiarum.[18] A formal document to record the agreement was created by the royal chancery on 15 July: this was the
original Magna Carta, though it was not known by that name at the time. An unknown number of copies of it were sent out to officials, such as royal sheriffs and bishops.
Clause 61[edit]
The 1215 document contained a large section that is now called clause 61 (the clauses were not originally numbered). This section established a committee of 25 barons who could at any time meet and overrule the will of the
King if he defied the provisions of the Charter, seizing his castles and possessions if it was considered necessary.[19] This was based on a medieval legal practice known as distraint, but it was the first time it had been applied
to a monarch.
Distrust between the two sides was overwhelming. What the barons really sought was the overthrow of the King; the demand for a charter was "mere subterfuge." [20] Clause 61 was a serious challenge to John's authority as a
ruling monarch. He renounced it as soon as the barons left London; Pope Innocent III also annulled the "shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the King by violence and fear." He rejected any call for restraints on
the King, saying it impaired John's dignity. He saw it as an affront to the Church's authority over the King and the 'papal territories' of England and Ireland, and he released John from his oath to obey it. The rebels knew that
King John could never be restrained by Magna Carta and so they sought a new King. [21]
England was plunged into a civil war, known as the First Barons' War. With the failure of Magna Carta to achieve peace or restrain John, the barons reverted to the more traditional type of rebellion by trying to replace the
monarch they disliked with an alternative. In a measure of some desperation, despite the tenuousness of his claim and despite the fact that he was French, they offered the crown of England to Prince Louis of France.[22]
As a means of preventing war, Magna Carta was a failure, rejected by most of the barons, [23] and was legally valid for no more than three months. [24] The death of King John in 1216, however, secured the future of Magna
Carta.[25]
List of participants[edit]
Barons, Bishops and Abbots who were party to Magna Carta.[26]

Barons surety for the enforcement of Magna Carta Bishops witnesses Abbots witnesses

1 William d'Aubigny, Lord of Belvoir Castle Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church the Abbot of St Edmunds

2 Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk Henry de Loundres, Archbishop of Dublin the Abbot of St Albans
3 Hugh Bigod, Heir to the Earldoms of Norfolk and Suffolk William of Sainte-Mre-glise, Bishop of London the Abbot of Bello

4 Henry de Bohun, Earl of Hereford Jocelin of Wells, Bishop of Bath and Wells the Abbot of St Augustine's in Canterbury

5 Richard de Clare, Earl of Hertford Peter des Roches, Bishop of Winchester the Abbot of Evesham

6 Gilbert de Clare, heir to the earldom of Hertford Hugh de Wells, Bishop of Lincoln the Abbot of Westminster

7 John FitzRobert Clavering, Lord of Warkworth Castle Herbert Poore (aka "Robert"), Bishop of Salisbury the Abbot of Peterborough

8 Robert Fitzwalter, Lord of Dunmow Castle Benedict of Sausetun, Bishop of Rochester the Abbot of Reading

9 William de Fortibus, Earl of Albemarle Walter de Gray, Bishop of Worcester the Abbot of Abingdon

10 William Hardel, **Mayor of the City of London Geoffrey de Burgo, Bishop of Ely the Abbot of Malmesbury Abbey

11 William de Huntingfield, Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk Hugh de Mapenor, Bishop of Hereford the Abbot of Winchcomb

12 John de Lacy, Lord of Pontefract Castle Richard Poore, Bishop of Chichester (brother of Herbert/Robert above) the Abbot of Hyde

13 William de Lanvallei, Lord of Walkern and Standway Castle the Abbot of Chertsey

14 William Malet, Sheriff of Somerset and Dorset the Abbot of Sherborne

15 Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex and Gloucester the Abbot of Cerne

16 William Marshal, 2nd Earl of Pembroke the Abbot of Abbotebir

17 Roger de Montbegon, Lord of Hornby Castle, Lancashire the Abbot of Middleton

18 Richard de Montfichet, Baron the Abbot of Selby

19 William de Mowbray, Lord of Axholme Castle the Abbot of Cirencester

20 Richard de Percy, Baron the Abbot of Hartstary

21 Saire/Saher de Quincy, Earl of Winchester

22 Robert de Roos, Lord of Hamlake Castle

23 Geoffrey de Saye, Baron

24 Robert de Vere, heir to the earldom of Oxford

25 Eustace de Vesci, Lord of Alnwick Castle

Others

Llywelyn the Great. Also the other Welsh Princes

Master Pandulff, subdeacon and member of the Papal Household

Brother Aymeric, Master of the Knights Templar in England

Alexander II of Scotland
Magna Carta of Chester[edit]
The Runnymede Charter of Liberties did not apply to Chester, which at the time was a separate feudal domain. Earl Ranulf granted his own Magna Carta.[27] Some of its articles were similar to the Runnymede Charter.[28]

Great Charter 12161369[edit]

The Charter 1216[edit]
King John's nine-year-old son Henry was crowned King of England in Gloucester Abbey, though much of England lay under the usurper Prince Louis. The papal legate Guala Bicchieri declared the struggle against Louis and
the Barons a holy war,[29] and the loyalists led by William Marshal rallied around the new King. Earl Ranulf of Chester left the Regency to Marshall. Marshall and Guala issued a Charter of Liberties, based on the Runnymede
Charter, in the King's name on 12 November 1216 as a Royal concession, in an attempt to undermine the rebels. [30]
The Charter differed from that of 1215 in only having 42 as compared to 61 clauses; most notably the infamous article 61 of the Runnymede Charter was removed. The Charter was also issued separately for Ireland.
The Charters 1217: origins of the name Magna Carta[edit]
Following the end of the First Barons War and the Treaty of Lambeth, the Charter of Liberties (carta libertatum) was issued again in the manner of 1216, again amended and issued separately for Ireland. The 42 clauses of the
1216 issue were expanded to 47.
Significantly, a fragment of the original charter would be expanded with new material to form a complementary charter, the Charter of the Forest; the two Charters would thereafter be linked. Magna carta libertatum was then
used by scribes to differentiate the larger and more important charter of common liberties from the Forest Charter.[31] The term was used retrospectively to describe the previous Charters, with what had previously been
described as carta libertatum becoming known simply as Magna Carta.
The Great Charter 1225[edit]
The 1225 version of Magna Carta issued by Henry III
Having reached the age of majority, King Henry III was called upon to confirm the Charters. Henry reissued Magna Carta in a shorter version with only 37 articles, as a concession of liberties in return for a fifteenth part of
moveable goods.[8] This was the first version of the Charter to enter English law.[32] The Charter of Liberties included a new statement that the Charter had been issued spontaneously and of the King's own free will. In 1227,
Henry III declared all future charters had to be issued under his own seal and state under what warrant they were claimed; this proclamation questioned the validity of all previous acts done in his name or his predecessors.
[33]
It was not until 1237, and thecarta parva, that both of the 1225 Charters were confirmed and granted in perpetuity.[34]
The Great Charter 1297: Statute[edit]
Edward I of England reissued the Charters of 1225 in 1297 in return for a new tax. [35] "Constitutionally, the Magna Carta of Edward I is the most important". [36] This version remains in Statute today (albeit with most articles now
repealedsee below).[37][38]
Confirmatio Cartarum and Articuli super Cartas[edit]
The Confirmatio Cartarum (Confirmation of Charters) was issued by Edward I in 1297, and was similar to the parva carta issued by Henry III in 1237. In the Confirmation, Edward reaffirmed Magna Carta and the Forest
Charter[39] as a concession for tax money. As part of the Remonstrances the nobles sought to add another document the De Tallagio to the Charters but without success.[40] The principle of taxation by consent was reinforced;
however the precise manner of that consent was not laid down. [41]
Pope Clement V annulled the Confirmatio Cartarum in 1305.[42]
As part of the reconfirmation of the Charters in 1300 an additional document was granted, the Articuli super Cartas (The Articles upon the Charters). It was composed of 20 articles and sought in part to deal with the problem of
enforcing the Charters.[43] In 1305 Edward I took Clement V's Papal bull annulling the Confirmatio Cartarum to effectively apply to the Articuli super Cartas though it was not specifically mentioned.[44]
Six Statutes[edit]
During the reign of Edward III, six measures were passed between 1331 and 1369, which were later known as the Six Statutes. They sought to clarify certain parts of the Charters. In particular, the third statute, of 1354,
redefined clause 29, with free man becoming no man, of whatever estate or condition he may be, and introduced the phrase due process of law for lawful judgement of his peers or the law of the land.[45]

Later history[edit]
Reconfirmations[edit]
The impermanence of the Charter required successive generations to petition the King to reconfirm his Charter, and hopefully abide by it. Between the 13th and 15th centuries Magna Carta would have a history of being
reconfirmed, 32 times according to Sir Edward Coke, but possibly as many as 45 times.[46] The Charter was last confirmed in 1423 by Henry VI.
Repeal of articles[edit]
The repeal of clause 26 in 1829, by the Offences against the Person Act 1828 (9 Geo. 4 c. 31 s. 1),[47] was the first time a clause of Magna Carta was repealed. With the document's perceived inviolability broken, [citation needed] in
the next 140 years nearly the whole charter was repealed, leaving just Clauses 1, 9, and 29 still in force after 1969. Most of it was repealed in England and Wales by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863, and in Ireland by
the Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872.[47]

Magna Carta 1225 Clause Runnymede Charter Clause Date Repealed

1 I extant

2 II Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872

3 III Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872

4 IV Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872

5 V Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872

6 VI Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872

7 VII, VIII Administration of Estates Act 1925, Administration of Estates Act (Northern Ireland) 1955 and Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969

8 IX Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969

9 XIII extant

10 XVI Statute Law Revision Act 1948

11 XVII Civil Procedure Acts Repeal Act 1879

12 XVIII Civil Procedure Acts Repeal Act 1879

13 Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872

14 XX, XXI, XXII Criminal Law Act 1967 and Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967

15 XXIII Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969

16 XXXXVII Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969

17 XXIV Statute Law Revision Act 1892

18 XXVI Crown Proceedings Act 1947

19 XXVIII Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872

20 XIX Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872

21 XXX, XXXI Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872

22 XXXII Statute Law Revision Act 1948

23 XXXIII Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969

24 XXXIV Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872

25 XXXV Statute Law Revision Act 1948

26 XXXVI Offences against the Person Act 1828 and Offences against the Person (Ireland) Act 1829

27 XXXVII Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872

28 XXXVIII Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872

29 XXXIX, XXXX extant

30 XXXXI Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969

31 XXXXIII Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872

32 Statute Law Revision Act 1887

33 XXXXVI Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872

34 LIV Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872

35 Sheriffs Act 1887

36 Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872

37 LX Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872

Content[edit]

Magna carta cum statutis angliae, (Great Charter with English Statutes) page 1 of manuscript, fourteenth century.
Magna Carta was originally written in Latin. A large part of the Charter at Runnymede was copied, nearly word for word, from the Charter of Liberties of Henry I, issued when Henry became king in 1100, in which he said he
would respect certain rights of the Church and the barons, for example not forcing heirs to purchase their inheritances.
As the Charter went through various issues many of the clauses included in the Runnymede charter were removed. Some clauses would form a supplementary Charter in 1217, the Charter of the Forest.
It is worth emphasising that the 1215 charter was not numbered and was not divided into paragraphs or separate clauses. The numbering system used today was created by Sir William Blackstone in 1759,[48] and therefore
should not be used to draw any conclusions regarding the intentions of the original creators of the charter.
Clauses still in force[edit]
The clauses of the 1297 Magna Carta still on statute are:

Clause 1, the freedom of the English Church

Clause 9 (clause 13 in the 1215 charter), the "ancient liberties" of the City of London

Clause 29 (clause 39 in the 1215 charter), a right to due process

 1. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights
and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs,
of Us and our Heirs for ever.

9. THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs which it hath been used to have. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five
Ports, as with all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs.

29. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon
him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right. [47]

The last sentence of Clause 29 deals with the administration of justice. We will sell to no man was intended to abolish the fines demanded by King John in order to obtain justice. Will not deny referred to the stopping of
suits and the denial of writs. Delay to any man meant the delays caused either by the counter-fines of defendants, or by the prerogative of the King. [49] There is debate about the gradual erosion of the remaining provisions of
Magna Carta, particularly by encroachment from the European Union - for example the effects on due process of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.[50]
Clauses in Runnymede Charter but not in later Charters [edit]

Clauses 10 and 11 related to money lending and Jews in England. Jews were particularly involved in money lending, as they were not bound by Christian teachings on usury. Clause 10 said that children would not pay
interest on a debt they had inherited while they were under age. Clause 11 said that the widow and children should be provided for before paying an inherited debt. The charter concludes this section with the words "Debts
owing to other than Jews shall be dealt with likewise", so it is debatable to what extent the Jews were being singled out by these clauses.

Clauses 12 and 14 state that taxes (in the language of the time, "scutage or aid") can only be levied and assessed by the common counsel of the realm. See Challenges to the King's power for more detail.

Clause 15 stated that the King would not grant anyone the right to take an aid (i.e. money) from his free men

Clauses 25 and 26 dealt with debt and taxes

Clause 27 dealt with intestacy.

Clause 42 stated that it was lawful for subjects to leave the kingdom without prejudicing their allegiance (except for outlaws and during war)

Clause 45 said that the King should only appoint as "justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs" those who knew the law and would keep it well. In the United States, the Supreme Court of California interpreted clause 45
in 1974 as establishing a requirement at common law that a defendant faced with the potential of incarceration is entitled to a trial overseen by a legally trained judge. [51]

Clause 48 stated that all evil customs connected with forests were to be abolished

Clause 49 provided for the return of hostages held by the King. (John held hostages from the families of important nobles he wished to ensure remained loyal, as other English monarchs had before him.)

Clause 50 stated that no member of the d'Athe family could be a royal officer.

Clause 51 called for all foreign knights and mercenaries to leave the realm.

Clause 52 dealt with restoration of those "disseised" (i.e. those dispossessed of property. See (for example) Assize of novel disseisin )

Clause 53 was similar to 52 but relating to forests

Clause 55 regarded remittance of unjust fines

Clauses 57 concerned restoration of disseised Welshmen

Clauses 58 and 59 provided for the return of Welsh and Scottish hostages

Clauses 61 provided for the application and observation of the Charter by twenty-five of the rebellious barons. See Challenges to the King's power for more on clause 61.

Clause 62 pardoned those who had rebelled against the king

Clause 63 said that the charter was binding on King John and his heirs. However this version of the charter was renounced by John, with the support of the Pope. The smaller 1225/1297 charters (which actually
became law) contain similar text, stating that the monarch and their heirs would not seek to infringe or damage the liberties in the charter, and that the charter is to be observed "in perpetuity".
Challenges to the King's power[edit]
Clauses 12 and 14 of the 1215 charter state that the king will accept the "common counsel of our realm" when levying and assessing an aid or a scutage. Clause 14 goes into detail about how exactly the archbishops, bishops,
abbots, earls and greater barons should be consulted. These clauses effectively meant that the monarch had to ask before raising new taxes. The later charters merely said that "Scutage furthermore is to be taken as it used
to be", although in practice the convention arose after Magna Carta that Parliamentwould be consulted by the monarch before raising new taxes.
Clause 61 of the 1215 charter states: "The barons shall choose any twenty-five barons of the realm they wish, who with all their might are to observe, maintain and cause to be observed the peace and liberties which we have
granted and confirmed to them by this our present charter". The clause goes on to say that if the king does not keep to the charter, the twenty five barons shall seize "castles, lands and possessions... until, in their judgement,
amends have been made". "Anyone in the land" would be permitted by the king to swear an oath to the twenty five to obey them in these matters, and the king was in fact supposed to order people to do so even if they didn't
want to swear an oath to the twenty five barons.
The barons were trying to stop John going back on his word after agreeing to the charter, but if those who rebelled against him were able to choose a group who would have the power to seize his castles if they thought it
necessary, "then the king had in effect been dethroned". No king would have agreed to this except as a manoeuvre to gain time, and the inclusion of this clause destroyed any chance of the original Magna Carta keeping the
peace in the long term.[52]
Clause 61 was removed from all later versions of the charter. Forty years later, after another confrontation between king and barons, the Provisions of Oxford forced on the king a council of twenty four members, 12 selected
by the crown, 12 by the barons, which would then elect a king's council of fifteen members; this however was also annulled when Henry III finally won that power struggle.
Clauses in Runnymede Charter and in 1216/1217 Charter but not in 1225/1297 Charter [edit]

Clauses 2 to 3 refer to feudal relief, specifically the regulation of the charging of excessive relief, in effect a form of "succession duty" or "death duty" payable by an heir.

Clauses 4 to 5 refer to the duties of wardship, specifically forbidding the practice of the over-exploitation of a ward's property by his warder (or guardian).

Clause 6 refers to a warder's power over the marriage of his ward. He was forbidden from forcing a marriage to a partner of lower social standing (possibly therefore to one such who may have been willing to pay a
higher price for it).

Clause 7 refers to the rights of a widow to receive promptly her dowry and inheritance.

Clause 8 stated that a widow could not be compelled to marry.

Clause 9 stated that a debtor should not have his lands seized as long as he had other means to pay the debt.

Clause 16 was regarding a knight's fee.

Clauses 17 to 19 allowed for a fixed law court, which became the chancellery, and defined the scope and frequency of county assizes.

Clause 44 (1216 only) relating to forest law

Clause 56 (1216 only) relating to disseised Welshmen

Clauses in Runnymede Charter and 1225/1297 Charter but since repealed [edit]
All of the remaining parts of the 1215 charter appear substantially unchanged in the 1225/1297 charter, which became law and is still on the statute book. All except the three clauses still in force today were eventually
repealed however, most in the 19th century. Many provisions have no bearing in the world today, since they deal with feudal liberties. Some clauses remained relevant but were replaced by later legislation that provided similar
rights. Using the 1215 clause numbers:

Clause 20 stated that fines ("amercements", in the language of the day), should be proportionate to the offence, but even for a serious offence the fine should not be so heavy as to deprive a man of his livelihood. No
fines should be imposed except by the oath of honest local men.

Clause 21 stated that earls and barons should only be fined by their peers, i.e. other earls and barons. Until 1948 this meant that members of the House of Lords had the right to a criminal trial in the House of Lords at
first instance.
 Clause 22 stated that fines should not be influenced by ecclesiastical property in clergy trials.

Clause 23 provided that no town or person should be forced to build a bridge across a river.

Clause 24 stated that crown officials (such as sheriffs) must not try a crime in place of a judge.

Clauses 28 to 32 stated that no royal officer might take any commodity such as grain, wood or transport without payment or consent or force a knight to pay for something the knight could do himself, and that the king
must return any lands confiscated from a felon within a year and a day to the felon's feudal lord ("the lords of the fees concerned").

Clause 33 required the removal of all fish weirs.

Clause 34 forbade repossession without a "writ precipe".

Clause 35 set out a list of standard measures

Clause 36 stated that writs for loss of life or limb were to be free

Clause 37 concerns inheritance when a "fee-farm" (fee as in knight's fee) was involved.

Clause 38 stated that no-one could be put on trial based solely on the unsupported word of an official.

Clause 40 disallowed the selling of justice, or its denial or delay.

Clauses 41 and 42 guaranteed the safety and right of entry and exit of foreign merchants.

Clause 43 gave special provision for tax on reverted estates

Clause 46 provided for the guardianship of monasteries.

Clauses 47 and 48 abolished most of Forest Law (these clauses were split out of the main charter and formed part of a separate charter, the Charter of the Forest).[53]

Clause 54 said that no man may be imprisoned on the testimony of a woman except on the death of her husband.
Clauses in the 1225/1297 Charter but not in the Runnymede Charter [edit]
A few clauses are in the 1225/1297 charter but not in the 1215 charter. These have also since been repealed. Using the 1297 clause numbers:

Clause 13 concerned the Assize of darrein presentment.

Clause 32 said that a free man should not give away or sell so much of his land that he would not be able to meet his feudal obligations to his lord.

Clause 35 concerned the county court, the frankpledge and tithes.

Clause 36 said that it was not permitted to give land to a religious house and then receive it back; in such a case the land would revert to the feudal lord.

Medieval and Tudor period[edit]

The judgement of 1387 confirmed the supremacy of the Royal Prerogative within the constitution.[54] By the mid 15th century Magna Carta ceased to occupy a central role in English political life. [45] In part this was also due to
the rise of an early version of Parliament and to further statutes, some based on the principle of Magna Carta. The Charter, however remained a text for scholars of law. The Charter in the statute books was correctly thought to
have arisen from the reign of Henry III and was seen as no more special than any other statute and could be amended and removed. It was not seen (as it was later) as an entrenched set of liberties guaranteed for the people
against the Government. Rather, it was an ordinary statute, which gave a certain level of liberties, most of which could not be relied on, least of all against the king. Therefore the Charter had little effect on the governance of
the early Tudor period.
The Tudor period would see a growing interest in history. Tudor historians would rediscover the Barnwell chronicler who was more favourable to King John than other contemporary texts. John Bale and Shakespeare would
both write plays on King John. Tudor historians were not inclined to regard rebellion as anything but a crime. Those who supported Henry VIII's break with Rome viewed King John in a positive light as a hero struggling
against the papacy, they showed little sympathy for the Great Charter or the rebel barons. [55]
The first printed edition of Magna Carta was probably the Magna Carta cum aliis Antiquis Statutis of 1508 by Richard Pynson.[56] George Ferrers would publish the first unabridged English language edition of Magna Carta in
1534, and effectively established the numbering of the Charter into 37 chapters; an abridged English language edition had previously been published by John Rastell in 1527.[57] By the end of the 16th century editions of the
1215 Charter would also be printed.
The Charter had no real effect until the Elizabethan era (15581603). Magna Carta again began to occupy legal minds, and it again began to shape how that government was run, but in a manner entirely different from that of
earlier ages. William Lambarde published what he thought were law codes of the Anglo-Saxon kings and William the conqueror. [58] Lambarde would begin the process of misinterpreting English history, soon taken up by
others, incorrectly dating documents and giving parliament a false antiquity. Francis Bacon would claim that Clause 39 of the 1215 Charter was the basis of the jury system and due process in a trial. Robert Beale, James
Morice, Richard Cosin and the Puritans[59] began to misperceive Magna Carta as a 'statement of liberty', a 'fundamental law' above all law and government. In 1581 Arthur Hall, MP would be one of the first to suffer under this
emerging new ideology, when he correctly questioned the antiquity of the House of Commons [60][61] and was without precedent expelled from Parliament.

Edward Coke's opinions[edit]

Jurist Edward Coke interpreted Magna Carta to apply not only to the protection of nobles but to all subjects of the crown equally.
Among the first of respected jurists to write seriously about the great charter was Edward Coke, who influenced how Magna Carta was perceived throughout the Tudor and Stuart periods, though his views were challenged
during his lifetime by Lord Ellesmere, and later in the same century by Robert Brady. Coke used the 1225 issue of the Charter.
Coke "reinterpreted or misinterpreted" Magna Carta "misconstruing its clauses anachronistically and uncritically". [62] He would interpret liberties to be much the same as individual liberty.[63] The historian J.C. Holt excused Coke
on the grounds that the Charter and its history had itself become 'distorted'. [64]
Coke was instrumental in framing the Petition of Right, which became a substantial supplement to Magna Carta's liberties. During the debates on the matter, Coke famously sought to deny the King's sovereign rights with the
claim that "Magna Carta is such a fellow, that he will have no 'sovereign'"; he believed the statutes (not the King) were absolute. [65]

17th and 18th centuries[edit]

Whilst Sir Edward Coke took the lead in reinterpreting Magna Carta, he was soon joined by others with a similar ideological stance, resulting in the concept of an ancient constitutionwhich entailed belief in fundamental laws
that supposedly existed since time immemorial, and a belief in the antiquity of Parliament. [66] These beliefs were used to challenge the constitution as it existed under the Stuart Kings.
John Selden would link habeas corpus to Magna Carta[67] during Darnell's Case. Sir Henry Spelman, who can be largely credited with first formulating a concept of feudalism (which would ironically be later used to attack the
idea of an ancient constitution, notably by Robert Brady), sought to place the origins of Common Law in Anglo-Saxon laws.[68] Antiquarians would seek out documents to support the views of their compatriots, such as Sir
Robert Cotton, whose collection of manuscripts would later form the basis for the British Library, and who discovered two original copies of King John's Charter.
The Petition of Right of 1628 sought to add to Magna Carta in the manner of the Articuli super Cartas or the Six Statutes. Charles I however, did not grant it as law and he was under no legal restriction. [69] The problem as
before in history was that the King was not bound by the law as adherents of Magna Carta believed. As before in history armed force would be used, first in 164249 and again in 1689.
With the advent of the republic it was questionable whether Magna Carta still applied. John Milton called for great actions, above the form of law and custom. Whilst Oliver Cromwell had much disdain for Magna Carta, at one
point describing it as "Magna Farta" to a defendant who sought to rely on it, [70] he agreed to rule with the advice and consent of his council. [71]
Different radical groups held differing opinions of Magna Carta. The Levellers rejected history and law as presented by their contemporaries, holding instead to an 'anti-Normanism' viewpoint. [72] John Lilburne regarded Magna
Carta as being less than the freedoms that supposedly existed under the Anglo-Saxons before being crushed by the Norman yoke. Richard Overton would describe Magna Carta as a beggarly thing containing many marks of
intolerable bondage.[73] Both however saw Magna Carta as a valuable declaration of liberties that could be used against governments they disagreed with. Lilburne said "the ground of my freedom, I build upon the Grand
Charter of England", while Overton said that when arrested, he hung on to his copy of Coke on Magna Carta, shouting "murder, murder, murder" as they wrested "the Great Charter of England's Liberties and Freedoms from
me".[74] Gerrard Winstanley leader of the more extreme Diggers stated The best lawes that England hath, [viz., the Magna Carta] were got by our Forefathers importunate petitioning unto the kings that still were their Task-
masters; and yet these best laws are yoaks and manicles, tying one sort of people to be slaves to another; Clergy and Gentry have got their freedom, but the common people still are, and have been left servants to work for
them.
The first attempt at a proper Historiography was undertaken by Robert Brady[75] who refuted the supposed antiquity of parliament and the belief in the immutable continuity of the law, and realised the liberties of the Charter
were limited and were effective only because it was the grant of the King; by putting Magna Carta in historical context he questioned its contemporary political relevance. [76] However, Brady's history would not survive
the Glorious Revolution, which ...marked a setback for the course of English historiography. [77]
The Glorious Revolution reinforced the century's ideological interpretations of history, which would later become known as the Whig interpretation of history. Reinforced with Lockean concepts the Whigs believed England's
constitution to be a Social contract, based on documents such as Magna Carta, the Petition of Right and The Bill of Rights.[78] Ideas about the nature of law in general were beginning to change. In 1716 the Septennial Act was
passed, which had a number of consequences. Firstly, it showed that Parliament no longer considered its previous statutes unassailable, as this act provided that the parliamentary term was seven years, whereas fewer than
twenty-five years had passed since the Triennial Act (1694), which provided that a parliamentary term was three years. It also greatly extended the powers of Parliament. Under this new constitution Monarchal absolutism was
replaced by Parliamentary supremacy. It was quickly realised that Magna Carta stood in the same relation to the King-in-Parliament as it had to the King without Parliament. This supremacy would be challenged by the likes
of Granville Sharp. Sharp regarded Magna Carta to be a fundamental part of the constitution, and that it would be treason to repeal any part of it. Sharp also held that the Charter prohibited slavery.[79]
Sir William Blackstone published a critical edition of the 1215 Charter in 1759, and gave it the numbering system still used today.[48]
In 1763 an MP, John Wilkes, was arrested for writing an inflammatory pamphlet, No. 45, 23 April 1763; he cited Magna Carta incessantly. Lord Camden denounced the treatment of Wilkes as a contravention of Magna Carta.
Prophet of a new revolutionary age, Thomas Paine in his Rights of Man would disregard Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights on the grounds they were not a written constitution devised by elected representatives.
United States[edit]
When Englishmen left their homeland for the new world, they brought with them charters establishing the colonies. The Massachusetts Bay Company charter for example stated the colonists would "have and enjoy all liberties
and immunities of free and natural subjects." The Virginia Charter of 1606 (which was largely drafted by Sir Edward Coke) stated the colonists would have all "liberties, franchises and immunities" as if they had been born in
England. The Massachusetts Body of Liberties contained similarities to clause 29 of Magna Carta, and the Massachusetts General Court in drawing it up viewed Magna Carta as the chief embodiment of English common law.
[80]
The other colonies would follow their example. In 1638 Maryland sought to recognise Magna Carta as part of the law of the province but it was not granted by the King. [81]
In 1687 William Penn published The Excellent Privilege of Liberty and Property: being the birth-right of the Free-Born Subjects of England, which contained the first copy of Magna Carta printed on American soil. Penn's
comments reflected Coke's, indicating a belief that Magna Carta was a fundamental law.[82] The colonists drew on English lawbooks leading them to an anachronistic interpretation of Magna Carta, believing it guaranteed trial
by jury and habeas corpus.[83]
The development of Parliamentary sovereignty in the British Isles did not constitutionally affect the Thirteen Colonies, which retained an adherence to English common law, but it would come to directly affect the relationship
between Britain and the colonies.[84] When American colonists raised arms against Britain, they were fighting not so much for new freedom, but to preserve liberties and rights, as believed to be enshrined in Magna Carta and
as later included in the Bill of Rights.
The American Constitution is the supreme law of the land, recalling the manner in which Magna Carta had come to be regarded as fundamental law. This heritage is quite apparent. In comparing Magna Carta with the Bill of
Rights: the Fifth Amendment guarantees: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." In addition, the United States Constitution included a similar writ in the Suspension Clause, article 1,
section 9: "The privilege of the writ habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." Each of these proclaim no person may be imprisoned or detained
without proof that he or she did wrong. The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people." The framers of the United States Constitution wished to ensure that rights they already held, such as those provided by Magna Carta, were not lost unless explicitly curtailed in the new United States Constitution.
[85][86]

The United States Supreme Court has explicitly referenced Lord Coke's analysis of Magna Carta as an antecedent of the Sixth Amendment's right to a speedy trial.[87]

Nineteenth century and beyond[edit]

Whilst radicals such as Sir Francis Burdett believed that Magna Carta could not be repealed, the 19th century would see the beginning of the repeal of many of the clauses of Magna Carta. The clauses were either obsolete
and/or had been replaced by later legislation.
William Stubbs's Constitutional History of England would be the high-water mark of the Whig interpretation of history. Stubbs believed that Magna Carta had been a major step in the shaping of the English people and he
believed that the Barons at Runnymede were not just the Barons but the people. [88]
This view of history however, was passing. At the popular level William Howitt in Cassell's Illustrated history of England would note that it was fiction that King John's Charter was the same Magna Carta as was on the statute
books and stated that "The Barons, in fact, were amongst the greatest traitors that England ever produced. [89] Frederic William Maitland provided a more academic history in History of English Law before the Time of Edward I,
which began to move Magna Carta from the myth that had grown up around it back to its historical roots. In many literary representations of the medieval past, however, Magna Carta remained the foundation for many diverse
constructions of English national identity. Some authors instrumentalised the medieval roots of the document to preserve the social status quo while others utilized the precious national inheritance to change perceived
economic injustice.[90]
In 1904 Edward Jenks published in the Independent Review an article entitled The Myth of Magna Carta, which undermined the traditionally accepted view of Magna Carta. [91] Historians like A. F. Pollard would agree with
Jenks in considering Coke to have 'invented' Magna Carta, noting that the Charter at Runnymede had not meant popular liberty at all. [92]
Sellar and Yeatman, in their parody 1066 and All That published in 1930, played on the supposed importance of Magna Carta and its supposed universal liberty: "Magna Charter was therefore the chief cause of Democracy in
England, and thus a Good Thing for everyone (except the Common People)".

Influences on later constitutions[edit]

Many attempts to draft constitutional forms of government, including the United States Constitution, trace their lineage back to Magna Carta.
The British dominions, Australia and New Zealand,[93] Canada[94] (except Quebec), and formerly Union of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, reflected influence of Magna Carta in their law, and the Charter impacted generally
on the states that evolved from theBritish Empire.[95]

Exemplifications[edit]

1297 copy of Magna Carta, owned by the Australian Government and on display in the Members' Hall ofParliament House, Canberra.
Numerous copies, known as exemplifications, were made each time it was issued, so all of the participants would each have one in the case of the 1215 copy, one for the royal archives, one for the Barons of the Cinque
Ports, and one for each of the 40 counties of the time. If there ever was one single 'master copy' of Magna Carta sealed by King John in 1215, it has not survived. Four exemplifications of the original 1215 text remain, all of
which are located in England, some on permanent display:

The 'burnt copy', was found in the archives of Dover Castle in 1630 by Sir Edward Dering and sent to the antiquarian Sir Robert Cotton and is assumed to be the copy sent to the Cinque Ports on or after 24 June 1215.
It was damaged in a fire in 1731 at Ashburnham House where the Cotton Library was housed, and is now virtually illegible. It is the only one of the four to have its seal surviving, which remains however as a lump of
shapeless wax. It is currently held by the British Library (Cotton Charter XIII.31a).[96]

Another 1215 exemplification is held by the British Library (Cotton MS. Augustus II.106).

One owned by Lincoln Cathedral, normally on display at Lincoln Castle. It has an unbroken attested history at Lincoln since 1216. We hear of it in 1800 when the Chapter Clerk of the Cathedral reported that he held it
in the Common Chamber, and then nothing until 1846 when the Chapter Clerk of that time moved it from within the Cathedral to a property just outside. In 1848, Magna Carta was shown to a visiting group who reported it
as "hanging on the wall in an oak frame in beautiful preservation". It went to the New York World Fair in 1939. In 1941, after war broke out with Japan, Magna Carta was sent to Fort Knox, along with the U.S. Declaration of
Independence and Constitution, until 1944, when it was deemed safe to return them. [97] Having returned to Lincoln, it has been back to the United States on various occasions since then. [98] It was taken out of display for a
time to undergo conservation in preparation for its visit to the United States, where it was exhibited at the Contemporary Art Center of Virginia from 30 March to 18 June 2007 in recognition of
the Jamestownquadricentennial.[99][100] From 4 to 25 July 2007, the document was displayed at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia,[101] returning to Lincoln Castle afterwards. The document returned to New York
to be displayed at the Fraunces Tavern Museum from 15 September to 15 December 2009 and has since returned to Lincoln. [102][103]

One owned by and displayed at Salisbury Cathedral. It is the best preserved of the four.[104]
Other early versions of Magna Carta survive. Durham Cathedral possesses 1216, 1217, and 1225 copies.[105]
A near-perfect 1217 copy is held by Hereford Cathedral and is occasionally displayed alongside the Mappa Mundi in the cathedral's chained library. Remarkably, the Hereford Magna Carta is the only one known to survive
along with an early version of a Magna Carta 'users manual', a small document that was sent along with Magna Carta telling the Sheriff of the county to observe the conditions outlined in the document. [106]
Four copies are held by the Bodleian Library in Oxford. Three of these are 1217 issues and one a 1225 issue. On 10 December 2007, these were put on public display for the first time. [107] One of the Bodleian exemplifications
from 1217 (once possibly held byGloucester Cathedral) was displayed at San Francisco's California Palace of the Legion of Honor 7 May 6 June 2011.

Magna Carta Place, withinCanberra, Australia's Parliamentary Triangle opened on 24 May 2003.
In 1952 the Australian Government purchased a 1297 copy of Magna Carta for 12,500 from King's School, Bruton, England.[108] This copy is now on display in the Members' Hall of Parliament House, Canberra. In January
2006, it was announced by the Department of Parliamentary Services that the document had been revalued down from A$40m to A$15m.
Only one copy (a 1297 copy in cursiva anglicana handwriting with the royal seal of Edward I) is in private hands. It was held by the Brudenell family, earls of Cardigan, who owned it for five centuries before they sold it to
the PerotFoundation in 1984. This copy, having been on long-term loan to the US National Archives, was auctioned at Sotheby's New York on 18 December 2007. The Perot Foundation sold it to "...have funds available for
medical research, for improving public education and for assisting wounded soldiers and their families." [109] It fetched US$21.3 million,[110] It was bought by David Rubenstein of The Carlyle Group,[111] who after the auction said,
"I thought it was very important that the Magna Carta stay in the United States and I was concerned that the only copy in the United States might escape as a result of this auction." Rubenstein's copy is on permanent loan to
theNational Archives in Washington, D.C.[112]
The Rubenstein Magna Carta was removed from display on 2 March 2011 for conservation treatment and re-encasement in an anoxic environment provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the
government agency responsible for the 1950s encasement of the Charters of Freedom. After treatment and encasement by National Archives conservators, Magna Carta was put back on display for the public on 17 February
2012.[113]

Usage of the definite article, spelling "Magna Carta"[edit]

Since there is no direct, consistent correlate of the English definite article in Latin, the usual academic convention is to refer to the document in English without the article as "Magna Carta" rather than "the Magna Carta".
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first written appearance of the term was in 1218: "Concesserimus libertates quasdam scripts in magna carta nostra de libertatibus" (Latin: "We shall have conceded certain
liberties here written in our great charter concerning liberties"). However, "the Magna Carta" is frequently used in both academic and non-academic speech.
Especially in the past, the document has also been referred to as "Magna Charta", but the pronunciation was the same. "Magna Charta" is still an acceptable variant spelling recorded in many dictionaries due to continued use
in some reputable sources. From the 13th to the 17th centuries, only the spelling "Magna Carta" was used. The spelling "Magna Charta" began to be used in the 18th century but never became more common despite also
being used by some reputable writers.[114][115]

Popular perceptions[edit]

The Magna Carta Memorial at Runnymede erected by the American Bar Association in 1957

Detail of the inscription on the Magna Carta Memorial

Symbol and practice[edit]

Magna Carta is often a symbol for the first time the citizens of England were granted rights against an absolute king. However, in practice the Commons could not enforce Magna Carta in the few situations where it applied to
them, so its reach was limited. Also, a large part of Magna Carta was copied, nearly word for word, from the Charter of Liberties of Henry I, issued when Henry I rose to the throne in 1100, which bound the king to laws that
effectively granted certain civil liberties to the church and the English nobility.
Many documents form Magna Carta[edit]
Although Magna Carta is popularly thought of as the document forced upon King John in 1215, this version of the charter was almost immediately annulled. Later monarchs reissued the document, but without the most direct
challenges to their power, and without the provisions intended to right immediate wrongs rather than make long-term constitutional changes. The version that forms part of English law is actually that of 1297. Magna Carta can
therefore refer to any one of several related (but not identical) 13th century documents, or indeed to the various charters as a whole.
The document was unsigned[edit]
Popular perception is that King John and the barons signed Magna Carta. There were no signatures on the original document, however, only a single seal placed by the king. The words of the charterData per manum
nostrumsignify that the document was personally given by the king's hand (manus in classical Latin meant 'legal power'). By placing his seal on the document, the King and the barons followed common law that a seal was
sufficient to authenticate a deed, though it had to be done in front of witnesses. John's seal was the only one, and he did not sign the charter. The barons neither signed nor attached their seals to it. [116]
Perception in America[edit]
The document is also honoured in the United States as an antecedent of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. In 1957, the American Bar Association erected the Magna Carta Memorial at Runnymede.[117] In 1976,
the UK lent one of four surviving originals of the 1215 Magna Carta to the United States for their bicentennial celebrations, and also donated an ornate case to display it. The original was returned after one year, but a replica
and its case are still on display in the U.S. Capitol Crypt in Washington, D.C. [118]
21st-century Britain[edit]
In 2006, BBC History held a poll to recommend a date for a proposed "Britain Day". 15 June, which was the date of the original 1215 Magna Carta, received most votes, above other suggestions such as D-Day, VE Day,
and Remembrance Day. The outcome was not binding, although the then Chancellor Gordon Brown had previously given his support to the idea of a new national day to celebrate British identity.[119] It was used as the name
for an anti-surveillance movement in the 2008 BBC series The Last Enemy. According to a poll carried out by YouGov in 2008, 45% of the British public do not know what Magna Carta is.[120] However, its perceived guarantee
of trial by jury and other civil liberties led to Tony Benn referring to the debate over whether to increase the maximum time terrorist suspects could be held without charge from 28 to 42 days as "the day Magna Carta was
repealed".[121]

See also[edit]
Ankerwycke Yew

The Baronial Order of Magna Charta

Cestui que

Charter of the Forest

Charter of Liberties

Concordat of Worms

Divine Right of Kings

Fundamental Laws of England

Henry de Bracton

History of democracy

History of human rights

Human rights

Magna Carta Place

New Brabantian Constitution

Quia Emptores

Statutes of Mortmain

subpoena ad testificandum

Petition of Right
 Tax choice

Bill of Rights 1689

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from English Bill of Rights)

Bill of Rights 1689

Parliament of England

Long title An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of

the Subject and Settling the Succession of the
Crown.

Chapter 1 William & Mary Sess 2 c 2

Status: Amended

Revised text of statute as amended

The Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights (1688 or 1689)

Created 1689

Ratified December 16, 1689

Location The National Archives

Author(s) Parliament of England

Purpose Ensure certain freedoms

and ensure a Protestant
political supremacy.

The Bill of Rights[1] is an Act of the Parliament of England passed on 16 December 1689.[2] It was a restatement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right presented by the Convention Parliament to William and Mary in
March 1689 (or 1688 by Old Style dating), inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. It lays down limits on the powers of the crown and sets out the rights of Parliament and rules for freedom of speech in
Parliament, the requirement for regular elections to Parliament and the right to petition the monarch without fear of retribution. It reestablished the liberty of Protestants to have arms for their defence within the rule of law, and
condemned James II of England for "causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law".
These ideas about rights reflected those of the political thinker John Locke and they quickly became popular in England. It also sets outor, in the view of its drafters, restatescertain constitutional requirements of the
Crown to seek the consent of the people, as represented in Parliament.
In the United Kingdom, the Bill of Rights is further accompanied by the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 as some of the basic documents of
theuncodified British constitution. A separate but similar document, the Claim of Right Act, applies in Scotland. The Bill of Rights (1688 or 1689) was one of the inspirations for the United States Bill of Rights.[3]
Along with the Act of Settlement 1701, the Bill of Rights is still in effect in all Commonwealth realms.[4] It is one of the main constitutional laws governing the royal succession. Since the implementation of the Statute of
Westminster 1931, the Bill of Rights cannot be altered without the consent of every realm. [5]

Contents
[hide]

1 Provisions of the Act

2 Augmentation and effect

3 Historical recognition

4 See also

5 References

6 External links

Provisions of the Act[edit]

The Bill of Rights laid out certain basic rights for all Englishmen. The Act stated that there should be:

no royal interference with the law. Though the sovereign remains the fount of justice, he or she cannot unilaterally establish new courts or act as a judge.

no taxation by Royal Prerogative. The agreement of the parliament became necessary for the implementation of any new taxes

freedom to petition the monarch without fear of retribution

no standing army may be maintained during a time of peace without the consent of parliament. [6]

no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law (simultaneously restoring rights previously taken from Protestants by James II)

no royal interference in the election of members of Parliament

the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament

"grants and promises of fines or forfeitures" before conviction are void.

no excessive bail or "cruel and unusual" punishments may be imposed.

Certain acts of James II were also specifically named and declared illegal by the Bill of Rights, while James' flight from England in the wake of the Glorious Revolution was also declared to be an abdication of the throne.
Also, in a prelude to the Act of Settlement to come twelve years later, the Bill of Rights barred Roman Catholics from the throne of England as "it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare
of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a papist prince"; thus William III and Mary II were named as the successors of James VII and II and that the throne would pass from them first to Mary's heirs, then to her
sister, Princess Anne of Denmark and her heirs and, further, to any heirs of William by a later marriage. The monarch was further required to swear a coronation oath to maintain the Protestant religion.

Augmentation and effect[edit]

The Bill of Rights was later supplemented by the Act of Settlement 1701 (while the Claim of Right Act in Scotland was supplemented by the Act of Union, 1707). Both the Bill of Rights and the Claim of Right contributed a great
deal to the establishment of the concept of parliamentary sovereignty and the curtailment of the powers of the monarch. Leading, ultimately, to the establishment of constitutional monarchy, while also (along with the Penal
Laws) settling the political and religious turmoil that had convulsed Scotland, England and Ireland in the 17th century.
It was a predecessor of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, the United States Bill of Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. For example, as with the Bill of Rights, the US constitution prohibits excessive bail and "cruel and unusual punishments."
Similarly, "cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments" are banned under Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The bill continues to constantly change and be cited in legal proceedings in the Commonwealth realms. For instance, on 21 July 1995 a libel case brought by Neil Hamilton (then a member of parliament) against The
Guardian was stopped after Justice May ruled that the Bill of Rights' prohibition on the courts' ability to question parliamentary proceedings would prevent The Guardian from obtaining a fair hearing. Section 13 of
the Defamation Act 1996, was subsequently enacted to permit MPs to waive their parliamentary privilegeand thus cite their own speeches if relevant to litigation.
The Bill of Rights was also invoked in New Zealand in the 1976 case of Fitzgerald v. Muldoon and Others,[7] which centred on the purporting of newly appointed Prime Minister Robert Muldoon that he would advise
the Governor-General to abolish a superannuationscheme established by the New Zealand Superannuation Act, 1974, without new legislation. Muldoon felt that the dissolution would be immediate and he would later introduce
a bill in parliament to retroactively make the abolition legal. This claim was challenged in court and the Chief Justice declared that Muldoon's actions were illegal as they had violated Article 1 of the Bill of Rights, which provides
"that the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority...is illegal." [8]
This Act was retained for the Republic of Ireland by section 2(2)(a) of, and Part 2 of Schedule 1 to, the Statute Law Revision Act 2007. Section 2(3) of that Act repealed:

all of the Preamble down to "Upon which Letters Elections haveing beene accordingly made"

the seventh paragraph after the words "for the Vindicating and Asserting their auntient Rights and Liberties, Declare"

all words from "And they doe Claime Demand and Insist" down to, but not including, section 2.

Historical recognition[edit]
Two special designs of the British commemorative two pound coins were issued in the United Kingdom in 1989 to celebrate the tercentenary of the Glorious Revolution. One referred to the Bill of Rights and the other to
the Claim of Right. Both depict the Royal Cypherof William and Mary and the mace of the House of Commons, one also shows a representation of the St Edward's Crown and another the Crown of Scotland.
In May 2011, the Bill of Rights was inscribed in UNESCO's UK Memory of the World Register.[9][10]

See also[edit]
Act of Toleration 1689

Charter of Liberties

Habeas Corpus Act 1679

Petition of Right

English Civil War

Fundamental Laws of England

Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689

Rights of Englishmen

Penal Law

Penal Laws (Ireland)

Trial of the Seven Bishops

United States Constitution

United States Declaration of Independence

Seneca Falls Convention

References[edit]
1. Jump up^ The Act is cited as The Bill of Rights in the United Kingdom, as authorised by section 1 of, and the First Schedule to, the Short Titles Act 1896. Owing to the repeal of those
provisions, it is now authorised by section 19(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978. In the Republic of Ireland, it is cited as The Bill of Rights 1688, as authorised by section 1 of, and the First Schedule
to, the Short Titles Act 1896 (as amended by section 5(a) of the Statute Law Revision Act 2007). The short title of this Act was previously "The Bill of Rights".

2. Jump up^ Thatcher, Oliver Joseph (ed.) (1907). The library of original sources. University Research Extension. p. 10.

3. Jump up^ "Facts About the Bill of Rights on Its 220th Anniversary". History.com. 15 December 2011. Retrieved 29 September 2012.

4. Jump up^ Toporoski, Richard (Summer 1996). "Monarchy Canada: The Invisible Crown".

5. Jump up^ Statute of Westminster; 1931 c.4 22 and 23 Geo 5

6. Jump up^ Note: Arguably, this right is subject to continuing derogation in modern times; see, e.g. Armed Forces Act and discussion of the same in Military Covenant.

7. Jump up^ "The Constitutional Setting", States Services Commission, New Zealand

8. Jump up^ "The legitimacy of judicial review of executive decision-making", New Zealand Law Society
 9. Jump up^ "2011 UK Memory of the World Register", United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO, 2011. Accessed 4 June 2011.

10. Jump up^ "Life, death and everything in between", parliament.uk, 23 May 2011. Accessed 4 June 2011.

Virginia Declaration of Rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Virginia Declaration of Rights

Created May 1776

Ratified June 12, 1776

Location Library of Congress(first

draft)[1]

Author(s) George
Mason(primary), Thomas
Ludwell Lee

Purpose Declare the inherent rights

of Virginians (and
mankind in general).

The Virginia Declaration of Rights is a document drafted in 1776 to proclaim the inherent rights of men, including the right to rebel against "inadequate" government. It influenced a number of later documents, including
the United States Declaration of Independence (1776), the United States Bill of Rights (1789), and the French Revolution's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789).

Contents
[hide]

1 Drafting and adoption

2 Contents

3 Text

4 Influence

5 Quotations derived from the Declaration

6 Notes

7 External links

Drafting and adoption[edit]

George Mason was the principal author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights.
The Declaration was adopted unanimously by the Fifth Virginia Convention at Williamsburg, Virginia on June 12, 1776 as a separate document from the Constitution of Virginia which was later adopted on June 29, 1776.[2] In
1830, the Declaration of Rights was incorporated within the Virginia State Constitution as Article I, but even before that Virginia's Declaration of Rights stated that it was '"the basis and foundation of government" in Virginia. [3] A
slightly updated version may still be seen in Virginia's Constitution, making it legally in effect to this day.
It was initially drafted by George Mason circa May 20, 1776; James Madison assisted him with the section on religious freedom. [4] It was later amended by Thomas Ludwell Lee and the Convention to add a section on the right
to uniform government (Section 14). Patrick Henry persuaded the Convention to delete a section that would have prohibited bills of attainder, arguing that ordinary laws could be ineffective against some terrifying offenders.
[5]
Edmund Pendleton proposed the line "when they enter into a state of society" which allowed slave holders to support the declaration of universal rights which would be understood not to apply to slaves as they were not part
of civil society.[6]
Mason based his initial draft on the rights of citizens described in earlier works such as the English Bill of Rights (1689), and the Declaration can be considered the first modern Constitutional protection of individual rights for
citizens of North America. It rejected the notion of privileged political classes or hereditary offices such as the members of Parliament and House of Lords described in the English Bill of Rights.
The Declaration consists of sixteen articles on the subject of which rights "pertain to [the people of Virginia]...as the basis and foundation of Government." [7] In addition to affirming the inherent nature of rights to life, liberty,
property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety, the Declaration both describes a view of Government as the servant of the people, and enumerates its separation of powers into the administration, legislature, and
judiciary. Thus, the document is unusual in that it not only prescribes legal rights, but it also describes moral principles upon which a government should be run. [8]

Contents[edit]
Articles 1-3 address the subject of rights and the relationship between government and the governed. Article 1 states that "all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights of which . . . they
cannot deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety," a statement later made internationally
famous in the first paragraph of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, as "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Articles 2 and 3 note the revolutionary concept that "all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people..." [9] and that "whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a
majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal." This latter concept effectively asserted the
right of the people of Virginia to revolt against the British Empire.
Article 4 asserts the equality of all citizens, rejecting the notion of privileged political classes or hereditary offices - another criticism of British institutions such as the House of Lords and the privileges of the peerage: "no set of
men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge be
hereditary."
Articles 5 and 6 recommend the principles of separation of powers and free elections, "frequent, certain, and regular"[10] of executives and legislators: "That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate
and distinct from the judicative; and, that the members of the two first...should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken...by frequent, certain, and regular
elections."[10]
Articles 7-16 propose restrictions on the powers of the government, declaring the government should not have the power of suspending or executing laws, "without consent of the representatives of the people"; [11] establishing
the legal rights to be "confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage," and to prevent a citizen from being "compelled to give evidence
against himself."[12] protections against "cruel and unusual punishments",[13] baselesssearch and seizure,[14] and the guarantees of a trial by jury,[15] freedom of the press,[16] freedom of religion ("all men are equally entitled to the
free exercise of religion"),[17] and "the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state" rested in a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, that standing armies in time of peace, should be
avoided as dangerous to liberty;[18] Article 8 protects a person against "being deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land" which later evolved into the due process clause in the federal Bill of Rights.

Text[edit]
The following is the complete text of the Virginia Declaration of Rights:
A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government .
Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the
enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.
Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of
producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a
majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
Section 4. That no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, nor being descendible, neither ought the offices of
magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.
Section 5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the
burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in
which all, or any part, of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.
Section 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community,
have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner,
assented for the public good.
Section 7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.
Section 8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man has a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial
by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the
law of the land or the judgment of his peers.
Section 9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Section 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is
not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.
Section 11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.
Section 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.
Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to
liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Section 14. That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from or independent of the government of Virginia ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.
Section 15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental
principles.
Section 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free
exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other. Written by George Mason, and adopted by the Virginia
Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776.
[19]

Influence[edit]
The Virginia Declaration of Rights heavily influenced later documents. Thomas Jefferson is thought to have drawn on it when he drafted the United States Declaration of Independence in the same month (June 1776). James
Madison was also influenced by the Declaration while drafting the Bill of Rights (introduced September 1789, ratified 1791), as was the Marquis de Lafayette in voting the French Revolution's Declaration of the Rights of Man
and of the Citizen (1789).
The importance of the Virginia Declaration of Rights is that it was the first constitutional protection of individual rights, [citation needed] rather than protecting only members of Parliament or consisting of simple laws that can be
changed as easily as passed.
Virginia's western counties cited the Declaration of Rights as a justification for rejecting the state's Ordinance of Secession before the American Civil War. The delegates to the Wheeling Convention argued that under the
Declaration of Rights, any change in the form of government had to be approved by a referendum. Since the Secession Convention had not been convened by a referendum, the western counties argued that all of its acts
were void. This set in motion the chain of events that ultimately led the western counties to break off as the separate state of West Virginia.

Quotations derived from the Declaration[edit]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" United States Declaration of Independence (July 1776)

"Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be founded only on the common utility." Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789)

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (although the Virginia Declaration makes no reference to a "right to keep or
bear arms") Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (December 1791)

Notes[edit]
1. Jump up^ "Top Treasures Exhibit Object Focus". Library of Congress. Retrieved 13 September 2011.

2. Jump up^ Virginia Gazette, Purdie, July 05, 1776 supplement, page 1.

3. Jump up^ Pittman, R. "The Virginia Declaration of Rights; Its Place in History" (1955).

4. Jump up^ John H. Garvey & Thomas C. Berge, Religion and the Constitution (2d. Ed. 2006), p. 45.

5. Jump up^ Randolph, Edmund. History of Virginia, page 255 (Virginia Historical Society 1970).

6. Jump up^ We Hold These Truths . . . And Other Words That Made America, Paul Aron, Colonial Willamsburg and Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2008

7. Jump up^ Preamble, Virginia Declaration of Rights.

8. Jump up^ Lieberman, Jethro (1987). The Enduring Constitution: A Bicentennial Perspective. West Publishing Co. p. 28. ISBN 0-314-32025-3.

9. Jump up^ Article 2

10. ^ Jump up to:a b Article 5

11. Jump up^ Article 7

12. Jump up^ Article 8

13. Jump up^ Article 9

14. Jump up^ Article 10

15. Jump up^ Article 11

16. Jump up^ Article 12

17. Jump up^ Article 16

18. Jump up^ Article 13

19. Jump up^ George Mason (June 12, 1776). "The Virginia Declaration of Rights". Retrieved June 6, 2013.
United States Bill of Rights
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Bill of Rights

United States Bill of Rights

Created September 25, 1789

Ratified December 15, 1791

Location National Archives

Author(s) James Madison

United States of America

This article is part of the series:

United States Constitution

Preamble and Articles

of the Constitution

Preamble
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII

Amendments to the Constitution

Ratified Amendments
The first ten Amendments are
collectively known as the Bill of Rights

I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
XIV
XV
XVI
XVII
XVIII
XIX
XX
XXI
XXII
XXIII
XXIV
XXV
XXVI
XXVII

Unratified Amendments
Congressional
Apportionment
Titles of Nobility
Corwin
 Child Labor
Equal Rights
D.C. Voting Rights

Full text of the Constitution

and Amendments

Preamble & Articles I-VII

Amendments I-X

Amendments XI-XXVII

Unratified Amendments

US Government Portal
Law Portal
view
talk
edit
The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed to assuage the fears of Anti-Federalists who had opposed Constitutional ratification, these amendments
guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. Originally the amendments applied only to the federal
government, however, most were subsequently applied to the government of each state by way of the Fourteenth Amendment, through a process known as incorporation.
On June 8, 1789 Representative James Madison introduced a series of thirty-nine amendments to the constitution in the House of Representatives. Among his recommendations Madison proposed opening up the Constitution
and inserting specific rights limiting the power of Congress in Article One, Section 9. Seven of these limitations would became part of the ten ratified Bill of Rights amendments. Ultimately, on September 25,
1789, Congress approved twelve articles of amendment to the Constitution and submitted them to the states for ratification. Contrary to Madisons original proposal that the articles be incorporated into the main body of the
Constitution, they were proposed as "supplemental" additions to it. On December 15, 1791, Articles ThreeTwelve, having been ratified by the required number of states, became Amendments OneTen of the Constitution. On
May 7, 1992, after an unprecedented period of 202 years, 225 days, Article Two crossed the Constitutional threshold for ratification and became the Twenty-seventh Amendment. As a result, Article One alone remains
unratified and still pending before the states.
The Bill of Rights enumerates freedoms not explicitly indicated in the main body of the Constitution, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a free press, and free assembly; the right to keep and bear arms; freedom
from unreasonable search and seizure, security in personal effects, and freedom from warrants issued without probable cause; indictment by a grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime"; guarantee of a speedy, public trial
with an impartial jury; and prohibition of double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights reserves for the people any rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution and reserves all powers not specifically granted to the
federal government to the people or the States. The Bill was influenced by George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the English Bill of Rights 1689, and earlier English political documents such as Magna
Carta (1215).
The Bill of Rights had little judicial impact for the first 150 years of its existence, but was the basis for many Supreme Court decisions of the 20th and 21st centuries. One of the first fourteen copies of the Bill of Rights is on
public display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

Contents
[hide]

1 Background

o 1.1 The Philadelphia Convention

o 1.2 The Anti-Federalists

o 1.3 The Federalists

o 1.4 Massachusetts compromise

2 Proposal and ratification

o 2.1 Anticipating amendments

o 2.2 Crafting amendments

o 2.3 Ratification process

o 2.4 Unratified amendments proposed with the Bill of Rights

2.4.1 Article I

2.4.2 Article II

3 Application

o 3.1 First Amendment

o 3.2 Second Amendment

o 3.3 Third Amendment

o 3.4 Fourth Amendment

o 3.5 Fifth Amendment

o 3.6 Sixth Amendment

o 3.7 Seventh Amendment

o 3.8 Eighth Amendment

o 3.9 Ninth Amendment

o 3.10 Tenth Amendment

4 Display and honoring of the Bill of Rights

5 See also

6 References

7 Further reading

8 External links

Background
The Philadelphia Convention
Main article: Constitutional Convention (United States)
Prior to the ratification and implementation of the United States Constitution, the thirteen sovereign states followed the Articles of Confederation, created by the Second Continental Congress and ratified in 1781. However, the
national government that operated under the Articles of Confederation was too weak to adequately regulate the various conflicts that arose between the states. [1] The Philadelphia Convention set out to correct weaknesses of
the Articles that had been apparent even before the American Revolutionary War had been successfully concluded.[1]
The convention took place from May 14 to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Although the Convention was purportedly intended only to revise the Articles, the intention of many of its proponents, chief among
themJames Madison of Virginia and Alexander Hamilton of New York, was to create a new government rather than fix the existing one. The convention convened in the Pennsylvania State House, and George Washington of
Virginia was unanimously elected as president of the convention. [2] The 55 delegates who drafted the Constitution are among the men known as the Founding Fathers of the new nation. Thomas Jefferson, who was Minister to
France during the convention, characterized the delegates as an assembly of "demi-gods." [1] Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the convention. [3]
On September 12, George Mason of Virginia suggested the addition of a Bill of Rights to the Constitution modeled on previous state declarations, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts made it a formal motion.[4] However, the
motion was defeated by a unanimous vote of the state delegations after only a brief discussion. Madison, then an opponent of a Bill of Rights, later explained the vote by calling the state bills of rights "parchment barriers" that
offered only an illusion of protection against tyranny.[5] Another delegate, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, later argued that the act of enumerating the rights of the people would have been dangerous, because it would imply
that rights not explicitly mentioned did not exist;[5] Hamilton echoed this point in Federalist No. 84.[6] Because Mason and Gerry had emerged as opponents of the proposed new Constitution, their motionintroduced five days
before the end of the conventionmay also have been seen by other delegates as a delaying tactic. [7] The quick rejection of this motion, however, later endangered the entire ratification process. Author David O. Stewart calls
the omission of a Bill of Rights in the original Constitution as "a political blunder of the first magnitude" [7] while historian Jack N. Rakove calls it "the one serious miscalculation the framers made as they looked ahead to the
struggle over ratification".[8]
Thirty-nine delegates signed the finalized Constitution. Thirteen delegates left before it was completed, and three who remained at the convention until the end refused to sign it: Mason, Gerry, and Edmund Randolph of
Virginia.[9] Afterward, the Constitution was presented to the Articles of Confederation Congress with the request that it afterwards be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each State by the people, for their assent
and ratification.[10]
The Anti-Federalists

On June 5, 1788, Patrick Henryspoke before Virginia's ratification convention in opposition to the Constitution.
Following the Philadelphia Convention, some leading revolutionary figures such as Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Richard Henry Lee publicly opposed the Constitution, a position known as "Anti-Federalism". [11] Elbridge
Gerry wrote the most popular Anti-Federalist tract, "Hon. Mr. Gerry's Objections", which went through 46 printings; the essay particularly focused on the lack of a bill of rights in the proposed constitution. [12] Many were
concerned that a strong national government was a threat to individual rights and that the President would become a king. Jefferson wrote to Madison advocating a Bill of Rights: "Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we
cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can."[13]
The pseudonymous Anti-Federalist "Brutus"[a] wrote,
We find they have, in the ninth section of the first article declared, that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion that no bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed that no
title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, etc. If every thing which is not given is reserved, what propriety is there in these exceptions? Does this Constitution any where grant the power of suspending the habeas
corpus, to make ex post facto laws, pass bills of attainder, or grant titles of nobility? It certainly does not in express terms. The only answer that can be given is, that these are implied in the general powers granted. With equal
truth it may be said, that all the powers which the bills of rights guard against the abuse of, are contained or implied in the general ones granted by this Constitution. [15]
Brutus continued with an implication directed against the Constitution's framers:
Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought. So clear a point is this, that I cannot help suspecting that persons who attempt
to persuade people that such reservations were less necessary under this Constitution than under those of the States, are wilfully endeavoring to deceive, and to lead you into an absolute state of vassalage. [16]
The Federalists
Supporters of the Constitution, known as Federalists, opposed a bill of rights for much of the ratification period, in part due to the procedural uncertainties it would create. [17] Madison argued against such an inclusion,
suggesting that state governments were sufficient guarantors of personal liberty, in No. 46 of The Federalist Papers, a series of essays promoting the Federalist position. [18] Hamilton opposed a Bill of Rights in Federalist No.
84, stating that "the constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS." [19] He stated that ratification did not mean the American people were surrendering their rights, making
protections unnecessary: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations." [19] Critics pointed out that earlier political documents had protected
specific rights, but Hamilton argued that the Constitution was inherently different:
Bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was "Magna Charta," obtained by the
Barons, swords in hand, from King John.[19]
Patrick Henry argued, in contrast, that the legislature must be firmly informed "of the extent of the rights retained by the people ... being in a state of uncertainty, they will assume rather than give up powers by implication." [20]
Massachusetts compromise

George Washington's 1788 letter to the Marquis de Lafayette observed, "the Convention of Massachusetts adopted the Constitution in toto; but recommended a number of specific alterations and quieting
explanations." Source: Library of Congress
In December 1787 and January 1788, five statesDelaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticutratified the Constitution with relative ease, though the bitter minority report of the Pennsylvania opposition
was widely circulated.[21] In contrast to its predecessors, the Massachusetts convention was angry and contentious, at one point erupting into a fistfight between Federalist delegate Francis Dana and Anti-Federalist Elbridge
Gerry when the latter was not allowed to speak.[22] The impasse was resolved only when revolutionary heroes and leading Anti-Federalists Samuel Adams and John Hancock agreed to ratification on the condition that the
convention also propose amendments.[23] The convention's proposed amendments included a requirement for grand jury indictment in capital cases, which would form part of the Fifth Amendment, and an amendment
reserving powers to the states not expressly given to the federal government, which would later form the basis for the Tenth Amendment.[24]
Following Massachusetts' lead, the Federalist minorities in both Virginia and New York were able to obtain ratification in convention by linking ratification to recommended amendments. [25] A committee of the Virginia convention
headed by law professor George Wythe forwarded forty recommended amendments to Congress, twenty of which enumerated individual rights and another twenty of which enumerated states' rights. [26] The latter amendments
included limitations on federal powers to levy taxes and regulate trade. [27]
A minority of the Constitution's critics, such as Maryland's Luther Martin, continued to oppose ratification.[28] However, Martin's allies, such as New York's John Lansing, Jr., dropped moves to obstruct the Convention's process.
They began to take exception to the Constitution "as it was," seeking amendments. Several conventions saw supporters for "amendments before" shift to a position of "amendments after" for the sake of staying in the Union.
The New York Anti-Federalist "circular letter" was sent to each state legislature proposing a second constitutional convention for "amendments before", but it failed in the state legislatures. Ultimately, only North Carolina and
Rhode Island waited for amendments from Congress before ratifying. [25]
Article Seven of the proposed Constitution set the terms by which the new frame of government would be established. The new Constitution would become operational only when ratified by at least nine states (three-quarters
of the thirteen states), and would only be established between the states ratifying it.
The new Constitution would be inoperative unless ratified by at least nine states (three-quarters of the thirteen states). Only then would it replace the existing government under the Articles of Confederation. It would apply only
to those states that ratified it, and it would be valid for all states joining after. Following contentious battles in several states, the proposed Constitution reached that nine state ratification plateau in June 1788. On September
13, 1788, the Articles of Confederation Congress certified that the new Constitution had been ratified by more than enough states for the new system to be implemented and directed the new government to meet in New York
City on the first Wednesday in March the following year.[29] On March 4, 1789, the government began operations with eleven of the thirteen states participating.

Proposal and ratification

Anticipating amendments
The 1st United States Congress, which met in New York City's Federal Hall, was a triumph for the Federalists. The Senate of eleven states contained 20 Federalists with only two Anti-Federalists, both from Virginia. The House
included 48 Federalists to 11 Anti-Federalists, the latter of whom were from only four states: Massachusetts, New York, Virginia and South Carolina. [30]

James Madison, "Father of the Constitution" and first author of the Bill of Rights
Among the Virginia delegation to the House was James Madison, Patrick Henry's chief opponent in the Virginia ratification battle. In retaliation for Madison's victory at that convention, Henry and other Anti-Federalists, who
controlled the Virginia House of Delegates had gerrymandered a hostile district for Madison's planned congressional run and recruited Madison's future presidential successor, James Monroe, to oppose him.[31] Madison
defeated Monroe after offering a campaign pledge that he would introduce constitutional amendments comprising a Bill of Rights at the First Congress. [32]
Though Madison had originally opposed a Bill of Rights, he had gradually come to support one in the course of ratification debates. By taking the initiative to propose amendments himself through the Congress, he hoped to
preempt a second Constitutional Convention that might have undone the difficult compromises of 1787: a second convention would open the entire Constitution to reconsideration and risk dissolving the federal Government.
Writing to Jefferson, he stated, "The friends of the Constitution, some from an approbation of particular amendments, others from a spirit of conciliation, are generally agreed that the System should be revised. But they wish
the revisal to be carried no farther than to supply additional guards for liberty." [33] He also felt that amendments guaranteeing personal liberties would "give to the Government its due popularity and stability". [34] Finally, he hoped
that the amendments "would acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free government, and as they become incorporated with the national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion".
[35]
Historians continue to debate the degree to which Madison considered the amendments of the Bill of Rights necessary, and to what degree he considered them politically expedient; in the outline of his address, he wrote,
"Bill of Rightsusefulnot essential".[36]
On the occasion of his April 30, 1789 inauguration as the nation's first President, George Washington addressed the subject of amending the Constitution. He urged the legislators,
whilst you carefully avoid every alteration which might endanger the benefits of an united and effective government, or which ought to await the future lessons of experience; a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen,
and a regard for public harmony, will sufficiently influence your deliberations on the question, how far the former can be impregnably fortified or the latter be safely and advantageously promoted. [37][38]
Crafting amendments
James Madison introduced a series of Constitutional amendments in the House of Representatives for consideration. Among his proposals was one that would have added introductory language stressing natural rights to the
preamble.[39] Another would apply parts of the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal government. Several sought to protect individual personal rights by limiting various Constitutional the powers of Congress. Like
Washington, Madison urged Congress to keep the revision to the Constitution "a moderate one", limited to protecting individual rights. [39]
Madison was deeply read in the history of government and used a range of sources in composing the amendments. The English Magna Carta of 1215 inspired the right to petition and to trial by jury, for example, while the
English Bill of Rights of 1689 provided an early precedent for the right to keep and bear arms and prohibited cruel and unusual punishment.[27] The greatest influence on Madison's text, however, was existing state
constitutions.[40][41] Many of his amendments, including his proposed new preamble, were based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights drafted by Anti-Federalist George Mason in 1776.[42] To reduce future opposition to
ratification, Madison also looked for recommendations shared by many states. [41]
James Madison's proposed amendments to the Constitution:[43]
First. That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration that all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people.
That government is instituted, and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining
happiness and safety.
That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.

Secondly. That in article 1st, section 2, clause 3, these words be struck out, to wit: "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative, and
until such enumeration shall be made;" and in place thereof be inserted these words, to wit: "After the first actual enumeration, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number amounts to, after
which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that the number shall never be less than, nor more than, but each State shall, after the first enumeration, have at least two Representatives; and prior thereto."

Thirdly. That in article 2nd, section 6, clause 1, there be added to the end of the first sentence, these words, to wit, "But no law varying the compensation last ascertained shall operate before the next ensuing election of
representatives."

Fourthly. That in article 2nd, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit, The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be
established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.
The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good, nor from applying to the legislature by petitions, or remonstrances for redress of their grievances.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to
render military service in person.
No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.
No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment, or one trial for the same office; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated
by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

Fifthly. That in article 2nd, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit: No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases

Sixthly. That article 3rd, section 2, be annexed to the end of clause 2nd, these words to wit: but no appeal to such court shall be allowed where the value in controversy shall not amount to dollars: nor shall any fact triable
by jury, according to the course of common law, be otherwise reexaminable than may consist with the principles of common law.

Seventhly. That in article 3rd, section 2, the third clause be struck out, and in its place be inserted the classes following, to wit:
The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachments, and cases arising in the land or naval forces, or the militia when on actual service in time of war or public danger) shall be by an impartial jury of freeholders of the
vicinage, with the requisite of unanimity for conviction, of the right of challenge, and other accustomed requisites; and in all crimes punishable with loss of life or member, presentment or indictment by a grand jury shall be an
essential preliminary, provided that in cases of crimes committed within any county which may be in possession of an enemy, or in which a general insurrection may prevail, the trial may by law be authorized in some other
county of the same State, as near as may be to the seat of the offence.
In cases of crimes committed not within any county, the trial may by law be in such county as the laws shall have prescribed. In suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the
rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate.

Eighthly. That immediately after article 6th, be inserted, as article 7th, the clauses following, to wit:
The powers delegated by this constitution, are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the legislative department shall never exercise the powers vested in the executive or judicial;
nor the executive exercise the powers vested in the legislative or judicial; nor the judicial exercise the powers vested in the legislative or executive departments.
The powers not delegated by this constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively.

Ninthly. That article 7th, be numbered as article 8th.

Federalist representatives were quick to attack Madison's proposal, fearing that any move to amend the new Constitution so soon after its implementation would create an appearance of instability in the government. [44] The
House, unlike the Senate, was open to the public, and members such as Fisher Ames warned that a prolonged "dissection of the constitution" before the galleries could shake public confidence. [45] A procedural battle followed,
and after initially forwarding the amendments to a select committee for revision, the House agreed to take Madison's proposal up as a full body beginning on July 21, 1789. [46][47]
The eleven-member committee made some significant changes to Madison's proposed amendments, including eliminating most of his preamble, adding the phrase "freedom of speech, and of the press", and adding what
would become the Tenth Amendment, reserving powers to the states.[48] The House debated the amendments for eleven days. Roger Sherman of Connecticut persuaded the House to place the amendments at the
Constitution's end so that the document would "remain inviolate", rather than adding them throughout, as Madison had proposed. [49] The amendments, revised and condensed from twenty to seventeen, were approved and
forwarded to the Senate on August 24, 1789.[50]
The Senate edited these amendments still further, making 26 changes of its own. Madison's proposal to apply parts of the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal government was eliminated, and the seventeen
amendments were condensed to twelve, which were approved on September 9, 1789. [51] The Senate also eliminated the last of Madison's proposed changes to the preamble. [52]
On September 21, 1789, a HouseSenate Conference Committee convened to resolve the numerous differences between the two Bill of Rights proposals. On September 24, 1789, the committee issued this report, which
finalized 12 Constitutional Amendments for House and Senate to consider. This final version was approved by joint resolution of Congress on September 25, 1789, to be forwarded to the states on September 28. [53][54]
By the time the debates and legislative maneuvering that went into crafting the Bill of Rights amendments was done, many personal opinions opinions had shifted. A number of Federalists came out in support, thus silencing
the Anti-Federalists' most effective critique. Many Anti-Federalists, in contrast, were now opposed, realizing that Congressional approval of these amendments would greatly lessen the chances of a second constitutional
convention.[55] Anti-Federalists such as Richard Henry Lee also argued that the Bill left the most objectionable portions of the Constitution, such as the federal judiciary and direct taxation, intact. [56]
Madison remained active in the progress of the amendments throughout the legislative process. Historian Gordon S. Wood writes that "there is no question that it was Madison's personal prestige and his dogged persistence
that saw the amendments through the Congress. There might have been a federal Constitution without Madison but certainly no Bill of Rights." [57]
Ratification process
Main article: Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution
On November 20, 1789, New Jersey ratified eleven of the twelve amendments, rejecting Article II, which regulated Congressional pay raises. On December 19 and 22, respectively, Maryland and North Carolina ratified all
twelve amendments.[58] On January 19, 25, and 28, 1790, respectively, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Delaware ratified the Bill, though New Hampshire rejected the amendment on Congressional pay raises, and
Delaware rejected Article I, which regulated the size of the House.[58] This brought the total of ratifying states to six of the required ten, but the process stalled in other states: Connecticut and Georgia found a Bill of Rights
unnecessary and so refused to ratify, while Massachusetts ratified most of the amendments, but failed to send official notice to the Secretary of State that it had done so. [56][b]
In February through June of 1790, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island ratified eleven of the amendments, though all three rejected the amendment on Congressional pay raises. Virginia initially postponed its debate,
but after Vermont was admitted to the Union in 1791, the total number of states needed for ratification rose to eleven. Vermont ratified on November 3, 1791, approving all twelve amendments, and Virginia finally followed on
December 15, 1791.[56] Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the ten successfully ratified amendments on March 1, 1792. [59]
Unratified amendments proposed with the Bill of Rights
Article I
Main article: Article the First
After the enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated
by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the
proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons. [60]
Article I was ratified by ten of fourteen states, but was rejected by Delaware, which favored a small House because of the state's small population. [61] Despite later ratification by Kentucky (bringing the total to eleven of fifteen),
the article has never since received the approval of enough states for it to become part of the Constitution. [57]
Article II
Main article: Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. [60]
Article II was initially ratified by six of fourteen states, but after 1791 did not receive another state ratification for almost a century. In 1873, Ohio's state legislature ratified it in protest of a Congressional pay raise, followed
another century later by Wyoming, which ratified in 1978. Gregory Watson, a Texas undergraduate, launched a campaign in 1982 to complete the ratification process, and by 1992, thirty-eight of the fifty states had ratified.
Because of the unusual two-century delay in the process, the amendment's adoption was certified by Archivist of the United States Don W. Wilson and approved by a vote of Congress on May 20, 1992. The article then
became the Twenty-seventh Amendment.[62]

Application
The Bill of Rights had little judicial impact for the first 150 years of its existence; in the words of Gordon S. Wood, "After ratification, most Americans promptly forgot about the first ten amendments to the Constitution." [63] The
Court made no important decisions protecting free speech rights, for example, until 1931. [64] Historian Richard Labunski attributes the Bill's long legal dormancy to three factors: first, it took time for a "culture of tolerance" to
develop that would support the Bill's provisions with judicial and popular will; second, the Supreme Court spent much of the 19th century focused on issues relating to intergovernmental balances of power; and third, the Bill
initially only applied to the federal government, a restriction affirmed by Barron v. Baltimore (1833).[65][66][67] In the twentieth century, however, most of the Bill's provisions were applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment
a process known as incorporationbeginning with the freedom of speech clause, in Gitlow v. New York (1925).[68] In Talton v. Mayes (1896), the Court ruled that Constitutional protections, including the provisions of the Bill
of Rights, do not apply to the actions of American Indian tribal governments. [69]
First Amendment
Main article: First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.[70]
The First Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with
the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. Initially, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by Congress, and many of its provisions were interpreted more
narrowly than they are today.[71]
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court drew on Thomas Jefferson's correspondence to call for "a wall of separation between church and State", though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute.
[71]
Speech rights were expanded significantly in a series of 20th- and 21st-century court decisions that protected various forms of political speech, anonymous speech, campaign financing, pornography, and school speech;
these rulings also defined a series of exceptions to First Amendment protections. The Supreme Court overturned English common law precedent to increase the burden of proof for defamation and libel suits, most notably
in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964).[72] Commercial speech is less protected by the First Amendment than political speech, and is therefore subject to greater regulation. [71]
The Free Press Clause protects publication of information and opinions, and applies to a wide variety of media. In Near v. Minnesota (1931)[73] and New York Times v. United States (1971),[74] the Supreme Court ruled that the
First Amendment protected against prior restraintpre-publication censorshipin almost all cases. The Petition Clause protects the right to petition all branches and agencies of government for action. In addition to the right of
assembly guaranteed by this clause, the Court has also ruled that the amendment implicitly protects freedom of association.[71]
Second Amendment
Main article: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [70]
The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. The concept of a right to keep and bear arms existed within English common law long before the enactment of the Bill of Rights.[75] Eighteenth century English
jurist and judge Sir William Blackstonedescribed this right as
a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression. [76]
First codified in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, this right was enshrined in fundamental laws of several states during the Revolutionary era, including the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Pennsylvania Constitution
of 1776.
Long a controversial issue in American political, legal and social discourse, the Second Amendment has been at the heart of several Supreme Court decisions.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second
Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government." [77]

In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". [78]

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to
use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and
for whatever purpose".[79]

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010),[80] the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government. [81]
Third Amendment
Main article: Third Amendment to the United States Constitution
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. [70]
The Third Amendment restricts the quartering of soldiers in private homes, in response to Quartering Acts passed by the British parliament during the Revolutionary War. The amendment is one of the least controversial of the
Constitution, and, as of 2012, has never been the primary basis of a Supreme Court decision. [82][83][84]
Fourth Amendment
Main article: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [70]
The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of
the writ of assistance, which is a type of generalsearch warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and seizure (including arrest) must be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually
by a law enforcement officer who has sworn by it. The amendment is the basis for theexclusionary rule, which mandates that evidence obtained illegally cannot be introduced into a criminal trial. [85] The amendment's
interpretation has varied over time; its protections expanded under left-leaning courts such as that headed by Earl Warren and contracted under right-leaning courts such as that of William Rehnquist.[86]
Fifth Amendment
Main article: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in
time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [70]
The Fifth Amendment protects against double jeopardy and self-incrimination and guarantees the rights to due process, grand jury screening of criminal indictments, and compensation for the seizure of private property
under eminent domain. The amendment was the basis for the court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which established that defendants must be informed of their rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination prior
to interrogation by police.[87]
Sixth Amendment
Main article: Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance
of Counsel for his defence.[70]
The Sixth Amendment establishes a number of rights of the defendant in a criminal trial:

The right to a speedy and public trial

The right to trial by an impartial jury

The right to be informed of criminal charges

 The right to confront witnesses

The right to compel witnesses to appear in court

The right to assistance of counsel[88]

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Court ruled that the amendment guaranteed the right to legal representation in all felony prosecutions in both state and federal courts. [88]
Seventh Amendment
Main article: Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than
according to the rules of the common law.[70]
The Seventh Amendment guarantees jury trials in federal civil cases that deal with claims of more than twenty dollars. It also prohibits judges from overruling findings of fact by juries in federal civil trials. In Colgrove v.
Battin (1973), the Court ruled that the amendment's requirements could be fulfilled by a jury with a minimum of six members. The Seventh is one of the few parts of the Bill of Rights not to be incorporated (applied to the
states).[89]
Eighth Amendment
Main article: Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. [70]
The Eighth Amendment forbids the imposition of excessive bails or fines, though it leaves the term "excessive" open to interpretation. [90]
The most frequently litigated clause of the amendment is the last, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment.[91][92] This clause was only occasionally applied by the Supreme Court prior to the 1970s, generally in cases
dealing with means of execution. In Furman v. Georgia (1972), some members of the Court found capital punishment itself in violation of the amendment, arguing that the clause could reflect "evolving standards of decency"
as public opinion changed; others found certain practices in capital trials to be unacceptably arbitrary, resulting in a majority decision that effectively halted executions in the United States for several years. [93] Executions
resumed following Gregg v. Georgia (1976), which found capital punishment to be constitutional if the jury was directed by concrete sentencing guidelines. [93] The Court has also found that some poor prison conditions
constitute cruel and unusual punishment, as in Estelle v. Gamble (1976).[91]
Ninth Amendment
Main article: Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. [70]
The Ninth Amendment protects rights not specifically enumerated by the Constitution. It was rarely cited before the second half of the 20th century, when it was used as a partial foundation for the right to privacy in several
landmark cases: Griswold v. Connecticut(1965), which struck down a law banning contraceptives, and Roe v. Wade (1973), which established a woman's right to an abortion. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court
used the amendment to strike down part of another abortion law, a case theEncyclopedia of the American Constitution describes as "the high-water mark, to date, of judicial willingness to use the Ninth Amendment"; between
1992 and 2000, the Court did not refer to the amendment a single time.[94]
Tenth Amendment
Main article: Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [70]
The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or the people.
The amendment provides no new powers or rights to the states, but rather preserves their authority in all matters not specifically granted to the federal government. [95]

Display and honoring of the Bill of Rights

George Washington had fourteen handwritten copies of the Bill of Rights made, one for Congress and one for each of the original thirteen states. [96] The copies for Georgia, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania went
missing. The New York copy is thought to have been destroyed in a fire, [97] whereas the Pennsylvania copy was taken by a soldier sometime in April 1865. [98] Two unidentified copies of the missing four (thought to be the
Georgia and Maryland copies) survive; one is in the National Archives,[99][100] and the other is in the New York Public Library.[101] North Carolina's copy was stolen by a Union soldier in April 1865 and returned to North Carolina in
2005 by FBI Special Agent Robert King Wittman.[101][102]
The National Archives and Records Administration copy of the Bill of Rights is on display in the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom. The Rotunda itself was constructed in the 1950s and dedicated in 1952 by President Harry
S. Truman, who said, "Only as these documents are reflected in the thoughts and acts of Americans, can they remain symbols of power that can move the world. That power is our faith in human liberty". [103]
After fifty years, signs of deterioration in the casing were noted, while the documents themselves appeared to be well preserved. [104] Accordingly, the casing was updated and the Rotunda rededicated on September 17, 2003.
In his dedicatory remarks, PresidentGeorge W. Bush stated, "The true [American] revolution was not to defy one earthly power, but to declare principles that stand above every earthly powerthe equality of each person
before God, and the responsibility of government to secure the rights of all." [105] In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared December 15 to be Bill of Rights Day, commemorating the 150th anniversary of the ratification
of the Bill of Rights.[106] In 1991, the Virginia copy of the Bill of Rights toured the country in honor of its bicentennial, visiting the capitals of all fifty states. [107]

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1793.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 is a fundamental document of the French Revolution and in the history of human rights
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (French: Dclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen), passed by France's National Constituent Assembly in August 1789, is a fundamental document of
theFrench Revolution and in the history of human rights.[1] It defines the individual and collective rights of all the estates of the realm as universal. The Declaration was directly influenced by Thomas Jefferson working
with General LaFayette, who introduced it.[2] Influenced also by the doctrine of "natural right", the rights of man are held to be universal: valid at all times and in every place, pertaining to human nature itself. It became the
basis for a nation of free individuals protected equally by law. It is included in the preamble of the constitutions of both the Fourth French Republic (1946) and Fifth Republic (1958) and is still current. Inspired in part by the
American Revolution, theDeclaration was a core statement of the values of the French revolution and had a major impact on the development of liberty and democracy in Europe and worldwide. [3]

Contents
[hide]

1 History

2 Philosophical and theoretical context

3 Substance

o 3.1 Active and passive citizenship

o 3.2 Women's rights

o 3.3 Slavery

4 Legacy

o 4.1 Constitution of the French Fifth Republic

o 4.2 Conspiracy theories

5 See also
 o 5.1 Other early declarations of rights

6 References

o 6.1 Other languages

7 External links

8 Notes

9 Further reading

10 External links

History[edit]
The inspiration and content of the document emerged largely from the ideals of the American Revolution.[4] The key drafts were prepared by Lafayette, working at times with his close friend Thomas Jefferson,[5][6] who drew
heavily upon The Virginia Declaration of Rights, drafted in May 1776 by George Mason (which was based in part on the English Bill of Rights 1689), as well as Jefferson's own drafts for the American Declaration of
Independence. In August 1789, Honor Mirabeau played a central role in conceptualizing and drafting "The Declaration of the Rights of Man."[7]
The last article of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen was adopted on 26 August 1789, by the National Constituent Assembly during the period of the French Revolution, as the first step toward writing a
constitution for France. Inspired by theEnlightenment, the original version of the Declaration was discussed by the representatives on the basis of a 24 article draft proposed by the sixth bureau, [8][9] led by Jrme Champion de
Cic. The draft was later modified during the debates. A second and lengthier declaration, known as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1793 was written in 1793 but never formally adopted.[10]

Philosophical and theoretical context[edit]

The concepts in the Declaration come from the philosophical and political duties of the Enlightenment, such as individualism, the social contract as theorized by the French philosopher Rousseau, and the separation of
powers espoused by the Baron de Montesquieu. As can be seen in the texts, the French declaration is heavily influenced by the political philosophy of the Enlightenment, by Enlightenment principles of human rights, and with
the U.S. Declaration of Independence which preceded it (4 July 1776). Thomas Jefferson, primary author of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, was at the time in France as a U.S. diplomat, and worked closely with
Lafayette in designing a bill of rights for France. In the ratification by the states of the U.S. Constitution in 1788 critics had demanded a written Bill of Rights. In response James Madison's proposal for a U.S. Bill of Rights was
introduced on June 8, 1789 in New York, 11 weeks before the French declaration. Considering the 6 to 8 weeks it took news to cross the Atlantic, it is possible that the French knew of the American text. But as Lafebvre notes,
both texts emerged from the same shared intellectual heritage. [11] The same people took part in shaping both documents, Lafayette admired Jefferson and Jefferson found him useful writing in 1787 that Lafayette as "a most
valuable auxiliary to me. His zeal is unbounded, & his weight with those in power, great." [12] Historian Iain McLean concludes that Jefferson worked hard to influence the French "Declaration" and that Lafayette was "the ideal
tool for Jeffersons interests as they broadened from American trade to French politics." [13][14]
The declaration is in the spirit of "secular natural law", which does not base itself on religious doctrine or authority, in contrast with traditional natural law theory, which does.[15]
The declaration defines a single set of individual and collective rights for all men. Influenced by the doctrine of natural rights, these rights are held to be universal and valid in all times and places. For example, "Men are born
and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good." [16] They have certain natural rights to property, to liberty and to life. According to this theory the role of government is to
recognize and secure these rights. Furthermore government should be carried on by elected representatives. [15]
At the time of writing, the rights contained in the declaration were only awarded to men. Furthermore, the declaration was a statement of vision rather than reality. The declaration was not deeply rooted in either the practice of
the West or even France at the time. The declaration emerged in the late 18th Century out of war and revolution. It encountered opposition as democracy and individual rights were frequently regarded as synonymous
with anarchy and subversion. The declaration embodies ideals and aspirations towards which France pledged to struggle in the future. [17]

Substance[edit]
The Declaration is introduced by a preamble describing the fundamental characteristics of the rights which are qualified as being "natural, unalienable and sacred" and consisting of "simple and incontestable principles" on
which citizens could base their demands. In the second article, "the natural and imprescriptible rights of man" are defined as "liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression". It called for the destruction of aristocratic
privileges by proclaiming an end to feudalism and to exemptions from taxation, freedom and equal rights for all human beings (referred to as "Men"), and access to public office based on talent. The monarchy was restricted,
and all citizens were to have the right to take part in the legislative process. Freedom of speech and press were declared, and arbitrary arrests outlawed. [18]
The Declaration also asserted the principles of popular sovereignty, in contrast to the divine right of kings that characterized the French monarchy, and social equality among citizens, "All the citizens, being equal in the eyes of
the law, are equally admissible to all public dignities, places, and employments, according to their capacity and without distinction other than that of their virtues and of their talents," eliminating the special rights of the nobility
and clergy.
Articles:

1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.

2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.

3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.

4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the
enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.

6. Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being
equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.

7. No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be
punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense.

8. The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the
commission of the offense.

9. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by
law.

10.No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.

11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this
freedom as shall be defined by law.

12.The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be entrusted.

13.A general tax is indispensable for the maintenance of the public force and for the expenses of administration; it ought to be equally apportioned among all citizens according to their means. [19]

14.All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of
assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes.

15.Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of his administration.

16.A society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all.

17.Property being an inviolable and sacred right, no one can be deprived of it, unless demanded by public necessity, legally constituted, explicitly demands it, and under the condition of a just and prior indemnity.
Active and passive citizenship[edit]
While the French Revolution provided rights to a larger portion of the population, there remained a distinction between those who obtained the political rights in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen and those who
did not. Those who were deemed to hold these political rights were called active citizens. Active citizenship was granted to men who were French, at least 25 years old, paid taxes equal to three days work, and could not be
defined as servants (Thouret).[20] This meant that at the time of the Declaration only male property owners held these rights. [21] The deputies in the National Assembly believed that only those who held tangible interests in the
nation could make informed political decisions.[22] This distinction directly affects articles 6, 12, 14, and 15 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen as each of these rights is related to the right to vote and to
participate actively in the government. With the decree of 29 October 1789, the term active citizen became embedded in French politics. [23]
The concept of passive citizens was created to encompass those populations that had been excluded from political rights in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. Because of the requirements set down for active
citizens, the vote was granted to approximately 4.3 million Frenchmen.[23] out of a population of around 29 million.[24] These omitted groups included women, slaves, children, and foreigners. As these measures were voted
upon by the General Assembly, they limited the rights of certain groups of citizens while implementing the democratic process of the new French Republic (17921804).[22] This legislation, passed in 1789, was amended by the
creators of the Constitution of 1795 in order to eliminate the label of active citizen.[25] The power to vote was then, however, to be granted solely to substantial property owners. [25]
Tensions arose between active and passive citizens throughout the Revolution. This happened when passive citizens started to call for more rights, or when they openly refused to listen to the ideals set forth by active citizens.
This cartoon clearly demonstrates the difference that existed between the active and passive citizens along with the tensions associated with such differences. [26] In the cartoon, a passive citizen is holding a spade and a
wealthy landowning active citizen is ordering the passive citizens to go to work. The act appears condescending to the passive citizen and it revisits the reasons why the French Revolution began in the first place.
Women, in particular, were strong passive citizens who played a significant role in the Revolution. Olympe de Gouges penned her Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen in 1791 and drew attention to the
need for gender equality.[27] By supporting the ideals of the French Revolution and wishing to expand them to women, she represented herself as a revolutionary citizen. Madame Roland also established herself as an
influential figure throughout the Revolution. She saw women of the French Revolution as holding three roles; inciting revolutionary action, formulating policy, and informing others of revolutionary events. [28] By working with
men, as opposed to working separate from men, she may have been able to further the fight of revolutionary women. As players in the French Revolution, women occupied a significant role in the civic sphere by forming social
movements and participating in popular clubs, allowing them societal influence, despite their lack of direct political influence. [29]
Women's rights[edit]
The Declaration recognized many rights as belonging to citizens (who could only be male). This was despite the fact that after The March on Versailles on 5 October 1789, women presented the Women's Petition to the
National Assembly in which they proposed a decree giving women equality.[citation needed] In 1790 Nicolas de Condorcet and Etta Palm d'Aelders unsuccessfully called on the National Assembly to extend civil and political rights to
women.[30] Condorcet declared that and he who votes against the right of another, whatever the religion, color, or sex of that other, has henceforth abjured his own. [31] The French Revolution did not lead to a recognition
of womens rights and this prompted Olympe de Gouges to publish the Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen in September 1791.[32]
The Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen is modelled on the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and is ironic in formulation and exposes the failure of the French Revolution, which had
been devoted to equality. It states that:
This revolution will only take effect when all women become fully aware of their deplorable condition, and of the rights they have lost in society.
The Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen follows the seventeen articles of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen point for point and has been described by Camille Naish as almost a
parody... of the original document. The first article of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen proclaims that:
Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be based only on common utility.
The first article of Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen replied:
Woman is born free and remains equal to man in rights. Social distinctions may only be based on common utility.
De Gouges also draws attention to the fact that under French law women were fully punishable, yet denied equal rights, declaring Women have the right to mount the scaffold, they must also have the right to mount the
speakers rostrum.[33]
Slavery[edit]
The declaration did not revoke the institution of slavery, as lobbied for by Jacques-Pierre Brissot's Les Amis des Noirs and defended by the group of colonial planters called the Club Massiac because they met at the Htel
Massiac.[34] Despite the lack of explicit mention of slavery in the Declaration, slave uprisings in Saint-Domingue in the Haitian Revolution took inspiration from its words, as discussed in C. L. R. James' history of the Haitian
Revolution, The Black Jacobins.[citation needed]
Deplorable conditions for the thousands of slaves in Saint-Domingue, the most profitable slave colony in the world, led to the uprisings which would be known as the first successful slave revolt in the New World. Slavery in the
French colonies was abolished by the Convention dominated by the Jacobins in 1794. However, Napoleon reinstated it in 1802. The colony of Saint-Domingue became an independent state in 1804.

Legacy[edit]
The declaration has also influenced and inspired rights-based liberal democracy throughout the world. It was translated as soon as 17931794 by Colombian Antonio Nario, who published it despite the Inquisition and was
sentenced to be imprisoned for ten years for doing so. In 2003, the document was listed on UNESCO's Memory of the World register.
Constitution of the French Fifth Republic[edit]
Main article: Constitution of the French Fifth Republic
According to the preamble of the Constitution of the French Fifth Republic (adopted on 4 October 1958, and the current constitution), the principles set forth in the Declaration have constitutional value. Many laws and
regulations have been canceled because they did not comply with those principles as interpreted by the Conseil Constitutionnel ("Constitutional Council of France") or by the Conseil d'tat ("Council of State").

Taxation legislation or practices that seem to make some unwarranted difference between citizens are struck down as unconstitutional.

Suggestions of positive discrimination on ethnic grounds are rejected because they infringe on the principle of equality, since they would establish categories of people that would, by birth, enjoy greater rights.
Conspiracy theories[edit]
The Eye of Providence represents the sun 'shining' on the laws and fueled several conspiracy theories, for instance that the French Revolution was caused by occult groups.[35][36][better source needed]

See also[edit]
Human rights in France

Moral universalism

Natural law

Natural rights

Universality
Other early declarations of rights[edit]

Magna Carta (England, 1215)

Henrician Articles and Pacta Conventa (Poland, 1573)

Bill of Rights (England, 1689)

Claim of Right (Scotland, 1689)

Virginia Declaration of Rights (United States, 1776)

Bill of Rights (United States, 1789)

Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of Franchimont (Belgium, 1789)

References[edit]
Jack Censer and Lynn Hunt, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution, University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001.

Susan Dalton, Gender and the Shifting Ground of Revolutionary Politics: The Case of Madame Roland, Canadian Journal of History, 36, no. 2 (2001): 25983.

William Doyle, The Oxford History of the French Revolution, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Darline Levy and Harriet Applewhite, A Political Revolution for Women? The Case of Paris, In The French Revolution: conflicting interpretations. 5th ed. Malabar, Fla.: Krieger Pub. Co., 2002. 31746.

Jeremy Popkin, A History of Modern France, Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc., 2006.

"Active Citizen/Passive Citizen", Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution (accessed October 30, 2011).
Other languages[edit]

Giorgio Del Vecchio, La dclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen dans la Rvolution franaise: contributions lhistoire de la civilisation europenne, Librairie gnrale de droit et de jurisprudence, Paris,1968.

Stphane Rials, ed, La dclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen, Hachette, Paris, 1988, ISBN 2-01-014671-9.

Claude-Albert Colliard, La dclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789, La Documentation franaise, Paris, 1990, ISBN 2-11-002329-5.

Grard Conac, Marc Debene, Grard Teboul, eds, La Dclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789; histoire, analyse et commentaires, Economica, Paris, 1993, ISBN 978-2-7178-2483-4.

Realino Marra, La giustizia penale nei princpi del 1789, Materiali per una storia della cultura giuridica, XXXI2, 2001, 35364.

External links[edit]
JacquesGuillaume Thouret, "Report on the Basis of Political Eligibility" (29 September 1789)", Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution, accessed October 26, 2011 .

Olympe de Gouges, Declaration of the Rights of Woman, 1791, College of Staten Island Library (accessed October 30, 2011). <link is broken>

Social Causes of the Revolution Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution, accessed October 26, 2011
Notes[edit]
1. Jump up^ The French title is sometimes translated as "Declaration of Human and Civic Rights."

2. Jump up^ Gregory Fremont-Barnes (2007). Encyclopedia of the Age of Political Revolutions and New Ideologies, 1760-1815. Greenwood. p. 190.

3. Jump up^ Kopstein Kopstein (2000). Comparative Politics: Interests, Identities, and Institutions in a Changing Global Order. Cambridge UP. p. 72.

4. Jump up^ Georges Lefebvre (2005). The Coming of the French Revolution. Princeton UP. p. 212.

5. Jump up^ George Athan Billias, ed. (2009). American Constitutionalism Heard Round the World, 1776-1989: A Global Perspective. NYU Press. p. 92.

6. Jump up^ Susan Dunn, Sister Revolutions: French Lightning, American Light (1999) pp 143-45

7. Jump up^ Keith Baker, "The Idea of a Declaration of Rights" in Dale Van Kley, ed. The French Idea of Freedom: The Old Regime and the Declaration of Rights of 1789 (1997) pp 154-96.

8. Jump up^ The original draft is an annex to the report of the August 12th report (Archives parlementaires, 1, e srie, tome VIII, dbats du 12 aot 1789, p. 431).

9. Jump up^ Archives parlementaires, 1e srie, tome VIII, dbats du 19 aot 1789, p. 459.

10. Jump up^ Gregory Fremont-Barnes, ed. (2007). Encyclopedia of the Age of Political Revolutions and New Ideologies, 1760-1815. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 159 vol 1.

11. Jump up^ Lefebvre. The Coming of the French Revolution. pp. 21213.

12. Jump up^ Francis D. Cogliano, ed. (2011). A Companion to Thomas Jefferson. John Wiley & Sons. p. 127.

13. Jump up^ Cogliano, ed. A Companion to Thomas Jefferson. p. 127.

14. Jump up^ Iain McLean, "Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and the Dclaration des Droits de lHomme et du Citoyen" in The future of liberal democracy: Thomas Jefferson and the
contemporary world (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004) online

15. ^ Jump up to:a b Merryman, John Henry; Rogelip Perez-Perdomo (2007). The civil law tradition: an introduction to the legal system of Europe and Latin America. Stanford University Press.
p. 16. ISBN 9780804755696.

16. Jump up^ First Article, Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

17. Jump up^ Lauren, Paul Gordon (2003). The evolution of international human rights: visions seen. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 32.ISBN 9780812218541.

18. Jump up^ Spielvogel, Jackson J. (2008). Western Civilization: 1300 to 1815. Wadsworth Publishing. p. 580. ISBN 978-0-495-50289-0.

19. Jump up^ "Declaration". Retrieved August 10, 2012.

20. Jump up^ Thouret 1789, http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/282/

21. Jump up^ Censer and Hunt 2001, p. 55.

22. ^ Jump up to:a b Popkin 2006, p. 46.

23. ^ Jump up to:a b Doyle 1989, p. 124.

24. Jump up^ Social Causes of the Revolution

25. ^ Jump up to:a b Doyle 1989, p. 420.

26. Jump up^ Active/Passive Citizen, http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/75/.

27. Jump up^ De Gouges, "Declaration of the Rights of Women", 1791.

28. Jump up^ Dalton 2001, p. 1.

29. Jump up^ Levy and Applewhite 2002, pp. 31920, 324.

30. Jump up^ Williams, Helen Maria; Neil Fraistat; Susan Sniader Lanser; David Brookshire (2001). Letters written in France. Broadview Press Ltd. p. 246. ISBN 978-1-55111-255-8.

31. Jump up^ Lauren, Paul Gordon (2003). The evolution of international human rights. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 1820. ISBN 978-0-8122-1854-1.

32. Jump up^ Naish, Camille (1991). Death comes to the maiden: Sex and Execution, 14311933. Routledge. p. 136. ISBN 978-0-415-05585-7.

33. Jump up^ Naish, Camille (1991). Death comes to the maiden: Sex and Execution, 14311933. Routledge. p. 137. ISBN 978-0-415-05585-7.

34. Jump up^ The club of reactionary colonial proprietors meeting since July 1789 were opposed to representation in the Assemble of France's overseas dominions, for fear "that this would
expose delicate colonial issues to the hazards of debate in the Assembly," as Robin Blackburn expressed it (Blackburn, The Overthrow of Colonial Slavery, 17761848 [1988:174f]); see also the
speech of Jean-Baptiste Belley

35. Jump up^ Mounier, Jean Joseph, On the Influence Attributed to Philosophers, Free-Masons, and to the Illuminati on the Revolution of France, facsimile reproduction with an introduction by
Theodore A. DiPadove. Delmar, New York, Scholars' Facsimiles & Reprints, 1974, p. 69.

36. Jump up^ Knight, Peter (2003). Conspiracy theories in American history : an encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. pp. 226227, 336337. ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9.