The Magna Carta has neither legal nor symbolic significance in Australia
The Magna Carta developed through a tumultuous period of English History. Through the verge of a revolution, attack and civil war, all within 1215, a time where the Kings abused his power by excessive royal efforts which were funded by undue taxes that supported such endeavors. In determining whether the Magna Carta has legal nor symbolic significances, it is important to consider not only the history of the Magna Carta but the significance of the article, a review of its current legal meaning, its dominance towards the symbol of power in particularly the perspectives of the individual against the state which allowed for alternative perspectives on the article and one…show more content… First of all, it was achieved by force. A promise brought about by coercion is rarely considered valid, least of all by the person who was forced to make that promise. King John wanted to keep his crown and was willing to sign any piece of paper in order to do that: he had no intention of keeping the promise his signature gave. In fact, through the pope, John rejected it almost immediately. All this is not to say that rejection and ignorance of this charter makes it completely insignificant, after all, it has remained in politics for hundreds of years. Instead, it is to show that at the time the document was written, the Magna Carta was not legally binding.
In determining whether there is any legal or symbolic significance in Australia, it is important to understand the original purpose of the Magna Carta. In Magna Carta King John agreed to a series of regulations of his rights under feudal custom, largely as they affected large landholders of Britain. In 1215 Magna Carta did not offer the protection of law to all the king’s subjects, but within a few years it was being quoted in individual actions in courts and in petitions, as a defence of the rights of all against…show more content… Clause 61 was not mentioned in 1297 and Clause 14 barely suggested at the emergence of parliament. Furthermore, it is clear that there is little any legal significance or symbolism. Furthermore, the last myth relates to the symbol of the Magna Carta as empowering the people over the state. To a certain extent, it is factual on the basis of the 1215 emphasis of the charter. Clause 61 of the Magna Carta affirmed that the King was to pledge an oath of fealty to its people who had enforceable veto power over him which was ultimately retracted. However, the initiative of a legal revolt remained but in a speech to the Senate by Harry Evans, it was mentioned that the legal significance of the charter was unrelated and unimportant as compared to the symbolism. He recognized the myths and issues of the Magna Cart “reflected in the relative successes of the English