# data[].attributes.body
A system in which the power of the government is limited, not absolute. I chose this picture because it shows how King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta which enforced limited government. Parliament wrote this to make King John limited on powers that caused chaos in England.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The document that shaped the English-speaking world.

It's remarkable that the English-speaking world remembers Magna Carta. The product of a struggle between King John and his barons, it was sealed on the bank of the Thames 800 years ago, on June 15, 1215. But in a sense, the most valuable thing about Magna Carta is precisely that it is remembered. Other charters were issued across medieval Europe, but they were rapidly forgotten.

Magna Carta alone endured because the kings of England never consolidated their power fully enough to be able to ignore their subjects. The charter was a useful political weapon in this struggle against arbitrary royal power, which is why it was so often reissued, appealed to, and celebrated, not least in the United States by the Founding Fathers: The Massachusetts state seal adopted in 1775 includes a patriot holding the Great Charter. To remember is, literally, to recall to mind, to renew in thought, which is why memory, as Orwell recognized in , is a great defense of liberty.

This year, Magna Carta is being acclaimed as the contract that first established the idea that law was above government. As British politician and historian Daniel Hannan has put it, from Magna Carta flowed "all the rights and freedoms that we now take for granted: uncensored newspapers, security of property, equality before the law, habeas corpus, regular elections, sanctity of contract, jury trials." And that's fair: The barons wanted to limit King John's arbitrary power, and without limits there is no liberty under law.

But it does not take very much bravery now to celebrate our rights. Today, the language of rights is universal, though often hypocritical. Worse, the danger to liberty in the U.S. and Britain today is not arbitrary power of the sort exercised by King John, who offered no real theory except that he needed the money he was stealing to fight his wars in France. The danger to liberty today, ironically, comes more from arbitrary power backed up by the rights-talk that can trace its origins back to Magna Carta. Against my right to free expression stands your supposed right not to be offended. My right to property must now pay for your right to free health care. My right not to be discriminated against must give way to your right to be discriminated in favor of.
RELATED: What Rights Are Due to - and from - the Magna Carta
Every demand for political power is now framed as an earnest plea for a new right, a morally bullying appeal too often backed up by a modern state with a reach beyond King John's wildest fantasies. The Guardian's Guy Standing offers the opinion that a modern Magna Carta should establish high taxes, nationalization, and hefty welfare payments as rights. What's mine is mine, and so is what's yours - it would be hard to think of an appeal less in keeping with the spirit of the original.

When the good subjects of Nottingham - or a tiny fraction of them, at least - met in May to write clauses into the "People's Charter 2015," they demanded, among much else, "A technology code of ethics to guarantee that all new technological equipment is designed with ethics is mind." It's nice to see that the self-righteous certitude of Nottingham's infamous sheriff lives on in his ancestral home. And if you chance to visit the finest surviving copy of Magna Carta - the one in Salisbury Cathedral - as I did last month, you can pick up a leaflet, produced by the cathedral itself, which proclaims that the charter is a statement of "social justice" and thereby takes celebration well into the realm of parody.

With honorable exceptions like Hannan and Britain's Freedom Association, much memorialization of Magna Carta rests implicitly not on the value of limiting arbitrary power, but on the idea that that document was the start of an unfurling of rights that must be continued and elaborated forever, preferably by deploying the power of the state. Inevitably, the British Library's idea of an appropriate celebration is to invite schoolchildren to draft a " Magna Carta for the digital age," as if developing even more rights is obviously the correct way to go. What the schoolchildren are not being invited to consider is the problem of who is to guard the guardians.
RELATED: Why the Magna Carta Wasn't Enough to Secure Limits on Government
Rights-talk isn't the answer: It is the problem, because there is no appeal against it, no sure way, once you enter that maze, of dismissing demands that are based on a rights-claim. So I'm a trifle wary of celebrating Magna Carta as the origin of our rights, because no matter how true that is historically, our understanding of rights is now so degraded that, in practice, nattering on about rights feeds the disease.

But Magna Carta also embodies another idea, beyond the idea of rights or even the concept of limits on arbitrary power through law. It rests on the understanding that society - a word of our age, not theirs - has many institutions that have value. It is a statement not merely of freedom from arbitrary power, which is a negative concept, but of the positive value of a world where different institutions exist for different reasons and do different things that are good in their own way.

One of the reasons why Magna Carta is difficult to read today is that, while there are glimmerings of rights in it, it's mostly based on a model of restoring the social and spiritual institutions of England to their traditional and proper places, as the barons and bishops wanted them to be understood. That's why the charter goes on about not making people build bridges unless they are legally bound to do so (clause 23), inheritance procedures for free men (clause 27), the clearing of fish-weirs (clause 33), and the need to allow merchants to travel (clause 41). All of these clauses express the assumption that society has many circles, each of which has its own role to play.

Magna Carta expresses a social vision: A well-ordered society is a house of many mansions, each of which is valuable on its own terms.

True, these clauses, like the rest, were based on specific grievances of the time. But together, they express a social vision: A well-ordered society is a house of many mansions, each of which is valuable on its own terms. The problem with arbitrary government is not merely that it is lawless; it is that it does not respect the boundaries between itself and the other mansions. This is not a system of checks and balances, as in the American Constitution: It is a broader sense that society has a balance to it that, for both practical and moral reasons, should not be wantonly disturbed. It's also a sense that the basic restraint on government is not institutional or structural: It is the existence of interests (in this case, particularly but not only the barons, the bishops, and the merchants) who sit apart from the king.

Of course, the 13th century's vision of who has that power is not ours: In this post-Enlightenment age, we are all free men. What their age understood as different and largely fixed social levels, we understand, in our age of greater social mobility, as separate circles. But yet we are not so far away from them after all, for there is a long tradition of thought - now largely understood as conservative, though it was originally liberal - that bases itself not on rights, but on this kind of common-sense social conservatism of the little platoon. As Michael Auslin has recently noted, John Adams understood how the progressive "desire to increase the scope and power of government" is closely linked to "the character of the citizenry": Bad government makes bad citizens by atomizing their institutions, while good citizens enable good government by acting in ways that create less demand for it.

This is why Edmund Burke described " Jacobinism by establishment " as a revolt against "the pre-existing laws and institutions" of a nation. And of these revolts, the more dangerous was the one against the institutions, both moral and physical, because - as the Jacobins knew - without those institutions, there was only the state. The term "civil society," like the language of rights, has been so abused by liberals that it no longer has much meaning, and it is completely alien to the world of Magna Carta. But it still just about captures the sense that society is composed of many mountain peaks that, because they are connected at their base, have great stability and strength. The connections are not formal and legal - we make them naturally in our daily lives. The great sin is not to build new paths to the peaks, which Burke welcomed; the great sin is to deny that the peaks are and should be separate.

Social conservatism and limited government, though often advocated by very different people, actually imply each other.

As Auslin puts it, conservatives need to link "their understanding of morality with their mission to restrict the scope of government." In other words, social conservatism and limited government, though often advocated by very different people, actually imply each other. And with due regard for the immense differences between the two eras, that is precisely what Magna Carta was about: It is based on an understanding of morality and a social sense, from which flows the need to limit the king so that he would not traduce those medieval English institutions. The fact that our institutions are different from theirs doesn't diminish the value of society's circles as entities that are separate from the state.

Unfortunately, just as modern liberalism has colonized the concept of rights, it has made camp on the idea that the peaks of the mountain should be separate. The characteristic argument of liberalism today is, first, that every institution - family, church, business, art, education, travel, leisure, entertainment - is fundamentally political, and so not really separate from the political realm at all. It's all politics all the way down, a claim that would (and did) horrify British conservative philosopher Michael Oakeshott. And that claim opens the door to a second one, which is that, as everything is political, all the peaks need to do the same job as the government - and if they do not, they will be forced to do so.

This is why, for example, liberals conceive of colleges as institutions whose job it is to fix the (often exaggerated, and almost invariably misunderstood) ills of society. Colleges self-evidently have a different role: to educate the young, an arduous task that might or might not contribute to addressing particular ills, but which in any case has a value of its own. But that is not how we justify the enormous sums we spend on education. Or take nonprofits, which are too often conceived of, to borrow a term from our British friends, as the "third sector" - with the implication that they are a wedge of the pie that sits alongside business and government, all working toward filling the same pie tin. There is no institution that cannot be politicized and then directed in this way, if your will is tyrannical enough.

In the end, I certainly won't quibble with those who memorialize Magna Carta as the beginning of the end for a particular kind of arbitrary government, or even with those more misguided souls who want to use it to talk about rights. Even talking about rights in this context is talking about history, and if Magna Carta is to be used as a flame of liberty, it must at a minimum be remembered, as it has been and will be. It was, after all, a political document from the start, and it remains so today. But ironically, it is a political document that grounds its vision on rejecting the argument that everything must be political, and that fact deserves to be remembered and celebrated as well. The social vision of Magna Carta is one where there is a good, wide world out there beyond the king. And that is a great vision worthy of the Great Charter.

- Ted R. Bromund is the senior research fellow in Anglo-American relations at the Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.

Ted R. Bromund - Ted R. Bromund is a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Magna Carta: It's Not Just about Rights | National Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The document that shaped the English-speaking world. It's remarkable that the English-speaking world remembers Magna Carta. The product of a struggle between King John and his barons, it was sealed on the bank of the Thames 800 years ago, on June 15, 1215.

# data[].attributes.body
A system of government in which people elect delegates to make laws and conduct government.  The example picture shows what the colonists did in the late 17th century in a representative government. The representatives gathered to sign the Declaration of Independence and to put in place a representative government

# data[].attributes.body
The division of power among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. This picture shows how each branch are connected but are separated to enforce democracy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The genius of the U.S Constitution is that it spreads the power of government both within the national government and between the federal government and state governments.

Federalism

In our system of government, some powers of government belong only to the federal government, while others belong only to the state governments. still other powers are shared by both levels of government.

2. Separation of Powers

The powers of government are divided among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

3. Checks and Balances

Each of the three branches of government has ways to check, or limit, the powers of the other branches.

The Power is Divided into Three Branches

-Executive branch enforces laws (President and departments).

The Legislative and Judicial branches keep the Executive branches "on check".

They can do certain things in order to keep each branch from obtaining too much power.

The Legislative branch can:

impeach and remove the president

can override "veto"

Controls spending of money

Senate can refuse to confirm presidential appointments and ratify treaties

The Judicial branch can:

Can declare executive acts unconstitutional

Judges, appointed for life, are free from executive control

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Government Notes (Principles of Limited Government)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The genius of the U.S Constitution is that it spreads the power of government both within the national government and between the federal government and state governments. Federalism In our system of government, some powers of government belong only to the federal government, while others belong only to the state governments.

# data[].attributes.body
A charter that provided the basis for the principle of limited government, in which the power of the monarch, or government, was limited, not absolute. The example picture shows how the colonists tried with long clauses to limit the monarch's and the government's power.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Magna Carta Libertatum ( Medieval Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; "Great Charter"), is a charter agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215.

# data[].attributes.body
A document written in 1682 severely limiting the king's power. The picture below shows that colonists had a long list of grievances with King Charles that need to be put into writing to keep later kings from abusing power.

# data[].attributes.body
A document that set clear limits on what a ruler could and could not do. This picture shows again the representatives continue to try and limit the monarch's power but the King still continues to push. This was established in 1689 to limit the monarch's power

# data[].attributes.body
Laid out a plan for government that gave the people the right to elect the governor, judges and representatives to make laws. This document shows how the Connecticut government set up their branches and laws in the beginning years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Connecticut History | a CTHumanities Project - Stories about the people, traditions, innovations, and events that make up Connecticut's rich history.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Fundamental Orders, inspired by Thomas Hooker's sermon of May 31, 1638, provided the framework for the government of the Connecticut colony from 1639 to 1662.

For two years before the adoption of the Fundamental Orders, Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield cooperated under a simple form of government composed of magistrates and representatives from each town, but the towns had no formal instrument of government. Roger Ludlow of Windsor, the only trained lawyer in the colony, probably drafted the Fundamental Orders, although he may have been assisted by Hartford residents John Haynes (a former Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony), Edward Hopkins, and John Steel. The document consisted of a preamble and 11 orders or laws. The preamble was a covenant which bound the three towns to be governed in all civil matters by the Orders. The preamble, then, was a civil equivalent of a church covenant. (The model of the Biblical covenant served as the foundation for all Puritan organizations.) The Connecticut General Court adopted the Fundamental Orders on January 14, 1639. (The colonists did not follow current conventions for marking a year and, thus, the date on the document itself is listed as 1638.)

General Court held Legislative, Executive, Judicial, and Administrative Authority

The 11 orders clearly followed the Massachusetts government model and were consistent with 17th-century trading company charters. The Orders called for the convening of general courts every April and September. At the April Court of Election, a governor and six magistrates were to be chosen. No man could serve as governor more than once every two years, a restriction that lasted until 1660. To prevent hasty, ill-considered choices, nominations for election were made at the September General Court by the deputies from each town. The governor and magistrates, who composed the nucleus for an Upper House, were to be elected by the freemen at the Court of Election. The other Orders prescribed regulations for nomination and election and set forth conditions for calling the General Court into special session. No religious test was established for voting, the Orders omitted all reference to the authority of the crown, and the General Court was given supreme authority over the towns and their inhabitants. The General Court was authorized to adopt and repeal laws, impose taxes, distribute land, apprehend and punish people for misdemeanors, and enact legislation to promote the general good. The General Court was granted, then, all legislative, executive, judicial, and administrative authority. The right to elect deputies and magistrates was, however, reserved to the freemen.

The matter of whether the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut should be considered a constitution in the modern sense, let alone honored as the first written constitution (as was once claimed), remains a matter of debate. Nevertheless, they served as the basis for government in Connecticut until 1662. They are also the reason why, in 1959, the General Assembly officially designated Connecticut as "the Constitution State."

By Bruce P. Stark; excerpted from Connecticut History and Culture: an Historical Overview and Resource Guide for Teachers (1985), edited by David Roth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut - Connecticut History | a CTHumanities Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Fundamental Orders, inspired by Thomas Hooker's sermon of May 31, 1638, provided the framework for the government of the Connecticut colony from 1639 to 1662.

# data[].attributes.body
A document the Pilgrims signed in 1620 that stands as the first example of many colonial plans for self-government. The example shown below shows a transcript of the mayflower compact and the set of rules that were put into place. This allow order to fall onto the colonies instead of anarchy.

# data[].attributes.body
An agreement prohibiting trade, on Britain, and agreed not to use British goods. This cartoon shows how colonists were taken aback by the embargo which helped them sell their goods. But most patriots were set on keeping the embargo to punish Great Britain.

# data[].attributes.body
Imposed the first direct tax on the colonists. Required tax on legal documents, pamphlets, newspapers etc. The example picture below shows how the stamp that was placed on goods from Great Britain. These would cost extra for colonists and made them pay more for items.

# data[].attributes.body
The money a government collects from taxes or other sources. The picture below shows a colonists reading a sign about the taxes being implemented for the government to get revenue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Townshend Acts, (June 15-July 2, 1767), in colonial U.S. history, series of four acts passed by the British Parliament in an attempt to assert what it considered to be its historic right to exert authority over the colonies through suspension of a recalcitrant representative assembly and through strict provisions for the collection of revenue duties. The British American colonists named the acts after Charles Townshend, who sponsored them.

The Suspending Act prohibited the New York Assembly from conducting any further business until it complied with the financial requirements of the Quartering Act (1765) for the expenses of British troops stationed there. The second act, often called the Townshend duties or the Revenue Act, imposed direct revenue duties-that is, duties aimed not merely at regulating trade but at putting money into the British treasury. These were payable at colonial ports and fell on lead, glass, paper, paint, and tea. It was the second time in the history of the colonies that a tax had been levied solely for the purpose of raising revenue. The third act established strict and often arbitrary machinery of customs collection in the American colonies, including additional officers, searchers, spies, coast guard vessels, search warrants, writs of assistance, and a Board of Customs Commissioners at Boston, all to be financed out of customs revenues. The fourth Townshend Act, known as the Indemnity Act, was aimed at enabling the East India Company to compete with the tea that was smuggled by the Dutch. It lowered commercial duties on tea imported to England by the East India Company and gave the company a refund of the duty for tea that was then exported to the colonies. Compensating for the loss of revenue brought about by the Indemnity Act was another reason for the imposition of the Townshend duties.

The acts posed an immediate threat to established traditions of colonial self-government, especially the practice of taxation through representative provincial assemblies. They were resisted everywhere with verbal agitation and physical violence, deliberate evasion of duties, renewed nonimportation agreements among merchants, and overt acts of hostility toward British enforcement agents, especially in Boston. Such colonial tumult, coupled with the instability of frequently changing British ministries, resulted in repeal-on March 5, 1770, the same day as the Boston Massacre -of all revenue duties except that on tea, lifting of the Quartering Act requirements, and removal of troops from Boston, which thus temporarily averted hostilities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Townshend Acts | Summary, Significance, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Townshend Acts, series of four acts passed by the British Parliament in 1767 in an attempt to exert authority over the American colonies. They were composed of the Suspending Act, the Townshend duties (Revenue Act), the act that created the Board of the Customs Commissioners, and the Indemnity Act.

# data[].attributes.body
Passed to punish the Massachusetts colony for the Boston Tea Party. Since the British government passed these 'intolerable acts', colonists grew angry and started to tar and feather tax collectors. As seen in the picture above.

# data[].attributes.body
Approved. This piece of art shows representatives ratifying laws for the colonists to abide by. In addition to set up the representative democracy.

# data[].attributes.body
Single-chamber. This picture is an example of unicameral government. Parliament is set up in one room. The picture is modern but the room is not. It has stayed the same for many years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The term is similar to the idea of a senate, synod or congress, and is commonly used in countries that are current or former monarchies, a form of government with a monarch as the head. Some contexts restrict the use of the word parliament to parliamentary systems, although it is also used to describe the legislature in some presidential systems (e.g.

# data[].attributes.body
Yieled. The map shows which states were ceded in the Treaty of Paris to come into the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
Laws.
The picture below shows an ordinance in the state of New Jersey that set up the Judiciary courts. Ordinances like these helped form our governments.

# data[].attributes.body
Established the principle that the territories were to be developed for statehood on an equal basis with the older states. The map below show which areas were the colonies gaining in the ordinance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Northwest Territory, 1787 is a painting by Granger which was uploaded on July 25th, 2016. The painting may be purchased as wall art, home decor, apparel, phone cases, greeting cards, and more. All products are produced on-demand and shipped worldwide within 2 - 3 business days.

# data[].attributes.body
Trade among the states and foreign commerce, The picture is the seal of the interstate commerce act and was placed to show it was a legal matter that affected all of the colonies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
interstate commerce. 
seal of the u.s. interstate commerce commission.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
0099130 - INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Seal of the U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is a Granger licensable image titled 'INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Seal of the U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission.' by GRANGER All rights reserved. You may not copy, publish, or use this image except for sample layout ('comp') use only. You must purchase the image from Granger in order to use it for ANY other purpose.

# data[].attributes.body
Not sanctioned by law,
Slavery during the 1700s was not put in force by law but practiced from people coming over from Great Britain. This issues was not dealt with un till the Civil War in 1861. That is why I chose this picture

# data[].attributes.body
Political disorder
This cartoon depicts a rowdy crows causing chaos from interstate commerce. How anarchy can not be tolerated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Image Search - Interstate Commerce Commission - Granger - Historical Picture Archive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Interstate Commerce Commission photo and image search. Search six million images spanning more than 25,000 years of world history, from before the Stone Age to the dawn of the Space Age and find the perfect picture for your project from Granger.

# data[].attributes.body
Strong opponent of the Constitution. This picture below is of Patrick Henry and his strong attitude in the painting. Which was also brought up in his politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Patrick Henry shared his name with his uncle, an Anglican minister, and until the elder Patrick's death in 1777 often went as Patrick Henry Jr. Henry attended a local school until about the age of 10. There was then no academy in Hanover County, and he was tutored at home by his father.

# data[].attributes.body
80 essays defending the new Constitution, This picture was put in here to show the cover of the Federalist and its importance in change the Constitution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
bibliography guide virtual program service digital reference section library of congress primary documents federalist papers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federalist Papers: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Federalist Papers: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Services and Programs, Digital Reference Section, Library of Congress)