Subscribe via RSS Feed

Magna Carta and Wingnut Legislation

[ 109 ] January 5, 2012 |

Three New Hampshire Republicans have proposed an, um, interesting bill:

New Hampshire Republicans are taking textual originalism to a whole new level: three lawmakers have proposed a bill that requires that all legislation find its origin not in the U.S. constitution, but an English document crafted in 1215.

The bill reads:

“All members of the general court proposing bills and resolutions addressing individual rights or liberties shall include a direct quote from the Magna Carta which sets forth the article from which the individual right or liberty is derived,”

Taking a look at the Magna Carta itself
, we can find any number of ways Republicans can marshal it for craziness. For instance,

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

Looks like some anti-miscegenation legislation could be in the future!

Or this:

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

Time to reserve the banking industry for good New Hampshire Anglo-Saxon stock if you ask me!

And finally,

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

Given the well-established fact that corporations are our new aristocracy, it’s clear that we the commoners are banned from attacking them in any way.

It’s so fun, you can do it yourself. It’s not like you are going to come up with potential laws more crazy than Republicans will themselves. And is there any question that Rick Santorum will support this?


Comments (109)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Amanda in the South Bay says:

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

    I don’t think the Protestant Fundies who make up the nutter wing of hte GOP really thought this one through.

    This is literally, so very clearly and obviously un-American, but my irony meter has long since been burnt out by the GOP.

  2. efgoldman says:

    Wonder where all those Whackaloid Wingnutty Congresspersons come from?
    Almost exclusively out of the state legislatures.

  3. actor212 says:

    Which Magna Carta, tho? Runnymede of 1215, which John never really obeyed anyway, in terms of Clause 61? The Chester Carta? The Great Charter of 1216 (the one removing the noxious Clause 61)? 13th Century rewrites (the Great Charters of 1225/1297)? The 1423 Reconfirmation by Henry? The 1100 Charters of Liberties?

    • Stag Party Palin says:

      No way dude. No capital punishment = Soshalizm!

      • Fats Durston says:

        Right, capital punishment. Then how about the Code of the Neselim?

        If a man rape a woman in the mountain, it is the man’s wrong, he shall die. But if he rape her in the house, it is the woman’s fault, the woman shall die. If the husband find them and then kill them, there is no punishing the husband.

  4. mds says:

    Given that most of the modern GOP wants to take us back to the days before the Magna Carta, I consider this progress of a sort.

  5. dave says:

    Let’s get back before the Norman Yoke! All legislators should have to demonstrate proficiency in fending off pagan hordes, and burning cakes…

  6. Minivet says:

    I’d bet the fastest way to get them to change their minds is to point out that a “direct quote” would be in Latin.

  7. actor212 says:

    If we’re going to “look back” to older documents to justify new laws, why not go to first principles and invoke Hammurabi?

  8. Bill Murray says:

    I think they need to include the Charter of the Forest. As a free man I want my rights of pannage, estover, agistment, and turbary.

  9. TN says:

    That’s Republicans for you, always wanting to subjugate the American way of life to European ideas.

  10. Murc says:

    As I said a few days ago; New Hampshire is hiding a POWERFUL brand of crazy up in those mountains. People just don’t know.

    • Hogan says:

      If you read the article, you see the three legislators walking this back so hard they’re tripping over each other. I don’t think it was crazy so much as bizarrely naive and ill-informed, even the the standards of the median state legislator. Not ready for prime time? They’re not ready for public access.

    • BigHank53 says:

      Given that New Hampshire has a 435-seat legislature (they’re not paid) and only just over a million inhabitants, one can find their way in with a thousand votes or so.

      I’m only surprised these goofballs were able to keep it together long enough to write a bill and submit it. It’s not going anywhere, and two out of these three clowns will be voted out for embarrassing their constituency.

      Keep an eye on the one who stays in, though.

      • Hogan says:

        New Hampshire Democratic Party spokesman Ray Buckley said he was “mostly speechless” when he heard about the bill. “I appreciate all the hard work the Republican legislators are putting into the effort to make them look like extremists,” he said. “Saves us the trouble.”

      • I had a classmate, a poli-sci major in college run for, and serve in, the New Hampshire lower House as a project.

        She won, and served a full term, and they only would give her 9 credit hours for it. The dean’s argument: “Hey, it’s the New Hampshire House. We originally thought ‘six hours’.”

      • LeeEsq says:

        You get what you pay for and when you don’t pay legislatures, you get bad laws.

  11. wengler says:

    This special brand of stupid deserves its own category.

  12. Jim Harrison says:

    Appealing to the wisdom of the elders can be problematic even if you don’t go all the way back to the Magna Carta. When catholic conservatives like Santorum insist that we revert to the values of the founding fathers, they never seem to mention that those gentlemen were overwhelmingly hostile to the Whore of Babylon and her minions.

  13. Njorl says:

    I wonder if they approve of this:

    42. It shall be lawful in future for anyone (excepting always those imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the kingdom, and natives of any country at war with us, and merchants, who shall be treated as if above provided) to leave our kingdom and to return, safe and secure by land and water, except for a short period in time of war, on grounds of public policy- reserving always the allegiance due to us.

    Open borders except for people from countries with whom we are at war.

  14. Gus diZerega says:

    Seems to me they violated their oaths of office to uphold the constitution of a republic. I wonder how the Magna Carta dealt with people who violated their oaths of office and acted disloyally to the lawful powers of the land?

  15. somethingblue says:

    Why not just go back to Draco? Simpler all around.

  16. Mardam says:

    I may be wrong, but wasn’t the Republican mantra a couple of years ago that no foreign based law could be used to make US law?

    Am I crazy?

  17. flint says:

    Aren’t these the same people who DESPISE yurup ?????
    Except when it feeds their own personal purposes.

    Nothing to see here. Move along.

    • Njorl says:

      I think that “Anglo-American” or “English speaking world” will be used like Judeo-Christian” when it suits their purpose.

      • Warren Terra says:

        A pretty good parallel, but it does fall down a bit, in that you see actual Brits who use the term “Anglo-American”, while the term “Judeo-Christian” is almost entirely the province of people who thing Jews don’t have any actual significance and are just there to add lineage and antiquity to the Truth.

        • Vance Maverick says:

          Lineage, antiquity, and deniability against accusations of bigotry.

        • LeeEsq says:

          I always saw the term Judeo-Christian as an inclusive-exclusive phase. It theoretically includes Jews while excluding them at the same time because there is practically nothing Jewish in Judeo-Christian.

        • Lurker says:

          Yep. The term is used also in the European continent. I think there are three meanings for it:

          1) things relating to the English language and the common literate culture using that language
          2) things relating to Common Law
          3) things relating to the British or American imperialism.

          So, while you might very correctly speak about “Anglo-American”, when discussing language education, it might also be used pejoratively or negatively. The third meaning was, however, widely used by many British writers in a positive sense. For example, Churchill called for the continuation of British Empire as the Pax Americana, referring to the common Anglo-American heritage of both countries.

    • Jay in Oregon says:

      You can replace Europe/”yurup” with just about anything — Jews, “activist judges,” “big gubmint” — and it will still be true.

    • pete says:

      England is not IN Yurup. Ask any member of the National Front.

  18. DrDick says:

    Further proof of my contention that the modern GOP wants to turn the clock back, not merely to the 19th century, but all the way back to the Middle Ages.

  19. Ion says:

    I had to come out of lurkerdom for this one. Good ol’ New Hampshire is my home state, and let me tell you, LGM, that bill is abnormal for the NH House only in degree, not kind. They have the fourth-largest legislature in the world for a state of a million people, which means anyone shameless enough can get a seat for a least a term. The legislature is currently dominated by the Tea Party, and they are pumping out some high-quality reactionary bullshit.

    Aside from the usual chipping away at Roe and trying to eject evolution and general sanity from public schools, one of the best ones this session is an attempt to repeal the judicial branch. (72-a establishes the supreme and superior courts as being vested with the judicial power of the state.) Kingsbury, one of the Magna Carta sponsors, is an endless font of terrible bills. Search him from the Sponsor dropdown here and be amazed.

    Gorgeous state, but you couldn’t pay me to move back.

  20. HP says:

    I say, go for it. I just figured out that, genetically speaking, there’s not a sheriff or sheriff’s deputy alive today in the whole world who can’t be shown to be descended from Gerard d’Athee. (And come to think of it, that explains a lot about sheriffs.)

  21. Art Judd says:

    larouchepac dot com —- can save you time.

  22. […] – The Truth About Conservatism; An Interview with Corey Robin Part I The Shanahans Suck, Again Magna Carta and Wingnut Legislation Bully For Him! David Ignatius Hides Upward Redistribution Policies as Market Outcomes Consistency […]

  23. […] Things Rick Santorum Has Ever Said POST-GRAD PRE-DAD: LEADERSHIP HAPPENS (this is very funny) Magna Carta and Wingnut Legislation Do users change their settings? Giffen Goods in Real Life What the Fact-Checkers Get Wrong: The […]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.