Magna Carta, and Other AddressesGuthrie, William D. (William Dameron)
History
Magna Carta, and Other Addresses
Guthrie, William D. (William Dameron)
Constitutional law -- United States
One of the scholarly critics of Magna Carta suggests that this
enactment of 1369 was quite an "illogical theory" on the part of
parliament, because, to quote his language, "if parliament had power
to alter the sacred terms of Magna Carta, it had power to alter the
less sacred statute of 1369 which declared it unalterable."[3] The
conclusive answer to this kind of reasoning, at least as it must
seem to statesmen and lawyers, is that Magna Carta was then regarded
as something very different from and much higher than any ordinary
statute. The people of that day would have protested, if the logic
of parliament had then been challenged by the learned, that Magna
Carta was a permanent charter of liberties and as such not subject to
amendment or nullification by mere statute. But logical or illogical
as the act of 42 Edward III. may have been at the time, or may seem to
be to the logicians of the twentieth century, it serves to show that
in the fourteenth century the English people understood and intended,
and the king and parliament expressly agreed and conceded, that the
liberties guaranteed by the Great Charter, then being again and again
confirmed, were unalterable, and that any statute to the contrary
should be "holden for none."
The spirit of that declaration still lives in every American
constitution. We certainly have here the antecedent of the great
controlling principle underlying the whole structure of American
constitutional law, that any statute in conflict with the fundamental
laws, so far as we see fit to perpetuate them in constitutional
provisions, shall be void and null, in the language of the Great
Charter, or holden for none, in the language of the time of Edward III.
Chief Justice Marshall in the great case of Marbury _vs_. Madison, in
1803, was but following these ancient declarations when, speaking for
the Supreme Court of the United States, he settled--we hope for all
time--the beneficent and indispensable doctrine that a statute contrary
to an American constitution must be treated by the courts as void and
null and holden for none.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account