We have all heard of freemen on the land and people coming up with crazy theories. I promise this is not what I am talking about.

The Magna Carta is a historical artifact, anyone can go and verify what it says even in person. All over the internet people are claiming that The Magna Carta doesn't apply to the government for various reasons, yet these arguments don't make much sense.

The Magna Carta states

'We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever.'

This was agreed to by The King as representative of the government and The Crown.

One argument is that freemen somehow means the aristocracy, yet, if we look into what it actually meant at the time it simply meant a person who was not in bondage through serfdom. How can such an argument be serious? Why would free men refer to the aristocracy?

Beyond this, people suggest that parliament has and can repeal the agreement. This would violate the agreement itself if the liberties were infringed upon. This is because it was agreed that these would exist forever, as a matter of birthright.

But if we further examine this, what does this even mean? Did parliament deface The Magna Carta and write their own terms on it? Clearly not. If a piece of legislation claims to repeal The Magna Carta, then that may be the case, but this cannot change The Magna Carta or the original agreement.

People have even suggested that clauses 'no longer exist' because they have been annulled by the pope, well we can see that these parts of the document do still exist. I am a Roman Catholic but I do not think the pope can just send a thing to the void