How did the magna carta and the english bill or rights influnce the creation of early colonial goverments ?

There is a widespread opinion on both sides of the Atlantic that as the Magna Carta is to the British attachment to rights, the American version of this attachment is to be found in the U.S. Bill of Rights. Sometimes we hear more: that not only the origin, but also the substance of the U.S. version, is to be found in the Magna Carta.

To be sure, we have to start the rights narrative somewhere and since participants in the rights debate over 400 years don’t seem inclined to go further back than the Magna Carta, it seems reasonable to start there. And despite the feudal language and medieval concerns that run through, and thus date, the document, there is something enduring there that appeals to subsequent generations.

We suggest that the enduring quality is an appeal through the centuries that those who govern us do so in a reasonable manner. And all the better to secure the proposition that rulers exercise their power in a reasonable manner, we write down what we think is unreasonable conduct. Thus a list of what those in authority can’t do emerges.

In particular, we might say that the Magna Carta calls for the rule of law in opposition to the rule of unreasonable men. Furthermore, the rule of law is to be secured by an attachment to the due process of law.

The question then is how much of the Magna Carta made its way into the U. S. Bill of Rights? The answer is 9 of the 26 provisions in the Bill of Rights can be traced back to the Magna Carta. That’s about a third or 33%. And these provisions are heavily concerned with the right to petition and the due process of law.

The Magna Carta does not call for an abolition of the monarchy or a change in the feudal order. Nor does it call for religious freedom or freedom of the press. The U.S. Bill of Rights, however, presupposes the abolition of monarchy and feudalism; the American appeal to natural rights raises the question of religious freedom and freedom of the press.

the answer is a wheel

panem is a communist totalitarian dictatorship where all the resources and how they are allocated belongs to the capitol. the districts exist only to provide goods and services for the capital and most of the citizens live in poverty. it is a police state where the "peacekeepers" use force and threats to keep the people under control. dissent is outlawed and those who disobey the law are executed, flogged, or turned into avoxes. the games are another means in which the ruling elite in the capitol exert their power over the districts. when reading the books i drew parallels between panem and the soviet union and north korea. in no way is panem capitalist. the people in the capitol are wealthy but the majority of them are involved in the government somehow. it was the same way in the former soviet union where bigwigs in the communist party and high ranking government officials were given access to goods, services, medical treatments not available to the general public. if you think panem has a capitalist economy you need to brush up on your economics.