The Magna Carta, indeed, was more about the protection of property of the landed gentry and the real estate rich clergy than it was about recognizing the individual rights of the common man. As Hannon concedes, the Magna Carta " conceived freedom and property as two expressions of the same principle." It did little or nothing to secure the individual freedom of those enslaved or landless.
Our own founding documents were also deficient in their original form. While they proclaimed liberty and equality, they sanctioned slaveholding and the vesting of rights tied to the ownership of property. It took decades and centuries, civil war and constitutional amendments to end slavery, enfranchise women and extend voting rights to the landless and people of color.
Too much is made by Hannon of the role of English-speakers in preserving democracy which, he allows, was birthed by ancient Greeks. It is ethnocentric to celebrate "the law of the land" as emanating from the land itself, as the common inheritance of the people living there. Tell that to the native inhabitants who were slaughtered or driven from their ancestral homes.
Our Constitution has come a long way from the Magna Carta and its own initial shortcomings. Hopefully, its continued protections and relevance will not be thwarted by narrow-minded jurists who elevate old concepts and textual obeisance over the evolving challenges of the modern world.