Hello:

Righty's like people who strictly interpret the Constitution... There are others who say the Constitution must be modified to meet the times...

Which one are you?

So, now that you've decided, let's say that you're a Supreme Court Justice. An appeal is put on your desk wherein a small claims defendant was denied a jury trial over a $100 dispute. He cites the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, where it says that "in suits of common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved...."

How do you rule?

excon

A short brief answer :
Strict interpretation is a misnomer What conservatives argue for is originalism.
What does that mean ? It means that the judiciary should settle the matter based on what the founders intended or the intent of the authors of the amendment. I know of few people who argue for a strict textual interpretation.

In the case of the 7th ; before the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial is assured a lawsuit must satisfy four requirements
1. it must assert a claim that would have triggered the right to a jury trial under the English common law of 1791, when the Seventh Amendment was ratified.
2.a lawsuit must be brought in federal court before a litigant may invoke the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
3.a lawsuit must assert a claim for more than $20. (this provision is always met).
4.a lawsuit must assert a claim that is essentially legal in nature before the Seventh Amendment applies. There is no right to a jury trial in civil actions involving claims that are essentially equitable in nature.

An originalist likes juries. An originalist notes that jury trials are noted in all the framing documents ,the bill of rights, the Constitution itself ,and even the Declaration of Independence where the framers justified splitting with the crown because they were not granted the right to jury trials

The Framers liked juries . They considered it the equivalent of a check and balance to arbitrary judges. They empowered juries to not only weigh the evidence of a specific case;but also to weigh the justice of a law itself (nullification) .


I would like to point out that in this issue it is the liberal ,broad interpretation living breathing constitution type judges who have been weakening the rights of the defendants and not the originalist. That is why so often jury trials are removed through statutes of legislative law and judicial fiat.

Similarly, in a criminal case, a conviction is not obtained by proving the defendant did something or another; it is obtained when there is proof that the defendant intended the act. 'Intent' is the key; the point being, constitutionalists look to the intent of the constitutioon, not some voodoo legalism propounded by organic theorists.

Hello George:

Thanks. I was wondering where you been.

excon

PS> Aren't you thrilled with Obama?? Ok, I had to rub it in.