Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Since you're all apparently con law scholars, you must clearly understand what this amendment means. When are you entitled to a civil jury?
I mean, clearly the meaning of this is plain, right?
I don't consider myself a liberal, but this amendment has always seemed anachronistic. Twenty dollars? The filing fee would exceed that!
That's not the important point I'm trying to p oint out.. It was written in the 18th century, so the money amount isn't at issue. It's the meaning of this.
Libs like to claim they know what the constitution means. What does this mean, when do you have a right to a civil jury? I'll give you a hint, what's not in it speaks volumes.
That's not the important point I'm trying to p oint out.. It was written in the 18th century, so the money amount isn't at issue. It's the meaning of this.
Libs like to claim they know what the constitution means. What does this mean, when do you have a right to a civil jury? I'll give you a hint, what's not in it speaks volumes.
So you're looking for "libs" to post things on this topic, then you'll drop your "zinger" and prove you know everything about everything?
I don't take tests, jump through hoops, or do job interviews any more. If you have something to say then say it. After all this it better be real zinger.
THe key provision here is "at common law" and "is preserved"
Historically, there have been two legal systems. Law, and equity. They had separate court systems. You had to go to one or both to get what you wanted. An example of equity is an injunction. Which was not an action at law, but of equity. So under the federal system, if you had a case that involved only equity issues (like an injunction) you do not have a right to a jury, or if you had mixed law and equity issues, only the law issues could be heard by a jury, and a judge would have to hear and decide on the equity issues.
You simply are not qualified to render opinions on the constitution if you do not know what it means.
That's not the important point I'm trying to p oint out.. It was written in the 18th century, so the money amount isn't at issue. It's the meaning of this.
Libs like to claim they know what the constitution means. What does this mean, when do you have a right to a civil jury? I'll give you a hint, what's not in it speaks volumes.
Liberals claim to be constitutional scholars? And conservatives don't?
I think I've seen many more from the right point out their interpretation of the constitution...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
